MOVIE/DVD REVIEW -- "Oswald's Ghost"
David Von Pein
Movie & DVD review of the PBS documentary film "OSWALD'S GHOST":
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3307872-post.html
David Von Pein
MOVIE/DVD REVIEW:
"OSWALD'S GHOST" (2007)(PBS HOME VIDEO)
=====================================
Robert Stone's "Oswald's Ghost" (released on DVD on January 15, 2008,
by PBS Home Video) is a documentary film that I enjoyed very much.
It's filled with an abundance of archival film footage surrounding the
1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, with some of this
footage belonging in the "very rare" and "never before seen" drawers
(at least as far as my exposure to JFK assassination footage is
concerned). Details about some of these rare clips are discussed later
in this review.
The 82-minute "Ghost", a part of PBS-TV's award-winning "American
Experience" series, swiftly and efficiently takes the viewer through
the "four dark days" in November of '63, when America lost its 46-year-
old leader in Dallas, Texas, after two of the three gunshots fired by
Lee Harvey Oswald found their mark and ended the short life of John
Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Director Stone (who also produced and wrote the film) tells the still-
fascinating tale of those four days in Dallas through a combination of
the previously-mentioned archival film and video clips and recent
interviews with several authors, newsmen, historians, and
assassination researchers (such as Dan Rather, Edward Epstein, Josiah
Thompson, Mark Lane, Norman Mailer, Robert Dallek, Hugh Aynesworth,
Gary Hart, Priscilla McMillan, and a few others).
There's a general anti-conspiracy and "Oswald Acted Alone" feeling
that permeates the film, but "conspiracy" talk is woven into Mr.
Stone's film many times, by way of some of the new interviews and
older news footage.
We hear Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, and Jim Garrison (among others)
giving their opinions about how a grand plot took John Kennedy's life
in Dealey Plaza.
So, although filmmaker Robert Stone is a believer in the "lone
assassin" scenario (and admits as much point-blank during an interview
that's included as a bonus on the DVD), "Oswald's Ghost" lets the
conspiracists have their say (or at least a few of them anyway), which
makes this a film, IMO, that shouldn't necessarily be deemed totally
worthless by hardline conspiracy theorists, nor by most of the members
of the "Anybody But Oswald" club.*
* = Although, having stated the above, author and long-time conspiracy
advocate Robert J. Groden, after seeing a special preview of the movie
in November 2007, was quoted as saying that the film is "a horrible,
horrible piece of crap".
And Mr. Groden is even shown on camera a couple of times in the film,
and not in an especially bad light either. He also gets some air time
in one of the DVD's special features.
So Groden's vitriolic reaction to the film has me shrugging my
shoulders in bewilderment a tad bit.
My favorite quote from "Oswald's Ghost" is this one by soft-spoken
author Priscilla McMillan:
"He {Lee Oswald} had done very difficult things in his life, and he'd
done them alone. Anybody who thinks that he wasn't capable of planning
something and carrying it off alone....is wrong."
McMillan is unique to the "JFK" world in multiple ways. In addition to
being Marina Oswald's biographer, she not only interviewed Lee Oswald
personally in Russia in 1959, but she also knew and worked for a young
Senator from Massachusetts named Jack Kennedy in 1953.
McMillan, therefore, is almost certainly the only person in the world
who had personal contact with both JFK and his assassin.
There's a very good short and to-the-point observation made by Edward
Epstein in the film too -- "After forty years, none of the
{conspiracy} theories pan out."
Perhaps films like "Oswald's Ghost" and Vincent Bugliosi's hefty but
magnificent 2007 lone-assassin book, "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy", can reduce (by at least a
few notches) the ridiculously-high percentage of people in America who
still believe that a conspiracy existed to kill JFK in Dallas.
The percentage of conspiracy believers is approximately 75%, as of the
latest Gallup poll, taken in November of 2003.
--------------------------------------
Here's a selected sampling of some of the rare video and film footage
(plus some rarely-heard audio clips too) that is scattered throughout
"Oswald's Ghost":
>> Some vivid color film clips of President Kennedy's flag-draped casket on its caisson during one of the weekend's solemn processions through Washington, D.C.
>> A brief color clip of President Lyndon Johnson placing flowers on JFK's grave, filmed sometime after Kennedy's funeral (probably in 1964).
>> There's a fantastic 1966 black-and-white BBC-TV excerpt of Mark Lane arguing with Warren Commission counsel member Arlen Specter about the controversial Single-Bullet Theory. David Belin of the WC can also be glimpsed briefly in this clip.
>> 1991 behind-the-scenes footage, in color, on the set of Oliver Stone's blockbuster movie, "JFK". A portion of an interview with Director Oliver Stone is included here too.
>> Rare 11/22/63 audio excerpts from the Dallas Police Department radio tapes (recorded just after JFK was shot).
>> Audio recording of a drugged Perry Russo ("star" witness for Jim Garrison at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969). (This is a howl too.)
>> A segment from CBS-TV's 1964 news special, "The Warren Report", which aired the very day the Warren Commission's 888-page final report was made available to the public (September 27, 1964). B&W.
>> Marguerite Oswald, LHO's mother, is featured in a black-and-white news clip that's not seen too often. It includes the hilarious statement made by Marguerite at the cemetery as she was visiting the grave of her murdered son. Yes, Marguerite was distraught over her son's death, but this comment she made at the cemetery is just simply hysterical (there's no other way to define it):
"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for
his
country than any other living human being."
Hugh Aynesworth gets in a good jab at Marguerite's expense during this
film too, when he said: "Oswald's mother, Marguerite, was one of the
weirdest people I've ever run into."
>> There's also a B&W film snippet from a news conference with lawyer Mark Lane sitting next to his new client, Marguerite Oswald.
>> Jack Ruby, Lee Oswald's killer, can be heard in an audio recording made in 1966.
>> Two LBJ audio clips -- one of them has President Johnson talking on the phone with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on November 29, 1963 (the very day that Johnson created the Warren Commission to investigate JFK's murder).
The other clip, from September 18, 1964, features part of a telephone
conversation between LBJ and Commission member Richard Russell, as
they discuss the assassination and the soon-to-be-released Warren
Report.
--------------------------------------
The number of old video/film clips that can be found in "Oswald's
Ghost" (and the rarely-seen nature of some of these) puts me in mind
of another good documentary centering on the same subject, "The Murder
Of JFK: A Revisionist History", an award-winning film that was made in
1999 and released on DVD in February 2006.
"Revisionist", like "Oswald's Ghost", is a worthy film for avid
collectors of JFK-related programs too, mainly for the large amount of
historic 1960s-era video and filmed material that it contains.
And a third Kennedy documentary film, "Four Days In November", is yet
another movie that earns high marks in the "vintage film footage"
category.
In fact, in my own personal opinion, the Academy Award-nominated "Four
Days In November" (which was released in theaters in late 1964, less
than a year after the assassination) is the cream of the crop when it
comes to films or TV programs associated with the JFK assassination. I
haven't seen it topped by any other movie or television documentary
yet.
--------------------------------------
DVD BONUS FEATURES:
Three items are on the "Special Features" menu of the "Oswald's Ghost"
DVD. Here's a quick look:
1.) "A Visit To Dealey Plaza" --- Now here's something that ought to
appeal to conspiracy-thirsty people. This bonus, filmed in Dallas'
Dealey Plaza (probably in 2007), consists of 9-and-a-half minutes of
non-stop, mile-a-minute JFK conspiracy talk.
For the first seven minutes of this torture, we're treated to some nut
who is perched up on the Grassy Knoll in the Plaza, armed with a thick
notebook full of assorted conspiracy-flavored tripe.
This guy has got his conspiracy spiel down cold, I've got to give him
credit for that, as he rattles off one unprovable theory after
another, including everything from soup to nuts it would seem (much
like Oliver Stone's "let's throw in the kitchen sink too" approach to
the case).
Yes, it's torture to sit through to a degree....and yet this man (a
Mr. Russell) is strangely compelling and easy to listen to at the same
time, despite the ridiculous position he is taking regarding how the
assassination of the President occurred.
And, yes, sure enough, Mr. Russell even believes that "Umbrella Man"
was part of the covert plot to kill Kennedy....and he also believes
that the "three tramps" were a major part of the murder plot too,
including the fable about one of the tramps being E. Howard Hunt.
The tramps, of course, have since been fully identified as just that--
tramps--and not conspirators, but tell that to Mr. Russell, who you
can no doubt find on the Knoll this very minute, peddling his pro-
conspiracy wares.
The final two-plus minutes of this bonus feature focus attention on
famous researcher and conspiracist Robert Groden, as he gives one of
his many talks to the visitors of Dealey Plaza.
Groden has set himself up a stand for selling his assassination books
and goods in a nicely-shaded area on the steps that lead up the Grassy
Knoll on the west side of the Plaza.
Bob doesn't talk quite as fast as our other conspiracy theorist
featured in this bonus supplement, but his theories are just as
preposterous and unsupportable by the evidence (of course).
Mr. Groden, for the trivia-minded out there who might not know this,
was born on November 22. He turned 18 on the day of JFK's death.
So, coincidences CAN, indeed, occur. And do. ;)
~~~~~~
2.) "The Zapruder Film And Beyond" --- This 22-minute DVD add-on
supplement is a "talking heads" piece, with various of the
participants from the main feature (plus Louis Stokes, the Chairman of
the House Select Committee on Assassintions) providing a dialogue
about Abraham Zapruder's infamous 26-second home movie, which shows
JFK being shot and killed in full color.
There's some other general "conspiracy vs. no conspiracy" discussion
included here as well. This is pretty basic stuff. My favorite part of
this bonus is when Mark Lane talks about how he took a copy of the
Zapruder Film off the desk of New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison and then arranged for 100 copies of the film to be made and
distributed "everyplace". <chuckle>
~~~~~~
3.) "Interview With Robert Stone" --- This interview lasts almost 16
minutes. Among other things, Stone talks about how he was able to
unearth some never-before-seen film footage connected to the events of
11/22/63.
I think the best comment in the interview is when Mr. Stone says: "The
mantra in making the film was always, This is not a 'whodunnit'...this
is a 'what the whodunnit has done to us'. That's what it's about."
All three DVD bonus programs are presented in Anamorphic Widescreen
format (1.85:1), with Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo audio.
--------------------------------------
DVD STATS & SPECS (FOR MAIN FEATURE):
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1).
Audio: Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround and a Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo
soundtrack.
Subtitles: None. (But Closed-Captioning is provided.)
The movie is divided into 13 DVD chapters. The chapters (or scenes)
are titled as follows:
1. Introduction
2. The Prime Suspect
3. Oswald In Custody
4. Oswald's Assassin
5. The Commission Investigates
6. The Warren Report
7. Re-examining The Evidence
8. Jim Garrison's Allegations
9. Murders Of MLK & RFK
10. The Church Committee & The CIA
11. Conspiracy Theories
12. Oswald's Ghost
13. Credits
--------------------------------------
FINAL "GHOST" ANALYSIS:
There's nothing really super-extraordinary or shocking or ultra-
spectacular about "Oswald's Ghost". It's just a good, solid, well-
constructed documentary film on the death of America's 35th President.
I suppose some people who viewed this movie wanted some kind of "new
evidence" or heretofore-undiscovered revelation to be unveiled by
Robert Stone within this film. Alas, that's not to be. And that, in my
opinion, is mainly due to the following fact: There is nothing "new"
to be unveiled concerning the way John F. Kennedy died on November 22,
1963.
JFK was shot by a lone loser named Lee Harvey Oswald. And that lone
loser who hated America and its "representatives" just happened to own
a cheap mail-order rifle and he also just happened to work in a
building that overlooked the very last portion of President Kennedy's
motorcade route through Dallas.
The combination of things I just mentioned above was a lethal
combination. And it's also, whether you want to believe it or not, a
combination of circumstances brought about by nothing except pure
garden-variety coincidence and happenstance.
Lee Oswald's very own brother, Robert, said pretty much the same thing
during an interview a few years ago:
"It is my belief--my conviction--no one but Lee was involved--
period. .... He had problems at home. He had problems on his job. He
was completely frustrated about what was going on around him. This is
not EXCUSING what he did. This is UNDERSTANDING what he did. He wanted
to be somebody. And this opportunity came about coincidental. Nothing
planned. Nothin' organized. It HAPPENED that way. It's one of those
happenstances of history." -- Robert Oswald; 2003
So, if you want to watch a well-made, non-sensationalistic documentary
about President John F. Kennedy's murder and the events associated
with it, you'll certainly want to pick up this DVD.
If you want sensationalism and lots of complicated and impossible-to-
pull-off conspiracy plots, then I'd suggest opting for the 1991 movie
"JFK" (helmed by that other director named "Stone").
David Von Pein
January 2008
Gerry Simone (O)
Looks like I've got to buy the DVD. I heard that it was good (yeah, I
missed both episodes, can you believe it?).
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:70151347-7f9a-4788...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Which is why Oswald was probably not one of the shooters, but only used
as the patsy by the conspiracy.
> McMillan is unique to the "JFK" world in multiple ways. In addition to
> being Marina Oswald's biographer, she not only interviewed Lee Oswald
> personally in Russia in 1959, but she also knew and worked for a young
> Senator from Massachusetts named Jack Kennedy in 1953.
>
She is also unique in being the only WC defender who has openly admitted
working for the CIA.
> McMillan, therefore, is almost certainly the only person in the world
> who had personal contact with both JFK and his assassin.
>
> There's a very good short and to-the-point observation made by Edward
> Epstein in the film too -- "After forty years, none of the
> {conspiracy} theories pan out."
>
> Perhaps films like "Oswald's Ghost" and Vincent Bugliosi's hefty but
> magnificent 2007 lone-assassin book, "Reclaiming History: The
> Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy", can reduce (by at least a
> few notches) the ridiculously-high percentage of people in America who
> still believe that a conspiracy existed to kill JFK in Dallas.
>
Yes, as I predict it will drop from 76% to 66%. And the WC defenders
here will claim victory as if opinion polls decide the truth.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=5&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx123C11M0X39D4#Mx123C11M0X39D4
>>> "DVP, like so many other Warren Report apologists, I'm afraid you've
been misled by imposter-CTers on the CIA payroll whose job it was to
discredit real CTers and muddy the waters by creating the "LBJ did it"
false lead. Another popular false lead is the "Mafia did it." If your
impression of CTers in general stems from a passing acquaintance with
works of these imposter-CTers (seeing them picked apart by grandfatherly
authorities on network TV specials, for instance), you are correct to
question their investigations and CTers in general. However, a close
examination of the facts at the hands of real CTers like Mark Lane...."
<<<
I'll stop you right here with the words "Real CTers like Mark Lane" --
i.e., the same Mark Lane who shamelessly and disgracefully tried to shove
a particular word down the throat of Tippit murder witness Helen Markham.
And this is also the same Mark Lane who refused (at first) to hand over to
the Warren Commission the tape recording of his despicable phone call with
Markham.
And this is also the same Mark Lane who, in the 1967 film version of his
'66 book "Rush To Judgment", was trying to shove several already-
thoroughly-debunked conspiracy ideas down the gullets of the unsuspecting
and ignorant viewers of his film -- e.g., trying to get the public to
swallow the idea, as late as 1967 (!), that Lee Oswald might very well
have been located in the doorway of the TSBD after all (instead of Billy
N. Lovelady)....and Lane's pathetic attempts to take Oswald off of Cecil
McWatters' bus by telling his movie audience only the piecemeal
information about the "bus" incident that Lane wanted his viewers to hear.
Lane totally ignored Mary Bledsoe's positive IDing of Oswald on the bus,
with Lane choosing, instead, to prop up the Oswald/Milton Jones mix-up and
the fact that driver McWatters wasn't positive about his LHO
identification later on.
And re. "Doorway Man": Lane decided that Lovelady's VERY OWN W.C.
TESTIMONY, wherein Lovelady drew an arrow to himself in the famous Altgens
photo, wasn't good enough to determine who Doorway Man really was/is.
This, then, is the type of "Real CTer" that Mr. Randall Sellers (and many
other conspiracists like him) enjoy utilizing in order to try and prop up
their imagined conspiracy plots surrounding the death of the 35th U.S.
Chief Executive.
I, however, prefer to call a spade a spade....and Mark Lane, it seems to
me, is pretty much the very same kind of CTer as Jim Garrison, Jim Marrs,
David Lifton, Robert Groden, John Armstrong, and Jim Fetzer (among many
other CT "authors"), i.e., a person who desperately WANTS a conspiracy to
exist in the JFK case....and wants it so badly he's willing to do things
like this to help in meeting that goal (see the links below):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lane_m2.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a64790b792f771f
>>> "Try reading 'Plausible Denial' cover-to-cover (read it again if
necessary); then get back to me and we can have a real discussion." <<<
Yeah, then we can have a "real" discussion based on the "discoveries" of a
"real CTer" with a "conspiracy" agenda a mile wide, who believes that the
evil CIA was involved in killing their own President.
I'd suggest, instead, that you take a look at the 12 pages of the "Mark
Lane" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book (it's the 18th chapter
within the new JFK Bible, "Reclaiming History").
Yes, it's only a twelve-page chapter on Lane, but Bugliosi nicely and
succinctly reveals Mr. Lane for what he is....such as these three sample
excerpts:
"Assistant Warren Commission counsel Wesley J. Liebeler says
that..."if {Mark Lane} talks for five minutes, it takes an hour to
straighten out the record"." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1001 of "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)
~~~~~~
"It is nothing short of incredible that Lane, who finds room in his
book {"Rush To Judgment"} for 353 people who he claimed were connected in
some way to the Kennedy case, couldn't find room for a single paragraph on
people like {Robert} Jackson, {Johnny} Brewer, and {Police Officer M.N.}
McDonald." -- VB; Page 1003 of "RH"
~~~~~~
"The transcript of the tape {a taped telephone call between Mark
Lane and Helen Markham on March 2, 1964}, revealing Lane's gross and
tawdry effort to put words into the mouth of Mrs. Markham, shows why Lane
desperately sought to prevent the Commission from hearing it. .... The
tape had revealed {Lane's} blatant attempt to improperly influence, almost
FORCE {Markham} to say what he wanted her to say." -- VB; Pages 1008-1009
of "RH"
David Von Pein
>>> "The reason {Mark} Lane is grilling Mrs. Markham in the text quoted by
McAdams is because she CHANGED HER STORY. Lane's method of questioning
here is commonplace in any courtroom, especially in view of the fact that
she had given, for the record, two conflicting descriptions. .... To call
Lane's standard grilling "gross and tawdry" is pathetic hyperbole." <<<
That must be why Mr. Lane was so desperate to keep the Warren Commission
from hearing that taped recording between himself and Mrs. Markham, huh?
If Lane's techniques heard on the audio tape were so "commonplace", and it
could be proven that Markham "changed her story" (i.e., told the press
and/or the police one thing about J.D. Tippit's killer being a "stocky man
with bushy hair" and told Mr. Lane something else entirely), then there
would be no reason under the moon why Mark Lane would be so embarrassed
and hesitant about turning over that tape recording to the WC when he was
asked to do so by the Commission.
And make no mistake....Lane was very embarrassed and quite hesitant over
that tape recording. That's obvious when reading his WC testimony (below
link):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lane_m2.htm
>>> "After the assassination Marina Oswald was installed at the Six Flags
Inn by the FBI and basically held captive and incommunicado for months
while Priscilla Johnson got friendly with her." <<<
Oh....that's what you meant by "locked up". (Geez.)
Anyway -- yes, I'm familiar with Marina's lengthy motel stay. But to hear
you tell it via your earlier post, I had the impression you were of the
opinion that Marina was in handcuffs with burly armed guards around her
24/7.
Let's now watch Mr. Sellers' imagination work wonders on Mrs. Priscilla
Johnson-McMillan, shall we?
The next hunks of unsupportable conspiracy-flavored idiocy being offered
up by Randall are rather typical of the mindset possessed by a
conspiracy-loving person who has spent a goodly amount of time in the "CT"
camp. I.E., lots of accusations and not a speck of PROOF to back any of
them up.
CTers don't have any problem at all with calling many, many innocent
people "CIA operatives" or "liars" or "shills" or "dupes" or outright
murderers for that matter. Just as long as Lee Harvey Oswald's skirts can
remain clean, these CTers are pleased. (Or, at the very least, as long as
LHO can be looked upon as the proverbial "patsy" in the case.)
You're up, Randy.....
>>> "Priscilla {Johnson-McMillan}, that old grandmotherly regular on the
propaganda-documentary circuit, a so-called journalist who was caught
lying about her State Dept. [read: CIA] employment and who happened to be
on hand when the magic bus tickets *finally* appeared in a Spanish
language television guide that Oswald, *we are asked to believe*, brought
back from Mexico City. Oh and Priscilla was in Moscow in '59 and
"happened" to meet Oswald there. Anyway, Marina was denied a lawyer, not
allowed to give interviews, drilled by the FBI on "what really happened",
etc." <<<
There's really no comment needed here. Just a dropped jaw, as I continue
to be in total awe of the strange and bewildering "CT mindset" that many
people in this world possess when it comes to the topic of John F.
Kennedy's assassination and its aftermath.
As I've said before on other forums, the motto of many conspiracy
theorists seems to be -- ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER.
Simply amazing.
>>> "It's not that Warren Commission evidence lacks credibility across the
board; it's just that, between their CIA man (Dulles, then unemployed and
hence available for more sessions than most of the others) and their FBI
man (Ford), their investigation was steered around the trouble spots, and
when the dodgy evidence for Oswald in Mexico City came up (audio tape,
photo), both had already been determined by the FBI to NOT be Oswald, so
when the WC asked to see the audio tape, the CIA said it had been
destroyed (confirmed lie), and the WC accepted an affadavit on behalf of
the photo, which they never saw. But the Warren Report would have the
reader believe that this stuff established Oswald in Mexico City. As I
said before, the Warren case would not convince a real jury, and in fact
did not convince the American people." <<<
Now is a good time to repeat the previously-mentioned motto of a CTer the
likes of Randall Sellers:
Accuse Now; Prove Never!
Randall can't provide a stitch of proof for the anti-WC accusations he
directly implies above....but that won't stop him from writing them out on
a public forum here at Amazon.com.
Randall surely also knows that Lee Harvey Oswald's trip to Mexico City in
late September of 1963 is WELL DOCUMENTED from start to finish, with a
paper trail of hotel records (with Oswald's OWN SIGNATURE ON THEM) and
eyewitnesses who saw and TALKED TO Oswald on the bus on the way down to
Mexico City.
The photographs and taped recordings of Oswald at the Embassies aren't
even needed to establish the provable and undeniable FACT that Lee Harvey
Oswald travelled to Mexico City in September of '63.
Oswald's own wife, Marina, also provided a large wealth of testimony in
front of the Warren Commission, detailing her husband's trip to Mexico (at
some length too) and about how she and Lee DISCUSSED IT TOGETHER after his
return to Texas in early October. Via Marina's words ALONE, we can know
that Lee Oswald went to Mexico City in late September '63.*
* = Of course, since the testimony in question was being conducted by the
Warren Commission, an organization that Randall hates and distrusts so
much, I suppose it's useless and worthless testimony as far as Mr. Sellers
is concerned.
That's another typical CTer ploy -- distrust EVERYONE in "officialdom" for
the most part. Unless, of course, it suits the "pro-conspiracy" needs of a
particular theorist, then that CTer will almost certainly latch onto those
parts of the Government's story in a heartbeat.
Anyway, a CTer's distrust of all Government entities notwithstanding,
here's a hefty portion of what Marina Oswald had to say with respect to
LHO's 1963 Mexico City excursion (via Marina's WC session on February 3,
1964):
MARINA OSWALD -- "I wrote a letter to Mrs. Paine telling her that Lee was
out of work, and they invited me to come and stay with her. And when I
left her, I knew that Lee would go to Mexico City. But, of course, I
didn't tell Mrs. Paine about it."
J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had he discussed with you the idea of going to Mexico
City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
MR. RANKIN -- "When did he first discuss that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I think it was in August."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "From Mexico City he wanted to go to Cuba--perhaps through
the Russian Embassy in Mexico somehow he would be able to get to Cuba."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he say anything about going to Russia by way of Cuba?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I know that he said that in the embassy. But he only said
so. I know that he had no intention of going to Russia then."
MR. RANKIN -- "How do you know that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He told me. I know Lee fairly well--well enough from that
point of view."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "When your husband talked about going to Mexico City, did he
say where he was going to go there, who he would visit?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. He said that he would go to the Soviet Embassy and to
the Cuban Embassy and would do everything he could in order to get to
Cuba."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you where he would stay in Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "In a hotel."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you the name?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "No, he didn't know where he would stop."
MR. RANKIN -- "Was there any discussion about the expense of making the
trip?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. But we always lived very modestly, and Lee always had
some savings. Therefore, he had the money for it."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he say how much it would cost?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He had a little over $100 and he said that that would be
sufficient."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Do you know how he got to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "By bus."
MR. RANKIN -- "And did he return by bus also?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "It seems, yes. Yes, he told me that a round-trip ticket
was cheaper than two one-way tickets."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you anything about his trip to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he told me that he had visited the two embassies,
that he had received nothing, that the people who are there are too
much---too bureaucratic. He said that he has spent the time pretty well.
And I had told him that if he doesn't accomplish anything to at least take
a good rest. I was hoping that the climate, if nothing else, would be
beneficial to him."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did you ask him what he did the rest of the time?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, I think he said that he visited a bull fight, that he
spent most of his time in museums, and that he did some sightseeing in the
city."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you what people he talked to?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He said that he first visited the Soviet Embassy in the
hope that having been there first this would make it easier for him at the
Cuban Embassy. But there they refused to have anything to do with him."
MR. RANKIN -- "And what did he say about the visit to the Cuban Embassy or
consulate?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "It was quite without results."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he complain about the consular or any of the officials
of the Cuban Embassy and the way they handled the matter?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he called them bureaucrats. He said that the Cubans
seemed to have a system similar to the Russians--too much red tape before
you get through there."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Mrs. Oswald, you told us about your knowledge about the
trip to Mexico and said that you were under oath and were going to tell us
all about what you knew. Did your husband ever ask you not to disclose
what you knew about the Mexican trip?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
MR. RANKIN -- "And when was that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Before he left. I had remained and he was supposed to
leave on the next day, and he warned me not to tell anyone about it."
MR. RANKIN -- "After he returned to Dallas from his Mexico trip, did he
say anything to you then about not telling he had been to Mexico?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he asked me whether I had told Ruth about it or
anyone else, and I told him no, and he said that I should keep quiet about
it."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
==============
In short, the conspiracy theorists who still to this very day think that
Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City in late September and early
October of 1963 (and think that Oswald was merely being "impersonated"
down in Mexico) are just plain nuts.
It's as simple as that.
>>> "As for Mr. Fritz of the Dallas police and his claim of no tape
recorder-- oh, please. Do you honestly believe that sorry excuse? There
was no shortage of tape recorders in Dallas on 11/22/63, and the FBI
interrogated LHO too. If they could hustle the President's body onto Air
Force One by 2pm that afternoon, someone would have provided a tape
recorder for the interrogation of LHO in the 36 hours that followed,
especially if they actually *believed that he was working for the
Russians*, to learn all they could. But they didn't." <<<
I can't say that I haven't thought it a little odd that the Dallas Police
Department, as of 11/22/63, was lacking any kind of device for tape
recording the interrogations of arrested suspects. That does seem a bit
strange, I don't deny that. And it's even odder that they couldn't have
gotten a stenographer (at least) in the room to take down the words spoken
by Oswald.
But I'm certainly not prepared to call 31-year veteran DPD Homicide
Captain J. Will Fritz a bald-faced liar when he said these words to the WC
in 1964:
"I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at this
time we could have handled these conversations far better. .... I have
requested one several times but so far they haven't gotten me one."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
What the conspiracy theorists need to do, it seems to me, in this
particularly instance, is to dig back into the DPD records and archives
and somehow PROVE to the world that it was the NORMAL POLICY of the Dallas
City Police Department (or the FBI for that matter) to officially record
or transcribe the verbatim words of a suspect during that suspect's
DPD/FBI interrogation sessions.
I have yet to see any CTer come up with any proof or documentation at all
that would establish the fact that it WAS, indeed, standard operating
procedure for the DPD to tape record (or transcribe) every word spoken by
an arrested prisoner. (Versus merely jotting down some notes of the
interrogations, which is what occurred in Oswald's case.)
And if it can be established that it was NORMAL for the DPD and/or FBI to
NOT tape or transcribe a prisoner's statements (circa 1963), then the
whole issue of "Why Didn't The Police Record LHO's Interrogations?"
becomes a completely moot one altogether.
Anthony Marsh
> www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=5&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx123C11M0X39D4#Mx123C11M0X39D4
>
>
>>>> "DVP, like so many other Warren Report apologists, I'm afraid you've
> been misled by imposter-CTers on the CIA payroll whose job it was to
> discredit real CTers and muddy the waters by creating the "LBJ did it"
> false lead. Another popular false lead is the "Mafia did it." If your
> impression of CTers in general stems from a passing acquaintance with
> works of these imposter-CTers (seeing them picked apart by grandfatherly
> authorities on network TV specials, for instance), you are correct to
> question their investigations and CTers in general. However, a close
> examination of the facts at the hands of real CTers like Mark Lane...."
> <<<
>
>
> I'll stop you right here with the words "Real CTers like Mark Lane" --
> i.e., the same Mark Lane who shamelessly and disgracefully tried to shove
> a particular word down the throat of Tippit murder witness Helen Markham.
>
I'll stop you right here with your false information.
Markham said bushy hair.
> And this is also the same Mark Lane who refused (at first) to hand over to
> the Warren Commission the tape recording of his despicable phone call with
> Markham.
>
Of course Mark Lane as a good lawyer objected to hand over the tape.
But he did turn it over.
> And this is also the same Mark Lane who, in the 1967 film version of his
> '66 book "Rush To Judgment", was trying to shove several already-
> thoroughly-debunked conspiracy ideas down the gullets of the unsuspecting
> and ignorant viewers of his film -- e.g., trying to get the public to
> swallow the idea, as late as 1967 (!), that Lee Oswald might very well
> have been located in the doorway of the TSBD after all (instead of Billy
> N. Lovelady)....and Lane's pathetic attempts to take Oswald off of Cecil
> McWatters' bus by telling his movie audience only the piecemeal
> information about the "bus" incident that Lane wanted his viewers to hear.
>
Not bloody likely.
> Lane totally ignored Mary Bledsoe's positive IDing of Oswald on the bus,
> with Lane choosing, instead, to prop up the Oswald/Milton Jones mix-up and
> the fact that driver McWatters wasn't positive about his LHO
> identification later on.
>
Like a good defense lawyer Lane raised reasonable doubt about the
government's case.
> And re. "Doorway Man": Lane decided that Lovelady's VERY OWN W.C.
> TESTIMONY, wherein Lovelady drew an arrow to himself in the famous Altgens
> photo, wasn't good enough to determine who Doorway Man really was/is.
>
Eyewitness testimony alone is not good enough. Witnesses lie.
> This, then, is the type of "Real CTer" that Mr. Randall Sellers (and many
> other conspiracists like him) enjoy utilizing in order to try and prop up
> their imagined conspiracy plots surrounding the death of the 35th U.S.
> Chief Executive.
>
> I, however, prefer to call a spade a spade....and Mark Lane, it seems to
> me, is pretty much the very same kind of CTer as Jim Garrison, Jim Marrs,
You prefer to character assassinate.
> David Lifton, Robert Groden, John Armstrong, and Jim Fetzer (among many
> other CT "authors"), i.e., a person who desperately WANTS a conspiracy to
I don't think Mark Lane would have anything to do with Lifton or Fetzer.
You are trying the old guilt by association trick only there is no
association.
Sure, as if the WC lawyers didn't lead their witnesses, and under oath
no less.
David Von Pein
>>> "Today, no one will go near that book {Gerald Posner's excellent 1993 JFK book, "Case Closed"}." <<<
Not true at all. I certainly go near it. ....
www.amazon.com/review/R3HRQGJ9PFH6EZ
www.amazon.com/review/R6QFDI7SQZF88
Mr. Posner's book is outstanding. It has flaws, yes. But it's a very
good overall study of the case and, more importantly, a good overall
study of JFK's assassin--Lee Harvey Oswald.
Of course, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" goes far beyond
Posner's book in scope and comprehensive content (which is to be
expected, due to Vincent's 21-year-long research effort and the
resulting 2,800+ pages of content contained within "Reclaiming
History", content which trashes every conspiracy theory and conspiracy
kook author imaginable, and rightly so).
It's time for conspiracy theorists to wake up from their 44-year sleep
and realize that there's no credible evidence of anyone having shot
and killed President Kennedy and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit
except a screwball named Lee Harvey Oswald, a 24-year-old nuthatch who
was lucky enough (from his warped point-of-view) to have these six
things all align themselves into perfect harmony on November 22, 1963:
1.) He (Oswald) hated America and its Government's representatives.
2.) Oswald owned and had ready access to a rifle in November '63.
3.) Oswald worked in a building which just happened to overlook the
last portion of JFK's motorcade route through Dallas on 11/22/63.
4.) It stopped raining prior to 12:00 noon on 11/22/63 (hence, the
bubbletop roof was left off of JFK's limousine for the motorcade drive
through Dallas). The bubbletop roof was not bulletproof at all, but
it's quite possible that Oswald wouldn't have known that fact on
November 22nd. Seeing the roof in place that day, if it continued to
rain, just might have made Oswald think twice about firing those
gunshots at the limo.
5.) Oswald was lucky enough to have President Kennedy visit Dallas on
a Friday (i.e., a regular workday for Lee Oswald and the other Book
Depository employees), instead of, say, a Saturday or a Sunday.
6.) Another small item that relates to #5 above is something that
could well have played a very big factor in Oswald pulling off the
shooting that Friday -- and that is the fact that not only did
Kennedy's visit to Dallas occur on a workday for Oswald (a Friday),
but the parade route took JFK's limo past the Book Depository Building
RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME as well, which meant that most TSBD employees were
on their normal lunch breaks at that hour of the day (and would have
been even if Kennedy had not been scheduled to drive by the building
at noontime).
The normal time for the warehouse employees to break for lunch at the
Depository was from 12:00 Noon to 12:45 PM, just exactly the time
period when President Kennedy was scheduled to drive through Dealey
Plaza on Friday, November 22nd. That information was confirmed via the
Warren Commission testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier (the 19-year-old
who drove Oswald to work on the morning of the assassination):
WESLEY FRAZIER -- "12 o'clock is when we always eat lunch."
JOSEPH BALL -- "12 to 12:45?"
FRAZIER -- "Right."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
This meant fewer people staying on the upper Depository floors (i.e.,
the "warehouse" floors, which were floors 5, 6, and 7), with those
employees going down to the first-floor "Domino/Lunch Room" or the
second-floor lunch room (or going outside the building to watch the
President pass by) during the exact time when Lee Oswald would require
a VACANT sixth floor in his preparations for shooting the President
during this Friday lunch period.
For Oswald, the above combination of things was simply a made-to-order
combination of factors that just fell into his lap on November 22nd,
1963, including item numbers 4, 5, and 6 mentioned above, which are
things that Oswald HIMSELF could not possibly have had any control
over whatsoever. And even #3 as well, to the extent that Oswald was
hired at the TSBD on October 15, 1963, which was a full month prior to
anyone officially announcing the details of JFK's final motorcade
route through Dallas (which included the turn onto Elm Street in front
of the Depository).
Happenstance (and a kook named Lee Harvey) got John F. Kennedy
killed.
Not conspiracy.
========================================
========================================
HAPPENSTANCE OR CONSPIRACY? (PART 1):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/37cbbcb30fa498c5
HAPPENSTANCE OR CONSPIRACY? (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5a5c5eddcc8290c7
HAPPENSTANCE OR CONSPIRACY? (PART 3):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/14626541f1730ecc
WHAT ARE THE ODDS...?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7e70b829247b4a49
========================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Kennedy had an entrance wound on the front of his neck..." <<<
No he didn't.
That's just the continued wishful-thinking of conspiracy
theorists....nothing more.
In order for the bullet wound in the front of JFK's throat to have
been an ENTRY wound, you're going to have to check your common sense
at the door. Because in order for the throat wound to be an entry, it
would mean that not just one, but TWO, bullets simply stopped dead
inside John Kennedy's neck and upper back on 11/22/63, without either
of these bullets causing any significant damage at all.
Plus: Both of these bullets that would have gone into JFK without
exiting the other side would have had to disappear off the planet
prior to the autopsy, without a sole seeing a trace of either missile
in question.
Simply....impossible.
Why do so many conspiracy promoters always totally ignore the above
common-sense observations regarding the proposed "Frontal Throat Shot"
argument?
Given the evidence, Kennedy could not possibly have been shot in the
upper back and in the throat with separate bullets. To believe that
such a thing occurred is to believe in stuff that's far more
implausible and improbable than is the Single-Bullet Theory.
But the SBT, however, explains EVERYTHING -- including:
1.) The lack of damage in Kennedy's neck/back regions (which is to be
expected if just one bullet sailed right through him).
2.) No "missing" bullets to account for. CE399 is the one and only
bullet that needs to be accounted for via the SBT....and it is
accounted for (right down to the NAA analysis, which, while not 100%
foolproof and definitive, gives any reasonable person a pretty good
idea as to what the source bullet was for the small fragments that
were recovered by Dr. Gregory from the right wrist of Governor
Connally).
3.) The reactions of the men seen on the Zapruder Film. Yes, the Z-
Film can be a very subjective viewing experience, depending on who's
doing the viewing; but when looking at these toggling clips (linked
below), it can't be any more obvious that both JFK and Connally are
reacting at the SAME EXACT TIME to some kind of external stimulus.
And since that "stimulus" is probably a rifle bullet (seeing as how
rifle bullets were being fired at the car during the few seconds in
question here), it's quite likely that both mens' "reactions" seen
below are due to THE SAME BULLET PIERCING THEM BOTH:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
4.) The "lining up" of the wounds on the two different victims (which
pretty much perfectly match the way the two men were seated in the
limousine, in relation to one another), with both men being hit in the
BACK with a bullet....and Kennedy having a bullet hole in his throat
AND NO BULLETS LEFT INSIDE HIM AT AUTOPSY.
If one bullet didn't hit both men, then I think it's safe to say that
the THREE DIFFERENT GUNMEN who would have had to be involved in
peppering the two victims with THREE different bullets at virtually
the exact same time were THE LUCKIEST ASSASSINS ever to shoot at a
President. Especially when the widely-believed "Oswald Was Being Set
Up As The Lone Patsy" plot that is favored by many conspiracy kooks is
factored into this equation as well --
I.E.,
The THREE shooters* just got lucky when their three bullets hit JFK &
JBC in all the right places, so that at a later date in 1964 the
Warren Commission can determine that it was likely that just ONE
bullet struck the victims, rather than the three that actually did hit
them (per this insane anti-SBT theory that many CTers place their
faith in). It's just plain idiotic. No other way to look at it.
* = And the anti-SBT brigade definitely needs THREE different gunmen
to accomplish what CE399 did, too. That's because of the tight
timeline shown on the Zapruder Film. Two guns just aren't enough to
get this anti-SBT job done. No way. You'd need two separate shooters
in the rear (to account for Kennedy's separate back wound and
Connally's separate back wound); and a frontal shooter to account for
JFK's throat wound.
And some CTers like to increase the absurdity of their own make-
believe anti-SBT theories by claiming that Connally was really hit by
TWO bullets, instead of by just the one (CE399) that any reasonable
person would determine he was hit with.
That latter "Connally Was Hit Twice" option ups the total of anti-SBT
bullets to four (all of which vanish into thin air immediately after
the shooting, per most CTers, since most CTers like to cling to the
idea that CE399 was a planted bullet and actually hit nobody on
11/22/63).
Such anti-SBT scenarios involving three or four bullets in lieu of
CE399 are scenarios that belong in the file marked "Totally Ridiculous
And Impossible JFK Conspiracy Theories".
>>> "{Kennedy had} an entrance wound on his right temple at the
hairline..." <<<
Says who? Certainly not the three different autopsists at Bethesda who
examined the body of President Kennedy first-hand.
But a rabid conspiracy promoter ALWAYS knows more than Doctors Humes,
Finck, and Boswell. Right?
Via JFK's Official Autopsy Report:
"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two
perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles
fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from
a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The
fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external
occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the
cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion
of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp." -- Signed:
Drs. Humes, Boswell, & Finck
www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
Conspiracy theorists are forced to actually believe that the above
autopsy summary is nothing but a pack of lies. And the theorists who
love to tout imaginary "frontal shots" that hit JFK in the head (or
elsewhere) also have to actually believe the fairy tale that includes
ALL THREE autopsists continuing to tell lies for decades on end
whenever they have discussed the autopsy with members of the media or
during the various follow-up Government investigations (such as the
HSCA and ARRB hearings).
And then there's the 1967 TV appearance of Dr. James J. Humes. CTers
must believe that Dr. Humes, who was certainly not being forced at
gunpoint to appear on television, VOLUNTEERED--on his own!--to go on
CBS-TV in June of 1967 and tell the following blatant falsehoods:
DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
DR. JAMES HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head;
yes, sir."
RATHER -- "And that was where?"
DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."
RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
behind and passed forward through the President's skull."
RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."
RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
Logical follow-up question: WHY would Dr. Humes volunteer to appear in
front of the CBS cameras and utter the above remarks if the above
remarks weren't the absolute truth as Humes saw them?
If Humes had been a rotten, deceitful liar from the get-go in November
1963 (as many CTers believe him to be), he would never have appeared
on CBS-TV in 1967 and made the above-quoted comments. Simple as that.
To believe otherwise is just dumb.
>>> "{Kennedy had} and an exit wound on the right rear of his head." <<<
And this X-ray (linked below) proves beyond all possible doubt that
the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who claimed that JFK had a gaping
wound in the back of his head were all 100% wrong.
The back portions of President Kennedy's head are completely intact.
There is no hole in the right-rear of the skull whatsoever. In fact,
there aren't even any fracture lines on this X-ray in the area of
JFK's head where the Parkland witnesses said there was a large hole.
Just look:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
Is the above X-ray a "fake" too? The conspiracy crowd has no choice
but to believe that it is a fake or a fraud (if they want to push the
idea that a large wound was present at the far-right-rear of Kennedy's
skull).
Which, in turn, of course, means that those CTers now must travel even
further down Conspiracy Avenue and also accuse every single member of
the HSCA's Photographic Panel of being either liars or incompetent
boobs....because that panel (which consisted of almost 20 members if I
recollect correctly) declared the following in 1978 with respect to
the autopsy photos and X-rays (including, of course, the X-ray linked
above, which shows no rear skull damage at all):
"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA; Vol. 7; Pg. 41
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be46d0872dbcf3c6
It's readily apparent how silly the position of conspiracy theorists
truly is when we start factoring in all of the various "layers" of
conspirators and after-the-fact "cover-up" agents and rotten liars
that the CTers need to have firmly (and forever) in place in order for
any of their theories to work out properly.
Per CTers, the Warren Commission was filled with nothing but rotten
liars and cover-up agents....and evidently so was the HSCA for the
most part (since they came to the same identical "OSWALD WAS THE ONLY
GUNMAN WHO HIT ANY VICTIMS" conclusion that the WC came to).
Plus, per CTers, the DPD, the USSS, the FBI, and the autopsists were
also "in" on either a plot to kill Kennedy or a plot to cover up the
truth afterward. Plus God knows how many other fringe participants
CTers think were also involved in the massive decades-long and still-
continuing cover-up and/or plot to kill JFK.
See how stupid all of this pro-conspiracy stuff sounds when you say it
out loud (or write it out in longhand)?
It's just laughable (at best).
>>> "When you line up those {make-believe} shots, they HAD to have come
from inside the car." <<<
Only three letters required here (so that's all I'll use):
L.O.L.
>>> "It even seems possible that the driver shot Connally. At the very
moment he was shot in the back, Connally was actually turned to the rear
of the car looking at Kennedy and with his back turned to the driver." <<<
I wonder what Mr. Connally is doing in the Z-Film clip below then (if not
showing involuntary signs of reacting to a bullet that has just struck his
body)?
Maybe the Governor just had an uncontrollable desire to jerk his soon-
to-be-injured right arm upward really quick at this exact moment in time.
Ya think?:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
>>> "A shot from the driver could have entered his {Connally's} back and
made the wounds he experienced." <<<
And there's a giant Martian, who is wearing a grass skirt and selling Avon
products, standing on your front porch right this very minute. (That's
just about as likely to be true as Connally being shot by William Greer
anyway.)
David Von Pein
>>> "The throat wound was probably not an entrance wound." <<<
Which means you agree with LNers that the bullet exited Kennedy's
throat after entering his upper back. Correct?
So....where did the bullet go?
Or do you want to climb on board Mark Fuhrman's train? In his 2006
book, Mr. Fuhrman has the bullet going through JFK but somehow not
hitting Governor Connally. Fuhrman's "magic" type bullet suddenly goes
from a 24-degree downward angle to an upward trajectory after exiting
Kennedy's neck (per Fuhrman's way-too-early shot at Z186 that he says
hit JFK).
But, for some inexplicable reason, Mark felt he needed to disagree
with the perfectly-logical SBT...so a new theory was born that has LHO
doing all the shooting but the SBT being incorrect. Silly, IMO.
>>> "As presented by the "experts" from Specter on down, it {the SBT} is
garbage!" <<<
And yet you AGREE that ONE BULLET passed clean through John Kennedy's
back and neck, right? And this bullet obviously was travelling FORWARD
and DOWNWARD after it left Kennedy's throat at tie-knot level (i.e.,
travelling DIRECTLY TOWARD JOHN CONNALLY'S BACK).
And this bullet which exited JFK's throat did not hit any other limo
occupants, and did not rip up the interior of the car in any way.
And yet the SBT is "garbage"?
A new Magic Bullet is born. And, evidently, another anti-SBT theory is
born too. CTers, including Dr. Cyril Wecht, can label their anti-SBT
theory with this lengthy (but accurate) moniker:
"I DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT BULLET
WHICH WENT CLEAN THROUGH PRESIDENT KENNEDY....BUT, BY GOD, I KNOW
(SOMEHOW) THAT IT POSITIVELY DIDN'T GO ON TO HIT THE PERSON WHO WAS
SITTING ALMOST DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE MAN THAT THE BULLET JUST CAME
OUT OF."
~shrug~
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1YSP01LF3V5LS/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=29&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1IGXMDCYU8T97#Mx1IGXMDCYU8T97
>
>
>
> www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1YSP01LF3V5LS/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=32&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxAQ0QQG1J8VFN#MxAQ0QQG1J8VFN
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "The throat wound was probably not an entrance wound." <<<
>
> Which means you agree with LNers that the bullet exited Kennedy's
> throat after entering his upper back. Correct?
>
Who does? We can't tell whom you are talking about when you constantly
snip out the context.
> So....where did the bullet go?
>
Over the windshield.
> Or do you want to climb on board Mark Fuhrman's train? In his 2006
> book, Mr. Fuhrman has the bullet going through JFK but somehow not
> hitting Governor Connally. Fuhrman's "magic" type bullet suddenly goes
> from a 24-degree downward angle to an upward trajectory after exiting
> Kennedy's neck (per Fuhrman's way-too-early shot at Z186 that he says
> hit JFK).
>
Fuhrman did not state the angle. Because he would not know details like
that. It wasn't 24 degrees.
His frame may be a little off, but remember that the HSCA chose Z-190.
> But, for some inexplicable reason, Mark felt he needed to disagree
> with the perfectly-logical SBT...so a new theory was born that has LHO
> doing all the shooting but the SBT being incorrect. Silly, IMO.
>
No one needed a SBT for the official government conclusion until Specter
realized the timing problem meant conspiracy.
>
>
>>>> "As presented by the "experts" from Specter on down, it {the SBT} is
> garbage!" <<<
>
> And yet you AGREE that ONE BULLET passed clean through John Kennedy's
> back and neck, right? And this bullet obviously was travelling FORWARD
> and DOWNWARD after it left Kennedy's throat at tie-knot level (i.e.,
> travelling DIRECTLY TOWARD JOHN CONNALLY'S BACK).
>
No. The fact that the back wound was LOWER than the throat wound (which
the WC knew) means that the bullet was traveling UPWARDS after it left
Kennedy's throat.
> And this bullet which exited JFK's throat did not hit any other limo
> occupants, and did not rip up the interior of the car in any way.
>
You can't prove which bullet hit the chrome topping. If a bullet or
fragment hit the chrome topping, then it would be easy for another
bullet or fragment to go a few inches higher and over the windshield.
> And yet the SBT is "garbage"?
>
> A new Magic Bullet is born. And, evidently, another anti-SBT theory is
> born too. CTers, including Dr. Cyril Wecht, can label their anti-SBT
> theory with this lengthy (but accurate) moniker:
>
> "I DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT BULLET
> WHICH WENT CLEAN THROUGH PRESIDENT KENNEDY....BUT, BY GOD, I KNOW
> (SOMEHOW) THAT IT POSITIVELY DIDN'T GO ON TO HIT THE PERSON WHO WAS
> SITTING ALMOST DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE MAN THAT THE BULLET JUST CAME
> OUT OF."
>
Nonsense. We could also make fun of you by asking why the bullet which
went through Kennedy's head did not hit Connally who was sitting almost
directly in front of the man that the bullet just came out of.
And don't say "almost directly." That is what the conspiracy believers
say and the WC defenders criticize them for.
> ~shrug~
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> www.amazon.com/TV-and-the-SBT/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1YSP01LF3V5LS/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=27&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx33P3Q5UEHAIZJ#Mx33P3Q5UEHAIZJ
>
>
>
>
>
> www.amazon.com/TV-and-the-SBT/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1YSP01LF3V5LS/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=28&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3EOINQKZO6MPK#Mx3EOINQKZO6MPK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Kennedy had an entrance wound on the front of his neck..." <<<
>
> No he didn't.
>
> That's just the continued wishful-thinking of conspiracy
> theorists....nothing more.
>
> In order for the bullet wound in the front of JFK's throat to have
> been an ENTRY wound, you're going to have to check your common sense
> at the door. Because in order for the throat wound to be an entry, it
> would mean that not just one, but TWO, bullets simply stopped dead
> inside John Kennedy's neck and upper back on 11/22/63, without either
> of these bullets causing any significant damage at all.
>
Sure, but if the experts, people you like, like Humes, had said that,
you'd be championing it.
> Plus: Both of these bullets that would have gone into JFK without
> exiting the other side would have had to disappear off the planet
> prior to the autopsy, without a sole seeing a trace of either missile
> in question.
>
Worked its way out during heart massage. Ala Humes.
> Simply....impossible.
>
We know that now. They did not know that on the night of the autopsy.
> Why do so many conspiracy promoters always totally ignore the above
> common-sense observations regarding the proposed "Frontal Throat Shot"
> argument?
>
Why do so many WC defenders ignore common sense and fall for WC lies?
> Given the evidence, Kennedy could not possibly have been shot in the
> upper back and in the throat with separate bullets. To believe that
> such a thing occurred is to believe in stuff that's far more
> implausible and improbable than is the Single-Bullet Theory.
>
YOU would have believed Humes's theory.
YOU believe the WC fiction that an intact bullet went only a couple of
inches into Connally's thigh and then fell out.
> But the SBT, however, explains EVERYTHING -- including:
>
> 1.) The lack of damage in Kennedy's neck/back regions (which is to be
> expected if just one bullet sailed right through him).
>
> 2.) No "missing" bullets to account for. CE399 is the one and only
Any scenario has missing bullets. Live with it.
> bullet that needs to be accounted for via the SBT....and it is
> accounted for (right down to the NAA analysis, which, while not 100%
> foolproof and definitive, gives any reasonable person a pretty good
> idea as to what the source bullet was for the small fragments that
> were recovered by Dr. Gregory from the right wrist of Governor
> Connally).
>
> 3.) The reactions of the men seen on the Zapruder Film. Yes, the Z-
> Film can be a very subjective viewing experience, depending on who's
> doing the viewing; but when looking at these toggling clips (linked
> below), it can't be any more obvious that both JFK and Connally are
> reacting at the SAME EXACT TIME to some kind of external stimulus.
>
The Zapruder film which shows that Kennedy's hand was blocking any
possible SBT bullet from hitting Connally.
> And since that "stimulus" is probably a rifle bullet (seeing as how
> rifle bullets were being fired at the car during the few seconds in
> question here), it's quite likely that both mens' "reactions" seen
> below are due to THE SAME BULLET PIERCING THEM BOTH:
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
>
>
>
>
> 4.) The "lining up" of the wounds on the two different victims (which
> pretty much perfectly match the way the two men were seated in the
> limousine, in relation to one another), with both men being hit in the
> BACK with a bullet....and Kennedy having a bullet hole in his throat
> AND NO BULLETS LEFT INSIDE HIM AT AUTOPSY.
>
It only works when people like Dale Myers lie about the locations of the
wounds.
My, my, we just can't have that, can we? Because it suggests conspiracy.
> Such anti-SBT scenarios involving three or four bullets in lieu of
> CE399 are scenarios that belong in the file marked "Totally Ridiculous
> And Impossible JFK Conspiracy Theories".
>
>
>
>>>> "{Kennedy had} an entrance wound on his right temple at the
> hairline..." <<<
>
> Says who? Certainly not the three different autopsists at Bethesda who
> examined the body of President Kennedy first-hand.
>
You mean the guys who thought the bullet which hit his back only went in
a couple of inches and then worked itself out? Are those the "experts"
you are citing?
> But a rabid conspiracy promoter ALWAYS knows more than Doctors Humes,
> Finck, and Boswell. Right?
>
Even someone like you knows that Humes's idea was impossible.
LIE.
> RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
> evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."
>
> RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
> President's head was the entry wound?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
>
>
>
> Logical follow-up question: WHY would Dr. Humes volunteer to appear in
> front of the CBS cameras and utter the above remarks if the above
> remarks weren't the absolute truth as Humes saw them?
>
Because he was told that it was a matter of National Security.
> If Humes had been a rotten, deceitful liar from the get-go in November
> 1963 (as many CTers believe him to be), he would never have appeared
> on CBS-TV in 1967 and made the above-quoted comments. Simple as that.
> To believe otherwise is just dumb.
>
Yes, he would have. Government stooges often go on TV to deceive the
public.
>
>
>>>> "{Kennedy had} and an exit wound on the right rear of his head." <<<
>
> And this X-ray (linked below) proves beyond all possible doubt that
> the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who claimed that JFK had a gaping
> wound in the back of his head were all 100% wrong.
>
> The back portions of President Kennedy's head are completely intact.
> There is no hole in the right-rear of the skull whatsoever. In fact,
> there aren't even any fracture lines on this X-ray in the area of
> JFK's head where the Parkland witnesses said there was a large hole.
> Just look:
>
No fracture lines? Are you a board certified radiologist to make a
statement like that, which is in contradiction to all the experts who
have testified about this case?
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>
>
>
> Is the above X-ray a "fake" too? The conspiracy crowd has no choice
> but to believe that it is a fake or a fraud (if they want to push the
> idea that a large wound was present at the far-right-rear of Kennedy's
> skull).
>
Nonsense. I do not have to claim that it is a fake. But YOU are not
qualified to examine it. I have said that there is no wound on the back of
the head, no entrance, no exit.
> Which, in turn, of course, means that those CTers now must travel even
> further down Conspiracy Avenue and also accuse every single member of
> the HSCA's Photographic Panel of being either liars or incompetent
> boobs....because that panel (which consisted of almost 20 members if I
> recollect correctly) declared the following in 1978 with respect to
> the autopsy photos and X-rays (including, of course, the X-ray linked
> above, which shows no rear skull damage at all):
>
>
> "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
> were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
> they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA; Vol. 7; Pg. 41
>
Yeah, but that does not mean that your interpretation is correct.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be46d0872dbcf3c6
>
>
>
> It's readily apparent how silly the position of conspiracy theorists
> truly is when we start factoring in all of the various "layers" of
> conspirators and after-the-fact "cover-up" agents and rotten liars
> that the CTers need to have firmly (and forever) in place in order for
> any of their theories to work out properly.
>
> Per CTers, the Warren Commission was filled with nothing but rotten
> liars and cover-up agents....and evidently so was the HSCA for the
> most part (since they came to the same identical "OSWALD WAS THE ONLY
> GUNMAN WHO HIT ANY VICTIMS" conclusion that the WC came to).
>
The second HSCA was preparing to endorse the WC cover-up.
David Von Pein
>>> "Nonsense." <<<
Naturally.
>>> "We could also make fun of you by asking why the bullet which went
through Kennedy's head did not hit Connally who was sitting almost
directly in front of the man that the bullet just came out of." <<<
The two shots are not at all the same in this regard (of course you
already know that).
Do you expect a bullet hitting hard bone/(skull) to remain on the exact
same trajectory line after hitting said bone head-on and at full speed?
>>> "And don't say "almost directly" {when referring to Connally's seated
position in the limo in relation to President Kennedy's}. That is what the
conspiracy believers say and the WC defenders criticize them for." <<<
Why?
"Almost directly" is more accurate. So why shouldn't I use those words?
They're correct ones.
>>> "We can't tell whom you are talking about when you constantly snip out
the context." <<<
Click the Amazon links provided. That's why I included them.*
* = Such links are included mainly for my own archives and future
reference, of course. But also for others to peruse (i.e., that one
"lurker" per month that wanders in here).
And as can be evidenced by the chats at Amazon, RCD (Rabid Conspiracy
Disease) is not just confined to our lovely little group here at aaj and
acj.
That's kinda nice to know anyway...huh Tony?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Nonsense." <<<
>
> Naturally.
>
>
>>>> "We could also make fun of you by asking why the bullet which went
> through Kennedy's head did not hit Connally who was sitting almost
> directly in front of the man that the bullet just came out of." <<<
>
> The two shots are not at all the same in this regard (of course you
> already know that).
>
> Do you expect a bullet hitting hard bone/(skull) to remain on the exact
> same trajectory line after hitting said bone head-on and at full speed?
>
Not I. But I am sure that WC defenders would do so if they needed it for
their theory. Many WC defenders wanted a perfectly straight line with no
deflections for their SBTs.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "And don't say "almost directly" {when referring to Connally's seated
> position in the limo in relation to President Kennedy's}. That is what the
> conspiracy believers say and the WC defenders criticize them for." <<<
>
> Why?
>
> "Almost directly" is more accurate. So why shouldn't I use those words?
> They're correct ones.
>
Because you are trying to get away with something that WC defenders bash
conspiracy believers for.
>
>>>> "We can't tell whom you are talking about when you constantly snip out
> the context." <<<
>
> Click the Amazon links provided. That's why I included them.*
>
> www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1YSP01LF3V5LS/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=29&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1IGXMDCYU8T97#Mx1IGXMDCYU8T97
>
>
> www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1YSP01LF3V5LS/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=32&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxAQ0QQG1J8VFN#MxAQ0QQG1J8VFN
>
>
>
> * = Such links are included mainly for my own archives and future
> reference, of course. But also for others to peruse (i.e., that one
> "lurker" per month that wanders in here).
>
> And as can be evidenced by the chats at Amazon, RCD (Rabid Conspiracy
> Disease) is not just confined to our lovely little group here at aaj and
> acj.
>
You really anticipated that all 89% who believe in conspiracy inhabit
only this newsgroup?
David Von Pein
>>> "You really anticipated that all 89% who believe in conspiracy inhabit
only this newsgroup?" <<<
No, of course not. Not by a longshot. I was merely pointing out some "FYI"
type of info re. Amazon and its assorted oddballs who believe in
conspiracy too.
10-4?
Anthony Marsh
Oh, you mean like the WC defenders who believe in wacky conspiracies,
like the ACLU trying to take over the world, or that the Earth is flat,
or that Oswald was working for Castro?
> 10-4?
>
9/11 was an accident?
David Von Pein
"Oswald's Ghost" filmmaker Robert Stone is interviewed in late Feb.
2008: