How dishonest was Oliver Stone?
bigdog
just concentrate on one of his more glaring deceptions. I refer to the
seen where Garrison and his assistant are in the sniper's nest.
The assistant starts the lying by saying the Zapruder film established
3 shots in 5.6 seconds. Of course that is ridiculous since the
Zapruder film contained no sound. But that is just the start of the
lies in this scene. He then goes on to state the the WC concluded the
first shot missed which should have been the most accurate, which is
not true either, but that is minor compared to the most blatant
bullshit in this scene. The facts are that the WC concluded that the
two shots that hit JFK came between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds apart. They
came to no conclusion about which shot missed but did conclude that
all three shots had to be fired in 5.6 seconds or less only if the
SECOND shot missed. It could not have been more dishonest for Oliver
Stone to claim 3 shots in 5.6 seconds and in the next breath claim the
WC found that the first shot missed. To argue against one or the other
position is valid, but the two scenarios are mutually exclusive. To
argue both points simultaneously shows Stone had no interest in
producing an honest piece of work. Furthermore, Oliver Stone had to
know that these arguments were mutually exclusive or maybe I am giving
Stone too much credit.
I will leave it to the Stone apologists on this board. Do you believe
your hero was a lying motherfucker or just a lying moron. There is no
third possibility.
Fat...@aol.com
Stone's old Company Commander in Vietnam says that Stone was a good
soldier but he must have used too many drugs since coming home.
I don't believe Stone is a dumbass so I'll go with the using too many
drugs since coming home. That and the fact that Stone is out to sell
his movies, not tell the truth.
Bill Clarke
David Von Pein
Oliver Stone, in a huge LOL-inducing hunk of irony, goes on to show ON
FILM in his movie that "3 shots in 5.6 seconds" (actually a tad less
than that per the scene in question in Stone's film) WAS, indeed,
possible from a manual bolt-actual rifle like Oswald's......
OSWALD'S SHOOTING PERFORMANCE....AND OLIVER STONE'S BLUNDER:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9bce073792dae800
In addition: A fellow LNer at another forum astutely pointed out yet
another unintentional gaffe on Mr. Stone's part -- i.e., Stone's
"sniper's nest" camera views during the film almost perfectly "line
up" the SBT shot during the movie "JFK", depicting Connally right in
front of Kennedy from a "SN" POV at a point in time when Oswald would,
indeed, have been firing his second shot at the man seated in the back
seat of the limousine.
Go figure the irony of such unintentional bloopers. Hilarious.
THE BRAINWASHING OF AMERICA (A LA OLIVER STONE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/22e70f88404a998b
bigdog
David, these are just too funny. I had no idea Stone's recreation had
actually performed the shooting in under 5.6 seconds. I can't wait to
spring that little piece of information on a couple CT friends of mine
who actually believe Stone's movie is an important piece of history.
It's a piece of something that doesn't smell anything like history.
aeffects
oh Dave.... you jealous fuck.... when you know how to write, produce,
direct -- you're successful, simple as that.... learn the lesson well
aeffects
bigdog.... is there a Lone Nut dick you won't suck?
aeffects
Oh all this nonsense about Oliver Stone's JFK is just that
nonsense.... The guy lived the Vietnam reality, unlike most of the
cowardly Lone Nut pukes that post here.... I LOVE to see them squirm,
you can feel the "I Should of Went..." ooze out of them....
Bud
Keep trying, junkie, some day you`ll squeeze out a coherent
thought .I think what Healy is trying to say is that Stone`s ideas are
valid, as evidenced by his ability to make a movie expressing those
ideas.
robcap...@netscape.com
> A book could be written about the falsehood's in his JFK movie. I'll
> just concentrate on one of his more glaring deceptions. "
I refer to the seen where Garrison and his assistant are in the
sniper's nest. The assistant starts the lying by saying the Zapruder
film established 3 shots in 5.6 seconds. Of course that is ridiculous
since the Zapruder film contained no sound."
This made my day, as it is the funniest thing I think I have read
about this case in a long time, even funnier than DVP thinking a t.v.
docu-drama conviction was proof that LHO was really guilty. They
based the time sequence on the frames of the Z-film, first they
identified (incorrectly of course) when the first shot was fired and
corrolated that to the appropriate frame. Then they went to the
second shot and finally the third shot. Each frame is 1/18th of a
second, so you simply count the frames to reach a timing sequence,
SOUND had nothing to do with it. LOL!
"Of course that is ridiculous since the Zapruder film contained no
sound."
Simply amazing, no wonder he believes the WCR. You are too much
YoHarvey!
David Von Pein
His last three, however, didn't even come close. Which means Healy's
still batting .000 for the season...and for his stellar career.
And three "thoughts" inside of 6 minutes too. Holy Mackerel! It surely
must be time to flop back in the hammock with the bong after such a
tiring display of triple-kookshit. (Shirley.)
I await more greatness from the dredge of bongdom come 3:30 AM EST,
when the Healy-meister posts his daily say-nothing retorts, featuring
the oh-so-inventive "<snip the nutter nonsense>" signature.
With kooks like Healy in the CT crowd, it makes even Brian D. "Secret
Compartment In The Limo" Andersen seem sane. And that is, indeed, hard
to do, given that kook's theory.
lazu...@webtv.net
of the Warren Report.
The Warren Report conclusions were supposedly drawn from the 26 volumes
of testimony and exhibits, but these are sometimes contradictory to the
WC's conclusions.
Stone's movie has a complementary "Book of the film", with complete
screenplay, accompanied by footnotes explaining and documenting each
scene. Unlike the WC, whose own evidence contradicts the LN scenario,
the book's cites do not contradict the film's thesis of conspiracy. So
which is more credible?
LN'ers usually are not even familiar with the WC's contradictory
evidence. And I haven't noticed where even a single LN'er has even heard
of "JFK, the Book of the Film", so any opinions they render in this
regard can be taken for what they're worth---nothing------Old Laz, and
you can take that opinion to the bank.
bigdog
Of course there is contradictory evidence. With so many statements
take, so many witnesses with so many different versions of the same
event, how could there not be contradictory evidence. If someone says
there were 3 shots and someone else says there were 2 shots, and
someone else says there were 4 shots, should the WC have concluded
they were all correct. Or should they have looked at the body of
evidence and determined which if any of these recollections was true.
That is exactly what they did. They determined which evidence was
probative and which should be rejected. The conflicts rest almost
entirely with the recollections of witnesses which are notoriously
unreliable. ALL the verifiable hard evidence points to one conclusion
only, that Oswald was the killer. There is no conflict with that
evidence.
bigdog
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll go slow, Chico, so you can follow along. By itself, the Z-film
cannot establish how long it took to fire the shots. We can see
definitively when the head shot struck. We know approximately when the
single bullet struck from the reactions of JFK and JBC. By itself, the
Z-film can only give clues as to when the missed shot was fired and
then only in concunction with the recollections of witnesses who are
obvserved in the Z-film. From that a strong case can be made for the
first shot around Z-160, but certainly not definitive proof. If that
was not the time of the first shot, then there is no clear answer on
when that missed shot was fired. Whether the first shot came about
Z160 or not, it is a flat out lie to say that the Z-film established
there were 3 shots in 5.6 seconds or less. It could only do that if
there was clear indication of a missed shot between Z210 and Z313. Do
you see any such indication? If so, please point it out. Otherwise it
is a flat out lie that the Z-film establishes 3 shots in 5.6 seconds.
aeffects
grow up son.... not how its done in the good ole USofA... The WCR
fulfilled an agenda, just like you are currently doing..... truck on,
hon!
aeffects
sitdown you tinfoil-beanie puke.... when I want something from you
I'll squeeze that pus filled head of yours when required....
aeffects
you're not going to sell anymore books, Reitzes..... it's over! Even
the paperback edition is being panned, and daBugliosi has faded from
public view.... when the hell are you going to wise up? When HBO says
it won't produce the JFK segment? LMFAO!
bigdog
I just went to a website that had a WAV file of the scene in question.
I timed the sequence myself. I took 5 separate times, which were in in
order 5.29, 5.29, 5.35, 5.25, and 5.28. This yields an average of
5.292 seconds. I timed it from the first click to the third click. If
one begins the timing when Garrison(Costner) says "Go", the times came
out about .35 seconds longer. I took 3 times that way, 5.65, 5.59, and
5.63. The first way more accurately recreates the shooting because the
clock should start with the first shot.
lazu...@webtv.net
these same witnesses' testimony/observations are documented in "JFK, the
Book of the Film". So who used the witnesses more honestly, the Warren
commission or Oliver Stone?----Old Laz
bigdog
Oh, like Jean Hill who embellished her story so much from what she
reported on day one. She gave her initial recollections of the
shooting to a radio reporter. She said saw a man running along the GK
but did not see a shooter. Oliver Stone somehow concluded this was
Jack Ruby (aka Brian Doyle Murray). She also said she ran up the GK
after seeing the police going up there, which is supported by the film
record. She did not run up the GK because she had seen a shooter. She
added that in later.
Or maybe Nellie Connally who on day one reported that the first shot
hit JFK in the head. Would you like to try that one on for size.
Bill Newman thought JFK stood up when first hit and thought the head
shot blew his ear off. We know those things didn't happen but that is
what he honestly believed. I don't mean to be critical of him. Like
everyone else in Dealey Plaza, the shooting caught him completely by
surprise and even though he had a front row view, he got a lot of
things wrong. That is to be expected. To most of those witness, the
8-9 seconds over which the shooting occured probably seemed like a
blur. They testified as best they could but they simply did not
remember things precisely and that can be proven beyond any doubt
whatsoever.
Most of the witnesses did not contradict the conclusions of the WC.
Some did, some didn't. So what. What would you expect. The physical
evidence is all on the side of the the WCR. If you don't agree, name
the best piece of physical evidence which supports a conspiracy. Or
two or three if you like.
lazu...@webtv.net
"---name the best piece of physical evidence which supports a
conspiracy. Or two or three if you like."
There's so many, where to begin. Well, how about the Harper fragment?
The only three medical doctors to ever examine it firsthand pronounced
it to be occipital bone, and you know what that means.
By the way, what do you think happened to this evidence?
The President's skull X rays show a "snowstorm" of fine particles. FMJ
bullets don't spray lead. So you know what that means. You wouldn't
happen to know where the brain is by chance?
BTW, speaking of X rays, what happened to the full cervical X ray, you
know, the one which Custer said showed bullet fragments in the
mid-cervical level. Did this fall through the same crack as did the
Harper fragment, the three fragments found under Nellie Connolly's seat,
the brain, tissue slides, a couple dozen or so of the autopsy
photographs, half that number of the X rays, plus the limo's windshield
(before replacement)? That's a pretty big crack in the floor for just
this sampling of lost evidence to fall through, which you probably think
is merely coincidental anyway.
There are other examples of physical evidence which point to conspiracy,
but why waste my time? A closed mind gathers no facts.-------Old Laz
bigdog
> Bigdog wants to know:
>
> "---name the best piece of physical evidence which supports a
> conspiracy. Or two or three if you like."
>
> There's so many, where to begin. Well, how about the Harper fragment?
> The only three medical doctors to ever examine it firsthand pronounced
> it to be occipital bone, and you know what that means.
Yes. It confirms the description of the blowout wound in JFK's skull.
Primarily in the parietal area, but extending into the temporal and
occipital regions. The Harper fragment came from the portion of the
occipital that was blown out. The parietal/temporal skull fragment
remained attached to the scalp. \
> By the way, what do you think happened to this evidence?
>
I don't have it.
> The President's skull X rays show a "snowstorm" of fine particles. FMJ
> bullets don't spray lead. So you know what that means.
Yes. The metal jacket broke apart exposing the lead core. That's what
that means. Test bullets fired into human skulls showed similar
deformities.
> You wouldn't happen to know where the brain is by chance?
I don't have it.
> BTW, speaking of X rays, what happened to the full cervical X ray, you
> know, the one which Custer said showed bullet fragments in the
> mid-cervical level.
I don't have it.
> Did this fall through the same crack as did the
> Harper fragment, the three fragments found under Nellie Connolly's seat,
> the brain, tissue slides, a couple dozen or so of the autopsy
> photographs, half that number of the X rays, plus the limo's windshield
> (before replacement)? That's a pretty big crack in the floor for just
> this sampling of lost evidence to fall through, which you probably think
> is merely coincidental anyway.
The fact that you don't know where this evidence is proves absolutely
nothing other than you are totally lacking in any physical evidence
which indicates conspiracy. When you find it and it proves there was
second shooter, you will have something. Until then, you have nada.
>
> There are other examples of physical evidence which point to conspiracy,
> but why waste my time? A closed mind gathers no facts.-------Old Laz
If there are other examples of physical evidence which points to a
conspiracy, obviously you cannot say what they are. I asked for hard
physical evidence and you come back with a bag full of air. You can't
prove something with nothing. Nice try. Thanks for playing.
aeffects
> On Dec 24, 7:38 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > Bigdog wants to know:
>
> > "---name the best piece of physical evidence which supports a
> > conspiracy. Or two or three if you like."
>
> > There's so many, where to begin. Well, how about the Harper fragment?
> > The only three medical doctors to ever examine it firsthand pronounced
> > it to be occipital bone, and you know what that means.
>
> Yes. It confirms the description of the blowout wound in JFK's skull.
> Primarily in the parietal area, but extending into the temporal and
> occipital regions. The Harper fragment came from the portion of the
> occipital that was blown out. The parietal/temporal skull fragment
> remained attached to the scalp. \
>
> > By the way, what do you think happened to this evidence?
>
> I don't have it.
this turd (fondly known as SCAB) is so full of shit he reminds me of
Davey -Boyo- Von Pein (aka Dave Reitzes)
lazu...@webtv.net
"The Harper fragment came from the portion of the occipital that was
blown out."
Glad you agree that this fragment was occipital bone. You do know that
the occipital region of the skull is entirely behind the ears? If you
don't, then please refer to a general anatomy book.
Now take a look at the BOH photograph, which shows the entire rear of
the head behind the ears, and tell me just where in that photo does it
show the blow out behind the ears where the Harper fragment came from?
The BOH photo is another piece of physical evidence of conspiracy,
conspiracy to cover-up.
Getting back to the witnesses which you so maliciously trashed (and I
include the other nutters on this forum), you haven't earned the right
to trash anyone, least of all those people who witnessed something
different from the LHO did it alone scenario, and this includes most of
them. On this day particularly you and the other clone nutters should
apologize and atone. Merry Christmas----Old Laz
bigdog
If you are referring to the photo I think you are, the one where JFK's
head is held up by a shank of hair showing the entrance wound, it is
my understanding that the scalp has been pulled up over the defect in
the skull. There is actually a void in the skull underneath that
scalp.
Just which witnesses do you accuse me of maliciously trashing. Bill
Newman? Nellie Connally? I simply pointed out obvious mistakes they
made in their accounts of the shooting, mistakes that were very
understandable given the circumstances. I accused these human beings
of being human. What was I thinking? As for Jean Hill, she wasn't
satisfied with her 15 minutes of fame. She wanted more so she kept
embellishing her story to satisfy the appetites of CTs who eagerly ate
it up. I have no problem trashing her, maliciously or otherwise. No
apology or atonement will be forth coming.
I do note that you have yet to provide any physical evidence of a
second shooter. Your claims of a forged BOH photo, even if true, do
not meet that test. If that photo were a forgery, it would simply have
to be tossed out, which still leaves you with absolutely nothing.
Rich DellaRosa
It might be wise to remember that Olver Stone didn't make a documentary.
He was not sworn under oath, nor were his researchers or screenwriters. Nor
was Stone charged with performing an official investigation of the
assassination.
As a movie producer he was entitled take literary license.
The Warren Commission on the other hand and their staff and counsels
WERE sworn to tell the truth; they WERE charged with performing an
official investigation, and were NOT entitled to take literary license with
the truth.
So lambaste Stone if you believe it enhances your view of the
assassination --
but don't omit the Warren Commission from your scrutiny. Each member
expressed doubts about their own report before each died. Certain key
witnesses were ignored, testmony changed, etc.
Of course, one must actually READ the WCR -- as opposed to vegging out
in front
of the TV watching a movie.
When Tom Hanks airs his serialization of Bugliosi's book, you can then
veg out and
watch the TV. And -- if you watch closely, you'll notice it s full of
Bugl-sh*t.
Bud
lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bigdog barked:
>
> "The Harper fragment came from the portion of the occipital that was
> blown out."
>
> Glad you agree that this fragment was occipital bone.
A good article on the Harper fragment by Paul Seaton can be found
here...
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/F8/Fox_Eight.htm
The Harper fragment was found far ahead of where the limo was when
Kennedy was struck in the head. How does bone from the back of
Kennedy`s head fly forward from a shot from the front?
aeffects
all excellent points Rich.....
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>Bigdog barked:
>
>"The Harper fragment came from the portion of the occipital that was
>blown out."
>
>Glad you agree that this fragment was occipital bone. You do know that
>the occipital region of the skull is entirely behind the ears?
And *the rear of the head*.
>If you don't, then please refer to a general anatomy book.
Or you can look here:
http://www.upstate.edu/cdb/grossanat/hnsklatob.shtml
>Now take a look at the BOH photograph, which shows the entire rear of
>the head behind the ears, and tell me just where in that photo does it
>show the blow out behind the ears where the Harper fragment came from?
Or, conversely, simply point out on the BOH photo that area of the occipital
WHICH CANNOT BE SEEN on the photo.
It doesn't exist... *ALL* of the occipital can be seen on the BOH photo - and
the wound, devoid of skull & scalp, and supposedly extending into the occipital,
simply doesn't exist on the BOH photo.
The same photo, by the way, that Mantik could easily detect as altered by means
of stereoscopic viewing.
>The BOH photo is another piece of physical evidence of conspiracy,
>conspiracy to cover-up.
Yep... the *real* photo would have led to the inevitable conclusion of a shot
from either the side or front.
>Getting back to the witnesses which you so maliciously trashed (and I
>include the other nutters on this forum), you haven't earned the right
>to trash anyone, least of all those people who witnessed something
>different from the LHO did it alone scenario, and this includes most of
>them. On this day particularly you and the other clone nutters should
>apologize and atone. Merry Christmas----Old Laz
Never happen... LNT'ers and Trolls have one thing in common - they simply do
*not* ever admit to an untruth.
bigdog
>
> It might be wise to remember that Olver Stone didn't make a documentary.
> He was not sworn under oath, nor were his researchers or screenwriters. Nor
Of course not, which is why his lies were not a crime. Free speech
means people are free to lie.
> was Stone charged with performing an official investigation of the
> assassination.
> As a movie producer he was entitled take literary license.
>
Which is a nice way of saying his movie was fictional, not a
historical docudrama.
> The Warren Commission on the other hand and their staff and counsels
> WERE sworn to tell the truth; they WERE charged with performing an
> official investigation, and were NOT entitled to take literary license with
> the truth.
>
They didn't.
> So lambaste Stone if you believe it enhances your view of the
> assassination --
> but don't omit the Warren Commission from your scrutiny. Each member
> expressed doubts about their own report before each died. Certain key
> witnesses were ignored, testmony changed, etc.
>
Rejected is not the same as ignored. Testimony that was provably wrong
was rejected not ignored. When you have many witnessess giving
conflicting versions of the same event, and also conflicting with the
physical evidence, it is illogical to accept what all of them say as
factual.
> Of course, one must actually READ the WCR -- as opposed to vegging out
> in front
> of the TV watching a movie.
>
Agreed. I would venture to say far more people have seen Oliver
Stone's fictional work than have read the factual account contained in
the WCR. This goes a long way to explaining why a majority of
Americans believe there was a conspiracy.
> When Tom Hanks airs his serialization of Bugliosi's book, you can then
> veg out and
> watch the TV. And -- if you watch closely, you'll notice it s full of
> Bugl-sh*t.-
Well you CTs should be in heaven with another factual account of the
assassination to trash. I'm perfectly willing to bet dollars to donuts
that this presentation stands up a whole lot better and a whole lot
longer than Oliver Stone's fairy tale.
lazu...@webtv.net
"it is my understanding that the scalp has been pulled up over the
defect in the skull.
There is actually a void in the skull underneath that scalp."
So you admit to a blowout in the rear of the skull, but the autopsists
disguised it in the photo by pulling the scalp over it??!!!
Now why would they want to do a thing like that? Isn't it the purpose of
autopsy photographs to truthfully depict all wounds, especially the
major one which was the cause of death? If they pulled up the scalp to
show the autopsists' designated entrance wound near the EOP, they didn't
succeed did they? Humes et al, when shown this picture during the HSCA
acted like they'd never seen it before, and could not identify the
entrance wound they had described at autopsy.
Besides, if they did the above to show only the entrance wound, where
are the photos showing the massive wound in the occipital/ parietal
area, devoid of scalp and bone, to which a couple dozen witnesses
attested? If that doesn't seem like conspiracy to cover-up to you, then
get out your ice skates---hell is freezing over.-----Old Laz
Bud
lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bigdog opined:
>
> "it is my understanding that the scalp has been pulled up over the
> defect in the skull.
> There is actually a void in the skull underneath that scalp."
>
> So you admit to a blowout in the rear of the skull,
This map shows the area Harper said he found the skull fragment. How
does a rear piece of skull fly so far forward from a frontal shot?
It`s likely the large fragment seen flying forward in the z-film is
the Harper fragment.
> but the autopsists
> disguised it in the photo by pulling the scalp over it??!!!
Showing the hole in the scalp, as a way of fixing the location
where the bullet entered JFK`s head in a way the mess underneath could
not
> Now why would they want to do a thing like that? Isn't it the purpose of
> autopsy photographs to truthfully depict all wounds, especially the
> major one which was the cause of death?
Are the photos of the head wound hiding the back wound from you,
idjit? Everything a photo doesn`t show is things a photo doesn`t show.
That doesn`t establish that everything a photo doesn`t show is being
purposely hidden.
> If they pulled up the scalp to
> show the autopsists' designated entrance wound near the EOP, they didn't
> succeed did they? Humes et al, when shown this picture during the HSCA
> acted like they'd never seen it before, and could not identify the
> entrance wound they had described at autopsy.
Boswell testified to being the one holding up the scalp.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm#boswell_talks
> Besides, if they did the above to show only the entrance wound, where
> are the photos showing the massive wound in the occipital/ parietal
> area, devoid of scalp and bone, to which a couple dozen witnesses
> attested?
The wound probably was devoid of scalp and bone when the skin
wasn`t being held down like Boswell said he was doing in the BOH
photo.
Rich DellaRosa
> On Dec 25, 2:51 pm, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> It might be wise to remember that Olver Stone didn't make a documentary.
>> He was not sworn under oath, nor were his researchers or screenwriters. Nor
>
> Of course not, which is why his lies were not a crime. Free speech
> means people are free to lie.
>
>> was Stone charged with performing an official investigation of the
>> assassination.
>> As a movie producer he was entitled take literary license.
>>
> Which is a nice way of saying his movie was fictional, not a
> historical docudrama.
>
>> The Warren Commission on the other hand and their staff and counsels
>> WERE sworn to tell the truth; they WERE charged with performing an
>> official investigation, and were NOT entitled to take literary license with
>> the truth.
>>
> They didn't.
Really?? You don't think that Gerald Ford's admission that he moved the back
wound to line up the SBT wasn't in the least literary license -- and at
the worst,
obstruction of justice??
>
>> So lambaste Stone if you believe it enhances your view of the
>> assassination --
>> but don't omit the Warren Commission from your scrutiny. Each member
>> expressed doubts about their own report before each died. Certain key
>> witnesses were ignored, testmony changed, etc.
>>
> Rejected is not the same as ignored. Testimony that was provably wrong
> was rejected not ignored. When you have many witnessess giving
> conflicting versions of the same event, and also conflicting with the
> physical evidence, it is illogical to accept what all of them say as
> factual.
Whoa, they chose to not even depose some of the witnesses. When you have
conflicting versions it is even more important to question everyone
under oath.
>
>> Of course, one must actually READ the WCR -- as opposed to vegging out
>> in front
>> of the TV watching a movie.
>>
> Agreed. I would venture to say far more people have seen Oliver
> Stone's fictional work than have read the factual account contained in
> the WCR. This goes a long way to explaining why a majority of
> Americans believe there was a conspiracy.
>
>> When Tom Hanks airs his serialization of Bugliosi's book, you can then
>> veg out and
>> watch the TV. And -- if you watch closely, you'll notice it s full of
>> Bugl-sh*t.-
>
> Well you CTs should be in heaven with another factual account of the
> assassination to trash. I'm perfectly willing to bet dollars to donuts
> that this presentation stands up a whole lot better and a whole lot
> longer than Oliver Stone's fairy tale.
Sorry, the WCR is more of a fairy tale, not based on fact, while Stone's
movie
is entertainment entitling you to use the On/Off button on your remote.
Bud
Rich DellaRosa wrote:
> bigdog wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 2:51 pm, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> It might be wise to remember that Olver Stone didn't make a documentary.
> >> He was not sworn under oath, nor were his researchers or screenwriters. Nor
> >
> > Of course not, which is why his lies were not a crime. Free speech
> > means people are free to lie.
> >
> >> was Stone charged with performing an official investigation of the
> >> assassination.
> >> As a movie producer he was entitled take literary license.
> >>
> > Which is a nice way of saying his movie was fictional, not a
> > historical docudrama.
> >
> >> The Warren Commission on the other hand and their staff and counsels
> >> WERE sworn to tell the truth; they WERE charged with performing an
> >> official investigation, and were NOT entitled to take literary license with
> >> the truth.
> >>
> > They didn't.
>
> Really?? You don't think that Gerald Ford's admission that he moved the back
> wound to line up the SBT wasn't in the least literary license -- and at
> the worst,
> obstruction of justice??
Can you quote Ford making this admission?
> >> So lambaste Stone if you believe it enhances your view of the
> >> assassination --
> >> but don't omit the Warren Commission from your scrutiny. Each member
> >> expressed doubts about their own report before each died. Certain key
> >> witnesses were ignored, testmony changed, etc.
> >>
> > Rejected is not the same as ignored. Testimony that was provably wrong
> > was rejected not ignored. When you have many witnessess giving
> > conflicting versions of the same event, and also conflicting with the
> > physical evidence, it is illogical to accept what all of them say as
> > factual.
>
> Whoa, they chose to not even depose some of the witnesses. When you have
> conflicting versions it is even more important to question everyone
> under oath.
Who cares if some contradict others if they didn`t see much of
note? They needed quality, not quantity.
> >> Of course, one must actually READ the WCR -- as opposed to vegging out
> >> in front
> >> of the TV watching a movie.
> >>
> > Agreed. I would venture to say far more people have seen Oliver
> > Stone's fictional work than have read the factual account contained in
> > the WCR. This goes a long way to explaining why a majority of
> > Americans believe there was a conspiracy.
> >
> >> When Tom Hanks airs his serialization of Bugliosi's book, you can then
> >> veg out and
> >> watch the TV. And -- if you watch closely, you'll notice it s full of
> >> Bugl-sh*t.-
> >
> > Well you CTs should be in heaven with another factual account of the
> > assassination to trash. I'm perfectly willing to bet dollars to donuts
> > that this presentation stands up a whole lot better and a whole lot
> > longer than Oliver Stone's fairy tale.
>
> Sorry, the WCR is more of a fairy tale,
Pretty bland fairy tale, it`s actually the simpiliest explaination
possible. Political malcontent takes his rifle to work and shoots a
political figure. The kook version has all the fantastic and
extraordinary occuring, conspiracy elves everywhere using their pixie
dust on people and making them bear false witness against the poor
patsy.
> not based on fact, while Stone's
> movie
> is entertainment entitling you to use the On/Off button on your remote.
Yah, it`s true Stone wasn`t constrained by reality in making this
flick, my complaint was that he didn`t go far enough. Perhaps put a
duck`s bill on Oz, maybe have Garrison talk like a pirate (Arrgg, back
and to the left, buckoos!"). The film needed something to add some
pizazz.
bigdog
They were trying to show the position of the entrance wound. If they
don't pull the scalp up into position, they can't do that. DUH!!!
There are other photos which show the extent of the large defect in
the skull. Essentially, what they had before them was Humpty Dumpty.
JFK's skull had been shattered to pieces. Some of those pieces were
still attached. To show them in there proper position, some
reconstruction was necessary. It is the mindset of the CTs to look for
something sinister in every action taken by the authorities following
the JFK assassination. It is one of the primary reasons they have
become so hopelessly lost.
bigdog
> bigdog wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 2:51 pm, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> It might be wise to remember that Olver Stone didn't make a documentary.
> >> He was not sworn under oath, nor were his researchers or screenwriters. Nor
>
> > Of course not, which is why his lies were not a crime. Free speech
> > means people are free to lie.
>
> >> was Stone charged with performing an official investigation of the
> >> assassination.
> >> As a movie producer he was entitled take literary license.
>
> > Which is a nice way of saying his movie was fictional, not a
> > historical docudrama.
>
> >> The Warren Commission on the other hand and their staff and counsels
> >> WERE sworn to tell the truth; they WERE charged with performing an
> >> official investigation, and were NOT entitled to take literary license with
> >> the truth.
>
> > They didn't.
>
> Really?? You don't think that Gerald Ford's admission that he moved the back
> wound to line up the SBT wasn't in the least literary license -- and at
> the worst,
> obstruction of justice??
>
I don't suppose you would like to quote him verbatim.
>
>
> >> So lambaste Stone if you believe it enhances your view of the
> >> assassination --
> >> but don't omit the Warren Commission from your scrutiny. Each member
> >> expressed doubts about their own report before each died. Certain key
You mean to tell me that after 9 months of examining 26 volumes worth
of evidence, some members of the WC didn't agree on every single
point. STOP THE PRESSES!!!
> >> witnesses were ignored, testmony changed, etc.
>
> > Rejected is not the same as ignored. Testimony that was provably wrong
> > was rejected not ignored. When you have many witnessess giving
> > conflicting versions of the same event, and also conflicting with the
> > physical evidence, it is illogical to accept what all of them say as
> > factual.
>
> Whoa, they chose to not even depose some of the witnesses. When you have
> conflicting versions it is even more important to question everyone
> under oath.
>
Evidently, they determined it would be a more productive use of their
time to depose those whose initial statements indicated they had
something to offer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Of course, one must actually READ the WCR -- as opposed to vegging out
> >> in front
> >> of the TV watching a movie.
>
> > Agreed. I would venture to say far more people have seen Oliver
> > Stone's fictional work than have read the factual account contained in
> > the WCR. This goes a long way to explaining why a majority of
> > Americans believe there was a conspiracy.
>
> >> When Tom Hanks airs his serialization of Bugliosi's book, you can then
> >> veg out and
> >> watch the TV. And -- if you watch closely, you'll notice it s full of
> >> Bugl-sh*t.-
>
> > Well you CTs should be in heaven with another factual account of the
> > assassination to trash. I'm perfectly willing to bet dollars to donuts
> > that this presentation stands up a whole lot better and a whole lot
> > longer than Oliver Stone's fairy tale.
>
> Sorry, the WCR is more of a fairy tale, not based on fact, while Stone's
> movie
> is entertainment entitling you to use the On/Off button on your remote.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Has the WCR ever been required reading other than perhaps in a college
course about the assassination. No one has to see Stone's movie nor
read the WCR. I also don't beleieve LNs think Stone should have been
prohibitted from putting as much bullshit into his movie as he could
cram into 3 hours and 20 minutes. It's a free country and bullshit is
protected speech. Stone was free to say whatever he wanted to about
the assassination just as I am free to say whatever I want about his
shitass movie.
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>Bigdog opined:
>
>"it is my understanding that the scalp has been pulled up over the
>defect in the skull.
>There is actually a void in the skull underneath that scalp."
>
>So you admit to a blowout in the rear of the skull, but the autopsists
>disguised it in the photo by pulling the scalp over it??!!!
>Now why would they want to do a thing like that? Isn't it the purpose of
>autopsy photographs to truthfully depict all wounds, especially the
>major one which was the cause of death? If they pulled up the scalp to
>show the autopsists' designated entrance wound near the EOP, they didn't
>succeed did they? Humes et al, when shown this picture during the HSCA
>acted like they'd never seen it before, and could not identify the
>entrance wound they had described at autopsy.
>
>Besides, if they did the above to show only the entrance wound, where
>are the photos showing the massive wound in the occipital/ parietal
>area, devoid of scalp and bone, to which a couple dozen witnesses
>attested?
Not just eyewitnesses, the official autopsy report ALSO states that the large
head wound was devoid of scalp and bone.
Mighty stretchable scalp - to be able to pull over an area that has no scalp!
And yet, look -normal- on the photo.
>If that doesn't seem like conspiracy to cover-up to you, then
>get out your ice skates---hell is freezing over.-----Old Laz
Bigdog's just a troll - he'll never admit facts that prove a conspiracy.
Nor will he be honest with the known historical facts...
Ben Holmes
>
>bigdog wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 2:51 pm, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> It might be wise to remember that Olver Stone didn't make a documentary.
>>> He was not sworn under oath, nor were his researchers or screenwriters. Nor
>>
>> Of course not, which is why his lies were not a crime. Free speech
>> means people are free to lie.
If lying were a crime, the LNT'er faction and the numerous trolls would all be
in jail.
>>> was Stone charged with performing an official investigation of the
>>> assassination.
>>> As a movie producer he was entitled take literary license.
>>>
>> Which is a nice way of saying his movie was fictional, not a
>> historical docudrama.
>>
>>> The Warren Commission on the other hand and their staff and counsels
>>> WERE sworn to tell the truth; they WERE charged with performing an
>>> official investigation, and were NOT entitled to take literary license with
>>> the truth.
>>>
>> They didn't.
>
>Really?? You don't think that Gerald Ford's admission that he moved the back
>wound to line up the SBT wasn't in the least literary license -- and at
>the worst,
>obstruction of justice??
Trolls *know* that this was a lie - yet they'll duck and run until hell freezes
over before they admit it.
>>> So lambaste Stone if you believe it enhances your view of the
>>> assassination --
>>> but don't omit the Warren Commission from your scrutiny. Each member
>>> expressed doubts about their own report before each died. Certain key
>>> witnesses were ignored, testmony changed, etc.
>>>
>> Rejected is not the same as ignored. Testimony that was provably wrong
>> was rejected not ignored. When you have many witnessess giving
>> conflicting versions of the same event, and also conflicting with the
>> physical evidence, it is illogical to accept what all of them say as
>> factual.
>
>Whoa, they chose to not even depose some of the witnesses. When you have
>conflicting versions it is even more important to question everyone
>under oath.
Yep... the trolls would have you believe that it's perfectly ordinary to simply
forget to ask a SINGLE question of the closest police eyewitness to the murder -
who was less than a dozen feet away at the time of the murder.
Or depose the President's doctor, despite the many medical questions that were
*NEVER* resolved.
Trolls don't have a choice... they must simply lie about the facts.
>>> Of course, one must actually READ the WCR -- as opposed to vegging out
>>> in front
>>> of the TV watching a movie.
>>>
>> Agreed. I would venture to say far more people have seen Oliver
>> Stone's fictional work than have read the factual account contained in
>> the WCR. This goes a long way to explaining why a majority of
>> Americans believe there was a conspiracy.
Sadly for this bit of spin, there has *NEVER* been a time when even a simple
majority of Americans believed the WCR.
Never.
And this was long before Oliver Stone's movie.
>>> When Tom Hanks airs his serialization of Bugliosi's book, you can then
>>> veg out and
>>> watch the TV. And -- if you watch closely, you'll notice it s full of
>>> Bugl-sh*t.-
>>
>> Well you CTs should be in heaven with another factual account of the
>> assassination to trash. I'm perfectly willing to bet dollars to donuts
>> that this presentation stands up a whole lot better and a whole lot
>> longer than Oliver Stone's fairy tale.
>
>Sorry, the WCR is more of a fairy tale, not based on fact, while Stone's
>movie is entertainment entitling you to use the On/Off button on your
>remote.
This explains why the trolls such as Bigdog can't debate the actual facts in
this case. They think the WCR is factual... and have no-where to go when it's
pointed out that the evidence simply doesn't support it.
Rich DellaRosa
>
> Rich DellaRosa wrote:
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On Dec 25, 2:51 pm, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> It might be wise to remember that Olver Stone didn't make a documentary.
>>>> He was not sworn under oath, nor were his researchers or screenwriters. Nor
>>> Of course not, which is why his lies were not a crime. Free speech
>>> means people are free to lie.
>>>
>>>> was Stone charged with performing an official investigation of the
>>>> assassination.
>>>> As a movie producer he was entitled take literary license.
>>>>
>>> Which is a nice way of saying his movie was fictional, not a
>>> historical docudrama.
>>>
>>>> The Warren Commission on the other hand and their staff and counsels
>>>> WERE sworn to tell the truth; they WERE charged with performing an
>>>> official investigation, and were NOT entitled to take literary license with
>>>> the truth.
>>>>
>>> They didn't.
>> Really?? You don't think that Gerald Ford's admission that he moved the back
>> wound to line up the SBT wasn't in the least literary license -- and at
>> the worst,
>> obstruction of justice??
>
> Can you quote Ford making this admission?
New York Times: http://jfkresearch.com/Gallery_10/images/nytimes.jpg
Rich DellaRosa
> On Dec 25, 6:29 pm, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On Dec 25, 2:51 pm, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> It might be wise to remember that Olver Stone didn't make a documentary.
>>>> He was not sworn under oath, nor were his researchers or screenwriters. Nor
>>> Of course not, which is why his lies were not a crime. Free speech
>>> means people are free to lie.
>>>> was Stone charged with performing an official investigation of the
>>>> assassination.
>>>> As a movie producer he was entitled take literary license.
>>> Which is a nice way of saying his movie was fictional, not a
>>> historical docudrama.
>>>> The Warren Commission on the other hand and their staff and counsels
>>>> WERE sworn to tell the truth; they WERE charged with performing an
>>>> official investigation, and were NOT entitled to take literary license with
>>>> the truth.
>>> They didn't.
>> Really?? You don't think that Gerald Ford's admission that he moved the back
>> wound to line up the SBT wasn't in the least literary license -- and at
>> the worst,
>> obstruction of justice??
>>
> I was unaware Gerald Ford had miraculous powers to move bullet holes.
> I don't suppose you would like to quote him verbatim.
http://jfkresearch.com/Gallery_10/images/nytimes.jpg
aeffects
forty years behind schedule there toots-e-roll...
> > not based on fact, while Stone's
> > movie
> > is entertainment entitling you to use the On/Off button on your remote.
>
> Yah, it`s true Stone wasn`t constrained by reality in making this
> flick, my complaint was that he didn`t go far enough. Perhaps put a
> duck`s bill on Oz, maybe have Garrison talk like a pirate (Arrgg, back
> and to the left, buckoos!"). The film needed something to add some
> pizazz.
when Nutter's fail, they actually think they can do humor.... Dudster
you need to get that tinfoil beannie of yours warmed up.... that MIT
education of yours is showing forth.... LMFAO
aeffects
you're learning toots-e-roll -- right up to their dying days, they
didn't believe their own conclusions.... it is amazing isn't it!
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
They believed the fundamental finding that Oswald was the lone gunman
and there was no evidence of a conspiracy. On some minor points, they
may have had reservations. Why is this so hard to understand?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The criticism of the wording is a valid one. I would have prefered the
original wording be left in as it is more accurate. There was no point
to the revision. The SBT works with where the wound was. The WCR did
point out the location of the bullet holes in JFK's clothing and that
clearly indicated the bullet struck the upper back, not the back of
the neck.
Bud
Yah, I know, I`m starting to think you kooks will never put
anything on the table to compete with the WCR. Stone threw this slop
up, but it was so easily shown to be a pack a lies that even he was
forced to admit it was a "myth".
> > > not based on fact, while Stone's
> > > movie
> > > is entertainment entitling you to use the On/Off button on your remote.
> >
> > Yah, it`s true Stone wasn`t constrained by reality in making this
> > flick, my complaint was that he didn`t go far enough. Perhaps put a
> > duck`s bill on Oz, maybe have Garrison talk like a pirate (Arrgg, back
> > and to the left, buckoos!"). The film needed something to add some
> > pizazz.
>
> when Nutter's fail,
We`re discussing Stone`s failure, I never made a movie about this
event. If Stone`s work was a purely for entertainment`s sake, he
should have consulted Count Baldoni here, dropping a few celebities
into the story would have helped make it more interesting and
entertaining.
> they actually think they can do humor....
You kooks are funniest when you are being dead serious. I`ve rarely
seen a kook be intentionally funny.
>Dudster
> you need to get that tinfoil beannie of yours warmed up.... that MIT
> education of yours is showing forth.... LMFAO
Christmas is over, stoner, time to smoke the tree.
Bud
So, the answer is no, you can`t quote Ford saying the words you put
into his mouth.
For those interested, DVP wrote an interesting and informative
article on this, expanding on Jean Davison`s observations...
Rich DellaRosa
No, they didn't. There is even a recording of a phone call between LBJ and
Sen Richard Russell where Russell says "I never believed that he (LHO)
did it" to
which LBJ replies "Neither did I."
Don't ask me to provide it -- do your own research -- the clip is easy
to find on the
net and the tape is in the LBJ Library.
Hale Boggs refused to sign the WCR and was co-erced to do so at the
final moment.
Each of the other WC'ers voiced serious doubts about the "Oswald did it
alone" part
of the report, in most cases towards the ends of their lives. If they
didn't believe Oswald did it alone
then their report is a lie -- it is the major finding of the whole
report. Forget their
disagreements over "minor" points -- they didn't believe the MAJOR point.
So -- why do you??
Walt
> A book could be written about the falsehood's in his JFK movie. I'll
> just concentrate on one of his more glaring deceptions. I refer to the
> seen where Garrison and his assistant are in the sniper's nest.
> The assistant starts the lying by saying the Zapruder film established
> 3 shots in 5.6 seconds. Of course that is ridiculous since the
> Zapruder film contained no sound.
Sound??....Why is sound necessary. The Z film video shows JFK emerging
from behind the Stenmmons freeway sign at Z 232, JFK is responding to
being hit at that time. This shot was fired just before Z232....
Perhaps Z 220. The last shot occured at Z 312 for a time span between
these two shots of 5 seconds.
Since the majority of the witnesses said the total time span four the
shots was about five or six seconds.... and they said the last two
shots were nearly superimposed on each other. So we can be sure that
shots two and three are NOT what is recorded on the Z film.....because
the VISUAL evidence shows that there is about 5 seconds between the
throat shot and the head shot. Which doesn't fit with the earwitness
accounts of the last two shots being fired almost
simultaneously.
But that is just the start of the
> lies in this scene. He then goes on to state the the WC concluded the
> first shot missed which should have been the most accurate, which is
> not true either, but that is minor compared to the most blatant
> bullshit in this scene. The facts are that the WC concluded that the
> two shots that hit JFK came between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds apart.
That's the point I made above.......
They
> came to no conclusion about which shot missed but did conclude that
> all three shots had to be fired in 5.6 seconds or less only if the
> SECOND shot missed.
This whole scenario is null and void because the Mannlicher Carcano
was NOT the rifle, or rifles being fired that day.
But for the sake of proving a point I'll assume the carcano was the
ONLY rifle being fired......
We can know the second shot DID NOT come from the same rifle that
fired the shot at Z 220. ...because the Z film shows JFK responding to
being hit at Z 232 ( shot #1) then the witnesses said there were two
more shots in quick succession ( shots #2 & #3). Either shot #2 or
shot #3 ( or both) could have been the shot that exploded JFK's head
because they occurred so close together. Since the throat shot
occurred at Z220 and the final shot occurred at Z 312 we can be sure
either shot #2 or shot #3 had to have been fired from another rifle .
They could not have been fired from a single bolt action carcano
because the W.C. found that it took at least 2.3 seconds just to open
and close the bolt on a Carcano. That 2.3 seconds did not allow for
reaquiring the target after firing. So there simply is not enough
time to fire the rifle and hit the victims in the 5 second time frame
that is VISIBLE in the Z film.
Walt
It could not have been more dishonest for Oliver
> Stone to claim 3 shots in 5.6 seconds and in the next breath claim the
> WC found that the first shot missed. To argue against one or the other
> position is valid, but the two scenarios are mutually exclusive. To
> argue both points simultaneously shows Stone had no interest in
> producing an honest piece of work. Furthermore, Oliver Stone had to
> know that these arguments were mutually exclusive or maybe I am giving
> Stone too much credit.
>
> I will leave it to the Stone apologists on this board. Do you believe
> your hero was a lying motherfucker or just a lying moron. There is no
> third possibility.
Rich DellaRosa
>>>> "There is even a recording of a phone call between LBJ and Sen Richard Russell where Russell says "I never believed that he (LHO) did it" to which LBJ replies "Neither did I"." <<<
>
>
> between Senator Russell and LBJ that I'm unaware of, Rich has
> completely misrepresented the context of those words from that
> telephone call between Russell and Johnson (which took place on
> November 18, 1964, six days before the WC gave LBJ the completed WR).
>
The WCR was delivered to LBJ in September 1964 -- not November.
> The quote where LBJ says "I don't either" was referring to the Single-
> Bullet Theory ONLY. It had nothing to do with either Russell's or
> Johnson's personal beliefs of whether Oswald was the sole assassin.
>
> Here's are exact quotes:*
>
> LBJ -- "Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?"
>
> SENATOR RICHARD RUSSELL -- "Well it don't make much difference. But
> they said that they believe--the Commission believes--that the same
> bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. But I don't believe it."
>
> LBJ -- "I don't either."
>
> ~~~~~~~~
>
>
> * = Obtained via this CD:
>
>
> www.earthstation1.com/Merchant/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=E&Product_Code=JAMAC
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~
>
> Here's a brief portion of the 11/18/64 phone call in question (but for
> some oddball reason, this audio clip only lasts a few seconds and
> stops just short of Russell's "I don't believe it" remark; CTers can
> always complain that this truncated version of the clip is part of the
> continuing "cover-up" to keep America from hearing the truth):
>
>
> http://www.jfkresearch.com/Audio/003_LBJ.mp3
>
>
David Von Pein
>>> "The WCR was delivered to LBJ in September 1964 -- not November." <<<
Yes. You are correct. That was my error regarding the date in my prior
post. I was, unthinkingly, relying on the date that is listed on that
MP3 CD that I linked earlier. It says "11-18-64", which is positively
incorrect. It should say "9-18-64", because it's obvious from
listening to the whole phone call that the WR hasn't even come out as
of the date of that Russell-LBJ call.
So, I apologize for that "November 18" error. I hate mistakes like
that...and I've now deleted the previous incorrect message, replacing
it with an accurate post.
Anyway.....It doesn't change the basic focus of that post...i.e., that
Rich misrepresented Russell's and Johnson's comments. They were
talking about the SBT only, and were not talking about conspiracy or
LHO's lone guilt.
David Von Pein
No. This is totally incorrect. Unless there's yet another phone call
between Senator Russell and LBJ that I'm unaware of, Rich has
completely misrepresented the context of those words from that
telephone call between Russell and Johnson (which took place on
September 18, 1964, six days before the WC gave LBJ the completed WR).
The quote where LBJ says "I don't either" was referring to the Single-
Bullet Theory ONLY. It had nothing to do with either Russell's or
Johnson's personal beliefs of whether Oswald was the sole assassin.
Here are the exact quotes:*
LBJ -- "Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?"
SENATOR RICHARD RUSSELL -- "Well it don't make much difference. But
they said that they believe--the Commission believes--that the same
bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. But I don't believe it."
LBJ -- "I don't either."
~~~~~~~~
* = Obtained via this CD:
www.earthstation1.com/Merchant/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=E&Product_Code=JAMAC
[The date of the 1964 LBJ-Russell phone conversation is listed
incorrectly on the above webpage. It should say 9-18-64.]
~~~~~~~~
Here's a brief portion of the 9/18/64 phone call in question (but for
some oddball reason, this audio clip only lasts a few seconds and
stops just short of Russell's "I don't believe it" remark; CTers can
always complain that this truncated version of the clip is part of the
continuing "cover-up" to keep America from hearing the truth):
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Audio/003_LBJ.mp3
~~~~~~~~
More about Senator Richard Russell (culled from my "Reclaiming
History" book review).......
DVP: Re. Warren Commission member Richard Russell (who went on record
as having been opposed to the WC's pro-SBT conclusion):
"What Russell essentially said {in a 1970 interview} is that
there were too many things he had questions about, and because of
these unanswered questions, instead of concluding he didn't know what
happened, he tended to believe there was a conspiracy.
"Maybe if Russell had acted like a responsible public official,
he would have learned the answers to his questions. But he did
not. .... His attendance at the hearings where 94 witnesses testified
before the Commission was nothing short of disgraceful, Russell only
attending the testimony of 6 witnesses. And if Russell had a little
more common sense, that would have also helped.
"Russell is the same person who on October 22, 1962, right in
the middle of the Cuban missile crisis...actually urged war rather
than a peaceful resolution to the crisis. ....
"Can you imagine that? To Russell, possession of nuclear weapons
wasn't a deterrent to war but a golden opportunity to blow up the
planet. I must confess: when a mental giant like Russell says he
believes there may have been a conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, I listen." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 297 298 of ("RH")
Endnotes
DVP: LOL! I've also had many of the same types of thoughts when it
comes to Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia. Every time I ever
heard him speak, the word "goofball" would immediately enter my mind.
(I'm just glad there were six other more responsible people on that
1964 Presidential Commission.) .....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b9af777b0e813fd7
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/89d646edf3b599c6
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The WCR was delivered to LBJ in September 1964 -- not November." <<<
>
> Yes. You are correct. That was my error regarding the date in my prior
> post. I was, unthinkingly, relying on the date that is listed on that
> MP3 CD that I linked earlier. It says "11-18-64", which is positively
> incorrect. It should say "9-18-64", because it's obvious from
> listening to the whole phone call that the WR hasn't even come out as
> of the date of that Russell-LBJ call.
>
> So, I apologize for that "November 18" error. I hate mistakes like
> that...and I've now deleted the previous incorrect message, replacing
> it with an accurate post.
>
"Anyway.....It doesn't change the basic focus of that post...i.e.,
talking about the SBT only, and were not talking about conspiracy or
Update time! Top 3 funnies list is now:
1) The above comment by DVP.
2) Bigdog/Yoharvey's comment about the Z-film having no sound so it is
impossible to count the time betwee the shots.
3)DVP's second entry - thinking a t.v. docu-drama conviction is a REAL
conviction.
Look at the above quote by DVP. He doesn't get the fact that without
the SBT you have NO LN theory, period. IF the SBT is not possible,
and most of us with common sense know it is not, then you have to have
a conspiracy since LHO could not cause all the wounds by himself with
two bullets. Mind boggling.
David Von Pein
something about a phone call that is incorrect. He quoted Russell's &
Johnson's comments completely out of context.
And while it's true that I believe that the "LN" scenario cannot exist
without the SBT, some people disagree with that assessment. Mark
Fuhrman being one such LN author. .....
www.amazon.com/review/R3BEKTGVKJGI72
Plus: It's also quite obvious from the transcript of that Sept. '64
phone call that both Russell & LBJ were of the opinion that it really
DIDN'T matter which of Oswald's three shots struck John Connally.
Ergo.....Both men were skeptical of the SBT but were not voicing their
opinion regarding any kind of multi-gunmen conspiracy.
robcap...@netscape.com
"Of course, Rob (as per usual) misses the point once more. Rich stated
something about a phone call that is incorrect. He quoted Russell's &
Johnson's comments completely out of context."
Nice try Dave, but it won't work. I read Rich's comments and yours. I
know which call he is talking about. Russell said he didn't believe
it and Johnson said he didn't either. You claimed Rich was wrong and
this was not to the overall conclusion of the WC but rather the SBT
only. Without the SBT you have NO WC conclusion. You messed up.
Again, I want your bosses name to complain as our tax dollars are
being sent to you and you shouldn't mess up like this.
"And while it's true that I believe that the "LN" scenario cannot
exist without the SBT, some people disagree with that assessment. Mark
Fuhrman being one such LN author. ....."
He is a lame brain. Without the SBT you have NO LN theory. It is
impossible with it so imagine without it.
> www.amazon.com/review/R3BEKTGVKJGI72
"Plus: It's also quite obvious from the transcript of that Sept. '64
phone call that both Russell & LBJ were of the opinion that it really
DIDN'T matter which of Oswald's three shots struck John Connally."
Of course not, but it did matter if one hit JBC and JFK or you can't
have a fairy tale known as the SBT happen. McCloy and Boggs went on
record as saying they didn't buy the SBT either before their deaths.
"Ergo.....Both men were skeptical of the SBT but were not voicing
their opinion regarding any kind of multi-gunmen conspiracy."
They are one in the same Dave, the fact that you can't get that is
scary. They knew it was more than one gunman and LBJ said this to his
friend at "Atlantic Monthly" (think that was the name of the
publication) before he died he knew it was a conspiracy. His aide in
covering it up (at least) made him privy to this info.
robcap...@netscape.com
>
"The people in government who suspected a conspiracy in the death of
JFK almost to a man believed Oswald did it, but that there were extra
connections."
In your dreams of fairy tales and SBTs maybe, not real life. RFK and
many others knew the CIA was involved immediately.
"The CT Useful Idiots that post here think St. Oswald was some sort of
wronged hero suitable for burial next to JFK at Arlington. Heck, most
of them don't even believe he killed Tippit. Some of them imply John
Connally shot JFK. Some believe Abraham Zapruder was impersonated.
These people are nuts. The "Oswald Did it But He Had Help"
conspiracists are positively rational in comparison."
Dream on. It is not a matter of LHO being a wronged man, but rather
there is NO proof or evidence he did either shooting. That is
Hoover's and the WC's fault as they found none during their
"investigation" that would stick in a real court situation. The man
was a horrible shot, and the usuage of Marine jargon to make it sound
like he could shoot may fool some, present company included, but most
of us realize these terms sound more impressive than they were. Throw
in the fact the man did not shooting for the most part since his
departure from the Marines it is obvious he would have gotten WORSE
not better by 11/63.
Walt
wrote:
> On Dec 26, 8:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "Of course, Rob (as per usual) misses the point once more. Rich stated
> something about a phone call that is incorrect. He quoted Russell's &
> Johnson's comments completely out of context."
>
> Nice try Dave, but it won't work. I read Rich's comments and yours. I
> know which call he is talking about. Russell said he didn't believe
> it and Johnson said he didn't either. You claimed Rich was wrong and
> this was not to the overall conclusion of the WC but rather the SBT
> only. Without the SBT you have NO WC conclusion. You messed up.
> Again, I want your bosses name to complain as our tax dollars are
> being sent to you and you shouldn't mess up like this.
>
> "And while it's true that I believe that the "LN" scenario cannot
> exist without the SBT, some people disagree with that assessment. Mark
> Fuhrman being one such LN author. ....."
>
> He is a lame brain. Without the SBT you have NO LN theory.
You're absolutely right, Rob The entire imagined scenario of the
Warren Commission rests on the Single Bullet THEORY.
If that THEORY is demonstrated to be false, then the scenario for the
W.C. decree that Oswald was the Lone Nut Killer falls apart. Their
whole THEORY rests on a bullet that defied the laws of physics.
Walt
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bc50fd16f27137d8
>>> "I know which call he {Rich} is talking about." <<<
So do I. And he quoted Russell and LBJ incorrectly...and definitely
out of context.
>>> "Russell said he didn't believe it and Johnson said he didn't either." <<<
Right. They're talking about the "SBT" there. They are certainly NOT
discussing whether Lee Harvey Oswald was or was not the sole assassin.
>>> "You claimed Rich was wrong and this was not to the overall conclusion of the WC, but rather the SBT only. Without the SBT you have NO WC conclusion." <<<
At that point in time (Sep. '64), before the WCR even came out, LBJ
certainly hadn't looked deeply into the case, and he could most
certainly have been of the opinion that even without the SBT Oswald
could have been the lone assassin. If you listen to the whole 9/18/64
call, it's obvious that BOTH men feel this way at that point in time.
I'll replay this hunk of Rob idiocy.......
>>> "Without the SBT you have NO WC conclusion." <<<
Total bullshit. The WC was NOT boxing itself in to accepting the SBT
at all costs (due to James Tague's injury).
How do we know they weren't boxed in? Because of Page #117, where it
states in B&W that the WC was readily acknowledging the possibility
that Tague's injury could have very well been caused by a fragment
from the HEAD SHOT.
Therefore, via that "Tague Possibly Wounded By Head-Shot Fragment"
scenario, the SBT is not a MANDATORY conclusion to reach to still
arrive at the "LHO Alone" final conclusion.
Better read page 117 a few times, Rob. It'll do you good (maybe)......
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
>>> "You messed up." <<<
No I didn't. But if you want to think I did, it'll be perfectly
consistent with your current .000 CT Batting Average; i.e., you never
get anything right, no matter what the subject matter is.
>>> "I want your boss' name to complain..." <<<
I'd like to hear from your bosses too, Rob. But Moe and Curly have
both passed away. So, it appears I'm out of luck there.
>>> "They are one in the same, Dave. The fact that you can't get that is scary." <<<
Then you'd better go back and read page #117 of the WCR again, Rob.
Obviously, the significance of that page has failed to sink in.
Footnote......
To repeat -- I, myself, DO think that the SBT is mandatory in order
for Lee Oswald to be the lone assassin of JFK. But the Warren
Commission's collective opinion was NOT as strict and restrictive as
my own on the SBT matter....and Page 117 of the WR proves that fact.
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bc50fd16f27137d8
>
> >>> "I know which call he {Rich} is talking about." <<<
>
"So do I. And he quoted Russell and LBJ incorrectly...and definitely
out of context."
Saying it refers to the SBT only doesn't help you in the least bit.
>
> >>> "Russell said he didn't believe it and Johnson said he didn't either." <<<
"Right. They're talking about the "SBT" there. They are certainly NOT
discussing whether Lee Harvey Oswald was or was not the sole
assassin."
And neither believe it, and neither would. LBJ admitted there was a
conspiracy before he died.
> >>> "You claimed Rich was wrong and this was not to the overall conclusion of the WC, but rather the SBT only. Without the SBT you have NO WC conclusion." <<<
"At that point in time (Sep. '64), before the WCR even came out, LBJ
certainly hadn't looked deeply into the case, and he could most
certainly have been of the opinion that even without the SBT Oswald
could have been the lone assassin. If you listen to the whole 9/18/64
call, it's obvious that BOTH men feel this way at that point in time."
This is your guess, Russell just spent 10 months in this nightmare,
are you telling me he had no idea whether it was just LHO or not?
You're kidding yourself and all the readers, he was very vocal about
not believing the WC's conclusion. His friendship with LBJ is
probably the only reason he did not have an "accident."
> >>> "Without the SBT you have NO WC conclusion." <<<
"Total bullshit. The WC was NOT boxing itself in to accepting the SBT
at all costs (due to James Tague's injury)."
Well, you are the only one who thinks that. You could not prove LHO
caused 8 wounds with two bullets without it, why do you think they
invented it in the first place?
"How do we know they weren't boxed in? Because of Page #117, where it
states in B&W that the WC was readily acknowledging the possibility
that Tague's injury could have very well been caused by a fragment
from the HEAD SHOT."
This is pure junk. The path of impact does not line-up and I gave you
cites for this before. The shot from the eastern window would have
hit 22 feet to the right of Tague.
"Therefore, via that "Tague Possibly Wounded By Head-Shot Fragment"
scenario, the SBT is not a MANDATORY conclusion to reach to still
arrive at the "LHO Alone" final conclusion."
You are sinking deeper and deeper. You have nothing.
"Better read page 117 a few times, Rob. It'll do you good
(maybe)......"
I'm not into fantasy stories and what ifs. I like proof.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
> >>> "You messed up." <<<
"No I didn't. But if you want to think I did, it'll be perfectly
consistent with your current .000 CT Batting Average; i.e., you never
get anything right, no matter what the subject matter is."
Dave messed up. Dave messed up. He knows his pathetic case is a
goner without the fantasy SBT scenario.
> >>> "I want your boss' name to complain..." <<<
"I'd like to hear from your bosses too, Rob. But Moe and Curly have
both passed away. So, it appears I'm out of luck there."
Your tax dollars aren't going to me though. I want better for my hard-
earned tax money. I want a DVP who doesn't mess up.
> >>> "They are one in the same, Dave. The fact that you can't get that is scary."
"Then you'd better go back and read page #117 of the WCR again, Rob.
Obviously, the significance of that page has failed to sink in."
Like that ridiculous theory had any possibility of actually happening.
I thought you used the head fragment for the dent in the chrome
already? Now what?
"Footnote......
To repeat -- I, myself, DO think that the SBT is mandatory in order
for Lee Oswald to be the lone assassin of JFK. But the Warren
Commission's collective opinion was NOT as strict and restrictive as
my own on the SBT matter....and Page 117 of the WR proves that fact."
It proves nothing and Dave messed up. He showed us the truth for
once. Thanks Dave!
Rich DellaRosa
> On 26 Dec, 19:59, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 8:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Of course, Rob (as per usual) misses the point once more. Rich stated
>> something about a phone call that is incorrect. He quoted Russell's &
>> Johnson's comments completely out of context."
>>
>> Nice try Dave, but it won't work. I read Rich's comments and yours. I
>> know which call he is talking about. Russell said he didn't believe
>> it and Johnson said he didn't either. You claimed Rich was wrong and
>> this was not to the overall conclusion of the WC but rather the SBT
>> only. Without the SBT you have NO WC conclusion. You messed up.
>> Again, I want your bosses name to complain as our tax dollars are
>> being sent to you and you shouldn't mess up like this.
>>
>> "And while it's true that I believe that the "LN" scenario cannot
>> exist without the SBT, some people disagree with that assessment. Mark
>> Fuhrman being one such LN author. ....."
>>
>> He is a lame brain. Without the SBT you have NO LN theory.
>
> You're absolutely right, Rob The entire imagined scenario of the
> Warren Commission rests on the Single Bullet THEORY.
>
> If that THEORY is demonstrated to be false, then the scenario for the
> W.C. decree that Oswald was the Lone Nut Killer falls apart. Their
> whole THEORY rests on a bullet that defied the laws of physics.
>
> Walt
yes, that is called the Sine qua non. . . if the SBT doesn't hold water,
the WCR and its
major conclusion are discredited. The WCers didn't believe the SBT as
demonstrated
by Russell's comment -- so why do some here and elsewhere believe it??
Rich DellaRosa
>
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bc50fd16f27137d8
>
>
>
>>>> "I know which call he {Rich} is talking about." <<<
>
>
> So do I. And he quoted Russell and LBJ incorrectly...and definitely
> out of context.
>
>
>
>>>> "Russell said he didn't believe it and Johnson said he didn't either." <<<
>
>
> Right. They're talking about the "SBT" there. They are certainly NOT
> discussing whether Lee Harvey Oswald was or was not the sole assassin.
Sine qua non. Without the SBT there had to be more than a single
shooter and therefore
there was no sole assassin, Oswald or anyone else. But the WCR said it
was Oswald.
David Von Pein
>>> "Saying it refers to the SBT only doesn't help you in the least bit." <<<
Russell and Johnson WERE referring only to the SBT. That's obvious,
idiot. They weren't saying it was a conspiracy. They were merely
expressing their (incorrect) opinions that the SBT was wrong.
>>> "And neither believe it {the SBT}, and neither would." <<<
And they were both dead-wrong in that anti-SBT belief.
>>> "LBJ admitted there was a conspiracy before he died." <<<
Which just goes to show that LBJ certainly wasn't "involved" in any
way whatsoever with JFK's murder (which is what many, many CTers
firmly believe to this day).
For, if he had been "involved" in some kind of plot, do you think we
would have ever heard LBJ speaking out in FAVOR of a conspiracy (ANY
type of conspiracy) prior to his death in January 1973?
>>> "Russell just spent 10 months in this nightmare, are you telling me he had no idea whether it was just LHO or not?" <<<
Russell was a goof. He attended only 6 witness testimony sessions. See
my earlier comments about him. Yes, I admit, they are only MY personal
opinions about the Senator. And, no, I know (knew) nothing about the
man personally. It's just an impression I get from listening to him.
And, somewhat amazingly, VB must get some of those same impressions
from him as well.
>>> "You're kidding yourself and all the readers, he was very vocal about not believing the WC's conclusion. His friendship with LBJ is probably the only reason he did not have an "accident"." <<<
Why wasn't LBJ himself bumped off after his comments to Walter
Cronkite about possible conspiracy in 1969, btw?
>>> "Why do you think they invented it {the SBT} in the first place?" <<<
It was postulated by the WC because it's the truth. Simple as that. No
other scenario comes close to the SBT when it comes to explaining the
wounds, the ballistics eveidence connected with the wounds, and the
LACK of injuries and bullets that SHOULD BE THERE if the SBT is wrong.
Why CTers stubbornly refuse to accept that fact can only make a sane
person sigh (deeply).
>>> "The path of impact does not line-up. .... The shot from the eastern window would have hit 22 feet to the right of Tague." <<<
The shot obviously was deflected by something. Idiot.
>>> "You are sinking deeper and deeper. You have nothing." <<<
I love it when a CT-Kook continually tells LNers that they've got
"nothing". That's like telling Dolly Parton she's got "nothing" in the
area of her chest.
>>> "I'm not into fantasy stories and what ifs. I like proof." <<<
~Large Hunk Of Laughter~
Oh, brother. You conspiracy-happy kooks live off of "what ifs". That's
all you've got, in fact. You certainly have no bullets, guns, or
witnesses.
>>> "Dave messed up. Dave messed up. He knows his pathetic case is a goner without the fantasy SBT scenario." <<<
I've readily admitted (for years) that I believe the "LN/LHO" case
goes down the drain without the SBT. Vince Bugliosi has also said the
same thing.
But the fact is: The SBT is the truth. Any alternate scenario involves
scads of unbelievable "SBT"-like coincidences and disappearing
bullets. Common sense ALONE makes the SBT true. And when other stuff
is piled on top of the "CS", the SBT becomes rooted in fact.
Plus: Anyone watching this documentary (linked below) who still ends
up thinking the SBT is "impossible" is a person who just flat-out
WANTS a conspiracy:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
>>> "Your tax dollars aren't going to me though. I want better for my hard-earned tax money. I want a DVP who doesn't mess up." <<<
Why would it matter to a kook like you what is said by ANY LNer? You
think I "mess up" with every "pro-LN" (CS&L-filled) comment I make.
BTW, you're an idiot. Just thought I'd remind you one additional time.
>>> "I thought you used the head fragment for the dent in the chrome already?" <<<
I did. And the other half of "CE567/569" cracked the windshield.
That's fairly obvious. However, an additional fragment could have
possibly left the limo and made it over to Main Street.
Many people favor that theory, in fact. I don't though. I think Tague
was struck by Oswald's first (deflected) shot.
David Von Pein
Probably because a 7-year-old kid could figure out that it's the ONLY
possible way the shooting of the two men in that car could have
occurred (given the alignment of the victims, the lack of bullets in
the men, the Z-Film, and the total lack of neck damage to JFK that
could possibly account for a bullet, let alone TWO of them, that would
have STOPPED INSIDE HIM--and then disappeared sans a trace, of
course).
===================
"From the first moment that I heard that {Arlen} Specter had
come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me
since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.
"Since {the members of the WC staff} all knew that the bullet,
fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in
Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the
president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's
body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason
it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright
lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw
it? ....
"When I asked {Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005} if, indeed,
Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....
"I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
player only interested in doing his job well. ....
"If I have done a disservice to Specter in what I have written
above, I apologize to him. But I did give him an opportunity to
respond to this issue {via a letter sent to Specter on June 24, 2005},
and he declined." -- Vince B.; Pages 302-304 of "RH's" Endnotes
===================
aeffects
Off your knees, dolt! Nor does Dave Reitzes need your verbal fondling?
aeffects
load it up, toots -- it ain't gonna fly -- the SBT is dead, some might
say it was DOA, but we'll cut you a little slack...
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 26 Dec, 19:59, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 8:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Of course, Rob (as per usual) misses the point once more. Rich stated
> > something about a phone call that is incorrect. He quoted Russell's &
> > Johnson's comments completely out of context."
>
> > Nice try Dave, but it won't work. I read Rich's comments and yours. I
> > know which call he is talking about. Russell said he didn't believe
> > it and Johnson said he didn't either. You claimed Rich was wrong and
> > this was not to the overall conclusion of the WC but rather the SBT
> > only. Without the SBT you have NO WC conclusion. You messed up.
> > Again, I want your bosses name to complain as our tax dollars are
> > being sent to you and you shouldn't mess up like this.
>
> > "And while it's true that I believe that the "LN" scenario cannot
> > exist without the SBT, some people disagree with that assessment. Mark
> > Fuhrman being one such LN author. ....."
>
> > He is a lame brain. Without the SBT you have NO LN theory.
>
> You're absolutely right, Rob The entire imagined scenario of the
> Warren Commission rests on the Single Bullet THEORY.
>
> If that THEORY is demonstrated to be false, then the scenario for the
> W.C. decree that Oswald was the Lone Nut Killer falls apart. Their
> whole THEORY rests on a bullet that defied the laws of physics.
>
> Walt
I think we both agree (at least I hope so) that the SBT has been SHOWN
to be FALSE already. Ford's admission recently was the proverbial
last nail in the coffin.
> > impossible with it so imagine without it.
>
> > >www.amazon.com/review/R3BEKTGVKJGI72
>
> > "Plus: It's also quite obvious from the transcript of that Sept. '64
> > phone call that both Russell & LBJ were of the opinion that it really
> > DIDN'T matter which of Oswald's three shots struck John Connally."
>
> > Of course not, but it did matter if one hit JBC and JFK or you can't
> > have a fairy tale known as the SBT happen. McCloy and Boggs went on
> > record as saying they didn't buy the SBT either before their deaths.
>
> > "Ergo.....Both men were skeptical of the SBT but were not voicing
> > their opinion regarding any kind of multi-gunmen conspiracy."
>
> > They are one in the same Dave, the fact that you can't get that is
> > scary. They knew it was more than one gunman and LBJ said this to his
> > friend at "Atlantic Monthly" (think that was the name of the
> > publication) before he died he knew it was a conspiracy. His aide in
> > covering it up (at least) made him privy to this info.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Saying it refers to the SBT only doesn't help you in the least bit." <<<
>
"Russell and Johnson WERE referring only to the SBT. That's obvious,
idiot. They weren't saying it was a conspiracy. They were merely
expressing their (incorrect) opinions that the SBT was wrong."
I may be an idiot, but I figured out that Dave MESSED UP! What does
that make you? The fact that you don't get without the SBT you have a
conspiracy is scary. Real scary. It means you don't even understand
the basics of this case. It was (SBT) INVENTED to account for ALL the
wounds suffered by JFK & JBC (at least the ones the WC said happened)
with TWO bullets, thus making a one shooter scenario possible in their
warped minds. Without it you have nothing but a multiple shooter
scenario. You are finished. I want my tax dollars back. Send me
money, I take VISA, MC, AMEX, & Discover.
> >>> "And neither believe it {the SBT}, and neither would." <<<
"And they were both dead-wrong in that anti-SBT belief."
Why? Wouldn't they have been in a position to know? How about Boggs
and McCloy, they eventually said they didn't buy it either?
> >>> "LBJ admitted there was a conspiracy before he died." <<<
"Which just goes to show that LBJ certainly wasn't "involved" in any
way whatsoever with JFK's murder (which is what many, many CTers
firmly believe to this day)."
How does him saying there was a conspiracy exonerate him from
participation in the assassination planning?
"For, if he had been "involved" in some kind of plot, do you think we
would have ever heard LBJ speaking out in FAVOR of a conspiracy (ANY
type of conspiracy) prior to his death in January 1973?"
Sure. I think that is why he constantly told people he wasn't
involved, as he wanted them to think he was innocent. I am not 100%
sure (I go back and forth) of the point he was involved up-front, but
he was definitely involved in the cover-up. His legal issues made him
an easy target for the conspirators to get him to go along with their
gameplan in the future. He also said, "I am blamed for two things
that hurt very much, the Vietnam war and the death of JFK", and to me
this was just for sympathy. He was a con man. He DID start the
Vietnam war and he had direct paticipation in the assassination, at
least in terms of a cover-up.
> >>> "Russell just spent 10 months in this nightmare, are you telling me he had no idea whether it was just LHO or not?" <<<
"Russell was a goof. He attended only 6 witness testimony sessions.
See my earlier comments about him. Yes, I admit, they are only MY
personal opinions about the Senator. And, no, I know (knew) nothing
about the man personally. It's just an impression I get from listening
to him. And, somewhat amazingly, VB must get some of those same
impressions from him as well."
Then by extension LBJ was a goof as Russell was his "mentor." I think
he is a goof by listening to him Davey says, in other words, because
he has the "sense" to know the LHO by himself spiel is garbage, he is
a goof to Davey. If he is such a goof, why did LBJ force him to
serve? Russell did NOT want to serve as he had NO respect for Warren.
> >>> "You're kidding yourself and all the readers, he was very vocal about not believing the WC's conclusion. His friendship with LBJ is probably the only reason he did not have an "accident"." <<<
"Why wasn't LBJ himself bumped off after his comments to Walter
Cronkite about possible conspiracy in 1969, btw?"
To high-profile, they were busy "framing" Teddy that summer with the
phony accident at Chappaquidick. The couldn't over do it now.
> >>> "Why do you think they invented it {the SBT} in the first place?" <<<
"It was postulated by the WC because it's the truth. Simple as that.
No other scenario comes close to the SBT when it comes to explaining
the wounds, the ballistics eveidence connected with the wounds, and
the LACK of injuries and bullets that SHOULD BE THERE if the SBT is
wrong."
It is not the truth as not ONE doctor saw a wound at the base of the
neck on JFK at Parkland. They all saw a gaping hole in the BOH as
well. The law of gravity defies the reality of the SBT as well. I
saw a History Channel show recently (saw it before years ago), "Beyond
Conspiracy", where Lattimer says, "All the conspircay people say the
CE399 is pristine, but is not, it has a FLATTENED HEAD." Boy, that
made the whole SBT scenario possible now, I mean the bullet did have a
flattened head after breaking two bones and causing seven wounds. I
may have to expand my funnies list to 5 soon.
"Why CTers stubbornly refuse to accept that fact can only make a sane
person sigh (deeply)."
Because it is all a lie. The ACTUAL wounds do NOT support the SBT,
nor does a bullet coming out virtually intact after all the damage it
is claime to have caused.
> >>> "The path of impact does not line-up. .... The shot from the eastern window would have hit 22 feet to the right of Tague." <<<
"The shot obviously was deflected by something. Idiot."
Like what? Oh, that is right, it hit the chrome first and then speed
to Tague. What a bullet. Major head wound, frangible in nature,
dents the hardened chrome and can still travel another 100 yards or so
and hit the concrete curb with such force to cause a major chunk to
fly off and hit Tague in the cheek. The toe bone is connected to the
foot bone, the foot bone is connected to the ankle bone, the ankle
bone is connected to the leg bone, etc...
> >>> "You are sinking deeper and deeper. You have nothing." <<<
"I love it when a CT-Kook continually tells LNers that they've got
"nothing". That's like telling Dolly Parton she's got "nothing" in the
area of her chest."
What's that? Your gurgling so I can't make it out.
> >>> "I'm not into fantasy stories and what ifs. I like proof." <<<
~Large Hunk Of Laughter~
~Large Step BACKWARDS, to put space between myself and this odd man~
"Oh, brother. You conspiracy-happy kooks live off of "what ifs".
That's all you've got, in fact. You certainly have no bullets, guns,
or witnesses."
I don't, I live off of the fact that NONE of your "proof" or
"evidence" is really that. You have nothing.
> >>> "Dave messed up. Dave messed up. He knows his pathetic case is a goner without the fantasy SBT scenario." <<<
"I've readily admitted (for years) that I believe the "LN/LHO" case
goes down the drain without the SBT. Vince Bugliosi has also said the
same thing."
I am sending this to the DOJ with a request for my tax dollars back in
regards to this "Troll" program they sponsor. Mistakes that defeat
the LN cause CANNOT be allowed if they expect to keep taking my tax
money. I always knew you were really a CTer. You just forgot what
board you were on, right?
"But the fact is: The SBT is the truth. Any alternate scenario
involves scads of unbelievable "SBT"-like coincidences and
disappearing bullets. Common sense ALONE makes the SBT true. And when
other stuff is piled on top of the "CS", the SBT becomes rooted in
fact."
~Large Hunk of Laughter~
How is multiple shooters unbelievable? It makes sense for a hit this
large. Your theory is the one that makes no sense and even you agree.
"Plus: Anyone watching this documentary (linked below) who still ends
up thinking the SBT is "impossible" is a person who just flat-out
WANTS a conspiracy:"
Dave doesn't get anything can be made to look good, especially, when
the government has million of dollars to spend on this propaganda.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
> >>> "Your tax dollars aren't going to me though. I want better for my hard-earned tax money. I want a DVP who doesn't mess up." <<<
"Why would it matter to a kook like you what is said by ANY LNer? You
think I "mess up" with every "pro-LN" (CS&L-filled) comment I make."
NOT like this one!!!!! This one shows you DO NOT believe in the WC
conclusion either. Way to go Dave.
"BTW, you're an idiot. Just thought I'd remind you one additional
time."
If you can't fool an idiot, what does that say about you?
> >>> "I thought you used the head fragment for the dent in the chrome already?"
"I did. And the other half of "CE567/569" cracked the windshield.
That's fairly obvious. However, an additional fragment could have
possibly left the limo and made it over to Main Street."
An additional fragment? Dave is now MAKING UP stuff. Why was it NOT
FOUND then?
"Many people favor that theory, in fact. I don't though. I think Tague
was struck by Oswald's first (deflected) shot."
Why? The WC said the second shot, of course until Tague emerged they
said all 3 shots hit too. You can't trust liars.
Rich DellaRosa
He WAS! And his shrink's records were taken, the shrink who was paid
>$1M of
taxpayers' money.
Walt
> >>> "Saying it refers to the SBT only doesn't help you in the least bit." <<<
>
> Russell and Johnson WERE referring only to the SBT. That's obvious,
> idiot. They weren't saying it was a conspiracy. They were merely
> expressing their (incorrect) opinions that the SBT was wrong.
>
> >>> "And neither believe it {the SBT}, and neither would." <<<
>
> And they were both dead-wrong in that anti-SBT belief.
>
> >>> "LBJ admitted there was a conspiracy before he died." <<<
>
> Which just goes to show that LBJ certainly wasn't "involved" in any
> way whatsoever with JFK's murder (which is what many, many CTers
> firmly believe to this day).
LBJ ADMITTED there was a conspiracy... He could ADMIT that he knew
there was a conspiracy because he was one of the conspirators.
lazu...@webtv.net
of cters take Johnson's words at face value to Warren and Hoover etc.
I don't see anyone at the level of Howard Hunt, Phillips, Morales
killing the President without approval of their superiors, & their
superiors getting Hoovers approval.Same with LBJ, he couldn't have done
it without Hoover Otherwise, they could all be subject to elimination.