Without Oswald

[ejung...@gmail.com]

A few old boys roll into Dallas, TX, on 11/22/63. Maybe they had their
own reasons to hate JFK. Maybe they were paid by someone who hated
JFK. It doesn't really matter. They shoot JFK and get away clean.

The Secret Service, the Dallas Police Department, and the FBI start to
point fingers at each other, but the DPD are quick to see that they'll
soon be holding the wrong end of the cob. They are under so much
pressure that they finger somebody against whom they have no evidence.
The evidence against this person accumulates only after his arrest.

In the meantime, the FBI and the Secret Service are turning up
nothing. There wouldn't have been a motorcade if they'd felt there'd
been a looming threat. It could take a long time to unravel.

The case against the suspect isn't looking very good. He stands his
ground and there are so many eyes on him there is no chance he can be
intimidated. Heads are fixing to roll. Then the suspect is shot in a
police station while surrounded by police. He isn't wearing body
armor.

What a mess.

Leaders of the federal government have a decision to make. They can
initiate a manhunt, which would implicitly indict the Dallas civic
structure, or they can stand behind the DPD, which would have the
added benefit of forestalling widespread panic in the immediate
aftermath.

To complicate matters, the suspect had been active on the world stage.
He may have been either the subject or the object of various
intelligence or investigatory agencies. It doesn't really matter. But
a full exposition of his actions would put agents or informants at
risk.

Federal leaders choose to back the DPD. The biggest problem is that
Katzenbach was right: Oswald sure puts the pat in patsy. The Warren
Commission is formed to paint the patina of probity on the official
proclamation. Misgivings run so high that 26 volumes of evidence are
published that don't seem to support the official conclusion.

So that's my take. Just ordinary people trying to save their own skins
or the skins of others. From the excusable to the admirable.

To those who would patronizingly tell me that I just can't accept that
an insignificant person like Oswald could kill a president, I give you
the immortal words of General Anthony Clement McAuliffe: "Nuts." Or
let me patronize you: You can't accept that our vaunted security
services didn't have the first clue who killed JFK. Or even further:
Lee Harvey Oswald led a far more exciting and engaged life than you.

To the conspiracy-minded among you, I might be wrong, but I suspect
that if your conspiracy involves Oswald somehow, you will be
ineluctably led back to him as the lone assassin. If you think that
President Johnson or other high-echelon individuals active in
government at the time are guilty, I think you have an extraordinary
burden of proof. If you think the Illuminati or other supernatural
agents were involved, I think I will never be able to prove you wrong.

I do think that we will never know the truth in the JFK assassination
until there is an investigation ab initio, rather than in media res.
And that means we all have to be willing to consider scenarios that do
not conform to our preconceptions. It means that we have to be willing
to consider the case without Oswald.

[YoHarvey]

Logic and the Killing

Of John Kennedy

By Gary Sumner (c)2002

There is not the slightest chance on earth that a conspiracy was
involved in the assassination of President John Kennedy.

While such a bold statement may shock and infuriate true believers in
the Kennedy conspiracy, I intend to support it with what I believe is
a new approach: an appeal to reason. (I believe it's a new approach,
but considering that more than 2,000 books and God knows how many
articles have been written on the assassination, I can't possibly know
that for sure.)

Anyone acquainted with the real evidence in the case knows that it all
points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. Beyond question, he
shot Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
as the presidential motorcade moved down Elm Street below him. And he
was the only shooter. However, I'm not going to deal with evidence in
this analysis. The evidence is there, it is overwhelming, and it has
already been massively written up. That hasn't prevented unscrupulous
(or misguided) writers and at least one movie maker from trying to
convince people that Kennedy's death was the result of a mysterious
conspiracy. Probably more nonsense has been written about the Kennedy
assassination in the past 40 years than on any other subject.

There is something as important as evidence--as long as it is not
contradicted by it--and that is reason. Was there a group of men who
planned and carried out the murder? (Excuse me, ladies, I don't think
any women would have been involved in those days.) By following out
certain logical processes, we should be able to determine the
likelihood of that. Don't underestimate reason. It can be a powerful
tool in uncovering the truth. Evidence is certainly vital and in some
situations can make a conclusive case all by itself. But evidence can
also be manufactured, distorted and misinterpreted--which it certainly
has been in the Kennedy case--while reason is pure. It's right there in
front of us and it can't be faked or twisted.

At the outset let's be clear that there is a large difference between
a lone assassin and a group of conspirators. The lone killer will
generally have an irrational motive that appeals only to him. John W.
Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan in 1981 with the bizarre notion
that actress Jody Foster would admire him and even fall in love with
him because of it.(1) Arthur Bremer shot presidential candidate
George Wallace in 1972 to make a name for himself and also because he
thought it would be a riotously fun thing to do.(2) (Wallace was
permanently paralyzed from the waist down.) Sirhan Sirhan, a
Palestinian immigrant, fatally shot Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968 in a
Los Angeles hotel because of the senator's backing of Israel in its
conflicts with its Arab neighbors.(3) Oswald, who was himself shot to
death two days after the Kennedy assassination, never explained his
motive, but it's known that he was a communist who was filled with
hatred of the United States and who had defected temporarily to the
Soviet Union. He was also an antisocial loner in a bad marriage and a
dead-end job who had nothing to lose.

Each of these assassins had his own twisted motive that would appeal
only to him. As Jim Bishop, author of The Day Kennedy Was Shot,
observed, "A history of assassins is a glossary of persons sick and
obsessed."

Nature of Conspiracies

But for a group of conspirators to come together to plot the death of
the president, there must be a rational motive, however evil and
immoral. The president's death must result in some clear-cut,
practical benefit to all the members of the group. And the benefit
must be so great, the motive so powerful, that the conspirators are
willing to risk everything--imprisonment, death, disgrace, loss of
career and family--to reach their goal. These mysterious men in our
hypothetical conspiracy had to know that the odds were heavily against
them. In Lincoln's day, presidential assassination was easy. But since
at least the middle of the Twentieth Century, it has been a task of
the most extreme difficulty. Getting away with it is probably
impossible. Men intelligent and capable enough to plan and carry out
an assassination would be aware of the odds against them. What would
drive them to undertake a mission that would almost certainly fail and
bring them to ruin? And whatever benefits they thought they would
obtain, wasn't there some simpler, less risky path to the same goal?
Did they really have to kill the president? These questions would
apply as much to foreign conspirators acting for a government as to
domestic ones.

We could try to discover the motive by asking "cui bono," who
benefited from the murder. You could say that Vice President Lyndon
Johnson benefited because Kennedy's death vaulted him into the
presidency. And there have been suggestions that, indeed, Johnson was
the mastermind who plotted the assassination.

Let's deal with that allegation. The mere fact that a man is in the
office of vice president when a president is assassinated hardly
constitutes evidence that he was involved in the killing. The last
president to be assassinated before Kennedy was William McKinley, in
1901. (Shot by another nutcase, an anarchist named Leon Czolgosz.)(4)
McKinley's vice president, Theodore Roosevelt, succeeded to the
presidency. As far as I know, nobody has suggested that Roosevelt was
involved in the murder. And as for Johnson, was he so power crazed
that he couldn't wait for the election of 1968, when he might well
have become president in his own right? The idea is supported by
neither evidence nor reason.

But for the sake of argument, let's pursue it briefly. Any plot
masterminded by LBJ would have required the collusion of a great many
people. He couldn't have pulled it off by himself or even with a
handful of loyal associates. Some of Kennedy's closest advisers, in
fact, would have to have been involved in the plot. Kennedy's entire
trip, including the motorcade route through Dallas, would have to have
been arranged so as to get the President in the gunman's crosshairs.

At this point the whole idea of a Lyndon Johnson conspiracy collapses.
The theory that Johnson was part of some deep-cover network including
some of Kennedy's own people who manipulated the president into going
to Dallas, where their assassin waited, is so silly that only a true
paranoiac could believe it. If there was massive evidence to support
it, of course we would have to accept it--but there isn't any.

Motives and Men

Who are the other suspects that have been suggested by various
theorists as forming the deadly conspiracy? The FBI, the CIA, the
Secret Service, the U.S. military, the Mafia, anti-Castro Cubans,
Jews, the "Communist Conspiracy," Big Oil men, the Dallas police, and
some combination of these. One writer even claimed that TV newsmen Dan
Rather and Robert MacNeil were involved.(5) It's hard to imagine what
benefit the individual members of these groups thought they would
realize from attempting such an audacious undertaking as the
assassination of the President of the United States. They had to be
aware that the odds against them were close to prohibitive. Yet they
went ahead--and (if there really was a conspiracy) succeeded beyond
their imaginings.

The absence of a believable rational motive that couldn't be satisfied
any other way than killing the president is itself a powerful argument
against the existence of a conspiracy. Various motives have been
suggested, and I have no intention of going down the list and refuting
them one by one. Some are fantastic and some merely mundane, but none
are believable. None describe a goal that couldn't have been achieved
in far easier and less risky ways than killing a president.

And think about the men who planned this presidential assassination,
prevented any leaks, executed it to perfection, and escaped. They
would have to be highly intelligent, knowledgeable men of the world,
men who know how to kill, who know guns and explosives, who know
military and paramilitary operations, who know law enforcement and how
to evade it. They would be the cream, the smartest of the smart, the
toughest of the tough. Before proceeding, they would devise an
airtight plan that would ensure the success of their operation.

(Incidentally, some theorists hold that Oswald was part of the
conspiracy, but didn't do the actual shooting, or that he did shoot,
along with one or more additional gunman, but that he was set up by
other members of the group to take the fall while they got away. Some
have even argued that Oswald was a patsy, a nice young man who had
nothing to do with the crime.)

A Double Objective

Now let's consider the conspirators' goals, which were twofold. One
was to kill the president--not wound him, not scare him, but kill him.
For whatever reason, they wanted Kennedy dead. The other goal was to
get away with the crime. We assume that this was not a suicide
mission. (After all, unless you count Oswald, the conspirators got
away, didn't they?)

Now, when you set out to kill a president, you don't want to try
something haphazard and hope for the best. What you want is something
close to a foolproof plan that will result in the success of your
mission and your escape. So what plan did these mysterious
conspirators come up with?

Let's start with their choice of weapon, a gun. Is there anything
foolproof about the use of a gun? Hardly. A gun, in fact, is a very
unreliable means of killing a person. Certainly a gun will kill, and
sometimes one quick shot is all it takes. Many people have died that
way. But a gun will kill reliably only when the shooter is in a
controlled situation, has the victim cornered in some way and has the
time to shoot and shoot again until the person is unquestionably
dead.

Otherwise, especially in a public place where the gunman may have a
window of opportunity of only a few seconds, he is likely to miss his
target altogether. There are no statistics on how many people have
been shot at and missed, but the number must be huge. Second, even if
the gunman hits his target, the shot is most likely to be nonlethal.
As far as I have been able to determine, the FBI doesn't keep
statistics comparing the number of people who are wounded by gunshots
with those who are shot fatally. However, all it takes is the daily
reading of a newspaper for several years to teach anyone the truth
that most gunshot victims recover from their wounds.

I think true believers in the Kennedy conspiracy--as opposed to those
who pretend to believe it for the sake of monetary gain--are people who
have had little or no experience with firearms, who have no idea how
difficult and tricky guns are to use in real life, especially at long
range. These people see cowboys and detectives on TV casually dropping
their victims with a single shot at a distance and it looks easy. All
you have to do is pull the trigger and, poof, your victim bites the
dust. You want to kill the president? Sure, just shoot him and he's
gone.

In real life, the thing is somewhat more difficult. Hinckley's
attempted assassination of Reagan perfectly illustrates the difficulty
of killing with a gun, especially in a public place. Actually,
Hinckley was lucky to get as close to the president as he did. Secret
Service agents are well trained to spot a concealed weapon and are
constantly running their eyes over a crowd. But there is always that
chance event that isn't supposed to occur. Hinckley did get close, on
March 30, 1981, when Reagan was walking from the Washington Hilton
Hotel, where he had given a luncheon speech, to his limousine. The
President reached the car, turned, smiled and started to wave to the
crowd.

There was Hinckley's window. It lasted perhaps three seconds.

He jerked out his .22-caliber revolver and began firing explosive
"Detonator" bullets. Presidential press secretary James Brady, Secret
Service agent Timothy McCarthy and Washington police officer Thomas
Delahanty were all wounded--Brady the most seriously--but all survived.
Of the six rounds Hinckley fired, only one hit the President, and that
was a ricochet from the limousine. The bullet ended up in Reagan's
left lung and he was whisked away to George Washington Hospital.
Hinckley was wrestled to the ground and taken off to jail.(6)

The point here is that neither of our conspirators' twin goals--
assassination and escape--was met. Reagan fully recovered from his
wound, was reelected by a landslide in 1984, and at this writing, 21
years after the attack, is still living. And Hinckley, far from
escaping, remains in custody. Of course, he wanted to be caught, or at
least identified. Otherwise he wouldn't have become famous and in a
position to impress Jody Foster.

In fact, it's typical of lone assassins that they don't expect to get
away with their crime. Their motive may be to achieve notoriety, e.g.,
Hinckley and Bremer. Or they may be so fanatically devoted to their
cause that they are willing to trade their life or freedom for the
life of their victim, e.g., Sirhan. That's why lone assassins aren't
bothered by another disadvantage of using a gun--i.e., that the shooter
has to be close to his victim, making escape all but impossible. Even
a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight requires the shooter to
be close enough to his target that detection of the marksman's
location is certain and escape virtually impossible. So--wherever you
have a lone assassin with an irrational motive for killing a
president, there you can expect the absence of a getaway plan. And
there you have Lee Harvey Oswald.

One more point about guns before we analyze our conspirators' plan: A
moving target, even a slowly moving one, is much harder to hit than a
stationary one. The gunman has to lead the target the exact right
amount so that victim and bullet converge on the same point
simultaneously. Oswald didn't have to concern himself with much, if
any, lead because the presidential limousine would be moving almost
directly away from him as he looked down from the sixth floor of the
school-book depository. (The car may have been trending very slightly
to his right.)

If there were additional gunmen, however, such as the one that has
been claimed to have shot at the oncoming president from the infamous
"grassy knoll," they would have been obliged to calculate lead--
probably a good bit. They would have to have been positioned some
distance to either the side of the street rather than being directly
in front of or behind the president's car. Furthermore, any gunman at
ground level would have faced the difficulty of shooting at precisely
the right moment, to coordinate with the shots from the depository,
while keeping himself concealed from the numerous spectators lining
the motorcade route--an impossible task.

Some authors have theorized that there were assassins in other
buildings as well as on the ground. One writer of a popular book said
there were three shooters, each of whom fired a "volley" at the
limousine.(7) Another claimed that there were nine gunmen.(8)
Imagine it! Nine men out there banging away at the president in full
view of the public and nobody saw anybody but Oswald leaning out the
window of the book depository with a rifle.

To sum up what we've discussed so far. A rational motive for killing
President Kennedy that would produce enormous benefits for a group of
conspirators cannot be found. A gun is an unreliable means of killing
a person. And the use of one requires the shooter to be so close to
his victim that--especially if the victim happens to be president--
escape is all but impossible. (I leave it to the reader to determine
what would be a reliable means of killing a president and getting away
with it. Probably there isn't one.)

The Master Plan

Now let's consider the plot. On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy
was going to be riding through Dallas in a convertible and he would be
visible from about the chest up--a small, moving target, with other
people in the car. Huge crowds would be watching--the Secret Service,
the press, the public, with TV cameras set up along the way. So what
brilliant plan did our conspirators come up with? The plan was to
shoot Kennedy as the motorcade passed by. Oh, of course. That way his
death would be certain and the conspirators would all get away with
it.

Such a plot seems more likely to be concocted by the Three Stooges--
perhaps working with Bozo the Clown--than a coldly intelligent,
knowledgeable group of men. Yet one thing nobody can deny: if there
was a plot, that was it. And on that hard rock all the conspiracy
theories must sink. Nothing else matters. Bullet trajectories, the
number of seconds that elapsed during the shooting, the supposed puff
of smoke from the grassy knoll, the three tramps supposedly running
down the railroad tracks, the fact that Jack Ruby murdered Oswald
"before he could talk." None of it matters. The plot--to fatally shoot
Kennedy in a moving car out there in front of the whole world and get
away with it--is so laughable that nobody with an IQ above the moron
level would believe it would work. Certainly no group of worldly men
would gamble their lives and careers on such a preposterous scheme.

But an individual might try it, if he was a hate-filled loner with
nothing to lose and a practiced marksman who discovered that the
president was going to cruise right by the building where he worked.
No complicated planning would be necessary, no coordination with
others, no concern about somebody with a loose tongue giving away the
plot in advance. All that would be required would be a high-powered
rifle and a reasonably secure place to shoot from. What the hell, fire
off a few rounds at the presidential limousine and see what happens.
You might get lucky and suddenly be transformed from a nobody into the
most prominent personage in the world, the Man Who Killed the
President of the United States.

Perfection Achieved

Now let's apply reason to two additional aspects of the Kennedy
assassination: the perfection of the operation and the unbroken
silence of the killers. According to well-known Murphy's Law, if
anything can go wrong, it will. Imagine all the things that could have
gone wrong in attempting a difficult, dangerous operation such as
killing the President of the United States. Considering the idiotic
nature of the plan, the slightest mishap, the tiniest unforeseen
circumstance, could have brought the operation to ruin. But nothing
went wrong. The killers achieved perfection.

And since then they have successfully resisted the urge to talk about
it. Various authors have postulated anywhere from a couple of dozen
conspirators to several hundred. At this writing the assassination
took place 40 years ago, yet no conspirator has talked. Not one has
gotten drunk and revealed the murder to his wife or mistress, who has
then gone to the authorities or the media. Not one has made a death-
bed confession. Not one has left behind a letter of explanation in his
lawyer's safe to be opened after his death.

Think about it. These mysterious men, many of whom must not even have
known one another before the plot was hatched, got together, planned
and carried out the crime of the ages, in public and on television,
then vanished ghostlike into history. Nobody saw them and they didn't
make any mistakes. None of them ever talked. They committed the
perfect crime, using the stupidest plan imaginable, and got away with
it. (All except poor Oswald, who of course was set up by the others.)
Now, reason may not tell us that such a flawless operation is
impossible, but it does tell us that the odds against it are millions
to one. Reason, in fact, tells us that it never happened.

The principle in logic known as Occam's Razor holds that in choosing
among the possible solutions to a mystery, the simplest one--if it is
in accord with the facts--is most likely to be correct. The simplest
solution to this "mystery"--and in fact there is no mystery--is that Lee
Oswald shot John Kennedy with his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from a
sixth-floor window of the school-book depository and that he acted
alone.

The Judgment of Reason

The contribution I have tried to make to the Kennedy assassination
saga in this essay has been to apply reason to it rather than
quibbling over evidentiary minutiae. Using this technique, I believe I
have made a strong case that there was no conspiracy. The truth of the
following four statements I consider to be certain:

· No believable motive powerful enough to lead a group of
rational men to kill the president can be produced.

· Intelligent, knowledgeable men determined to kill wouldn't
have chosen an unreliable weapon such as a gun.

· Having made that bad choice, they wouldn't have compounded it
by planning to hit a small, moving target.

· They wouldn't have planned to assassinate the president in
full view of a huge crowd, including a television audience, and
expected to get away with it.

The truth of the final two statements, if not certain, I consider to
be of the highest probability:

· The conspirators would have made mistakes, or encountered
unexpected situations, that would have caused their operation to fail,
or at least would have led to their apprehension.

· In all the years that have gone by, at least one of them
would have talked or left behind a confession at death.

This concludes my application of reason to the Kennedy assassination.
I have tried to create a framework of logic showing that, in the
circumstances, a conspiracy could not have been responsible for the
murder. I believe the logic is impeccable and I challenge anyone to
refute it. If you want to refute it, don't start talking about
evidence. What you need to do is explain how a bunch of imbeciles,
operating with the silliest plan on record, could have brought off a
presidential assassination without a hitch and gotten away with it.
Also explain how they were able to make themselves invisible. After
you have pinned down these two points, then you can start telling me
about the evidence.

I know that many people will not be satisfied with logic, no matter
how irrefutable. They have been exposed to so many lies and half-
truths about the assassination that they can be forgiven for believing
vaguely that there must have been a conspiracy. Otherwise, why would
all these accusations keep circulating on the Internet and elsewhere
on an almost daily basis? People who have been subjected to this brain-
washing naturally want certain questions answered. For example:

· Was there a bullet (the "magic bullet") that had to change
directions three or four times to accomplish what was attributed to it
in the assassination?

· Was the well-known photograph of Oswald holding the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle faked?

· Was Oswald's mini-biography accidentally leaked to the press
before he was even charged with a crime?

· Was Oswald photographed standing in front of the depository
when he was supposed to be up on the sixth floor shooting a rifle out
the window?

· Did a mysterious man finger Oswald for the police in Texas
Theater, then vanish?

· Did Jack Ruby kill Oswald to keep him from talking?

· Was Ruby himself murdered in jail?

· Have numerous men who seemed to have a connection to the
assassination, and might have revealed the conspiracy, died
mysteriously?

The answer to all these questions is NO and I can do no better than to
refer you to the book that proves it, Gerald Posner's masterly Case
Closed. If you want evidence, the real evidence, this is where you
will find it. Other good and true books have been written about the
Kennedy assassination--notably two by David Belin--but one of the great
values of the Posner book is that it was published 31 years after the
murder, in 1993. By then, all the lies, distortions, rumors, errors
and myths had had time to surface and circulate, and Posner demolishes
them all.

Whatever conspiracy theories you hold about the Kennedy assassination,
they will not be able to stand up under Posner's relentless assaults.
Read his book if you dare. Or if you're afraid, hide from it and sneer
at it. If you don't want to read all 499 pages (including the
appendix), go to the index and find the subjects you want to check.
They are all there. Many libraries have the book and all bookstores
can order it.

As much as I admire Posner, I want to make it clear that he did not
influence me in my use of reason to explode the idea of conspiracy.
That idea came to me about a year before Case Closed was published. I
had read a couple of other books, including one of Belin's, and had
done a good deal of thinking about the assassination. I was already of
the opinion that there had been no conspiracy. Then one night in 1992
as I was watching a TV documentary on the 30th anniversary of the
assassination, all the circumstances surrounding it came together to
form a whole in my mind. And out of that whole there rose before me a
clear, pure logic by which I suddenly saw that Kennedy's death was not
the result of a conspiracy and could not have been. The next year Case
Closed was published and I was gratified to see that all the evidence
supported my logic.

The case against Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin is as open and
shut as anything could possibly be. There is simply no reasonable
doubt about it. But there are those who will never accept this truth.
They want there to have been a conspiracy. I admit I felt the same way
when my interest in the assassination was rekindled during a trip to
Dallas in 1975, when I stood in Dealey Plaza and took pictures of the
school-book depository, Elm Street and the grassy knoll. I determined
to read up on the subject when I got back home, and I had visions of
encountering traces of a shadowy, mysterious conspiracy of evil
geniuses who had killed the president and were still lurking out
there. If Oswald did it by himself, that was boring. But if there was
a conspiracy, now that would be fascinating!

However, I finally realized, to my disappointment, that the whole
conspiracy idea was nothing but a fantasy. As for those who are
determined to believe in it, I sympathize with them. But there comes a
time when all little boys and girls must grow up and put away their
conspiracy theories, just as they gave up their bubble gum, comic
books and yo-yos when they were growing up the first time.

Notes

1. Deborah Hart Strober & Gerald S. Strober, Reagan, the Man and His
Presidency, p. 120. Also http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/HBIO.HTM

2. Arthur H. Bremer, An Assassin's Diary.

3. Evan Thomas, Robert Kennedy, His Life, p. 386. Also
http://w.who2.com/sirhansirhan.html

4. Dictionary of American Biography, p. 109

5. www.skolnicksreport.com by Sherman Skolnick This material is hard
to find on the site now, but on 10/9/01 it read, in part: "With flimsy
excuses, several reputedly venal and for-sale reporters were right
there, available in the murder zone, to be later rewarded for false
reports, opening the way for their promotion to highly-lucrative TV
network status, such as Dan Rather, later CBS Network anchor face, and
Robert MacNeil, later PBS co-anchor and co-owner of his own network
program with Jim Lehrer."

6. Lou Cannon, Reagan, pp. 403-404.

7. Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy.

8. Penn Jones, author of four self-published books on the
assassination, cited by Posner, p. 483.

Sources

Belin, David W. November 22, 1963: You Are the Jury. New York:
Quadrangle/The New York Times Books, 1973.

_______. Final Disclosure, New York: Scribner's, 1988.

Bishop, Jim. The Day Kennedy Was Shot. New York: Funk & Wagnalls,
1968.

Bremer, Arthur H. An Assassin's Diary (Introduction by Harding Lemay).
New York: Harper's Magazine Press; published in association with
Harper & Row, 1972, 1973.

Clarke, James W. American Assassins. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1982.

Cannon, Lou. Reagan. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1982.

Dictionary of American Biography

Volume VI

CR 1933, New York

Charles Scribner's Sons

Marrs, Jim. Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy. New York: Carroll
& Graf, 1989, 1990.

Posner, Gerald. Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination
of JFK. New York: Random House, 1993.

Strober, Deborah Hart, and Strober, Gerald S. Reagan, the Man and His
Presidency. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998.

Thomas, Evan. Robert Kennedy, His Life. New York: Simon & Schuster,
2000.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <d3cdc793-08ef-40fa...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
ejung...@gmail.com says...

This unfortunately doesn't take into account actions that couldn't have taken
place under such a scenario.

Can you fit into your theory the fact that the two SS agents who were supposed
to be on the back of the limo were waved off at the airport?

Can you fit into your theory the fact that before JFK made it into the emergency
room, a SS agent was already trying to get the back of the limo 'cleaned up'?
(If this doesn't suggest forethought, I don't know what would)

Can you fit into your theory the conditions that existed at the autopsy - with
virtually every action being *dictated* by higher authority? The refusal to
allow the prosectors to examine JFK's clothing - even though it was there and
within reach?

Certainly your theory can explain actions that happened much later... But they
are ill-equipped to explain what happened in just short minutes or hours...

>To those who would patronizingly tell me that I just can't accept that
>an insignificant person like Oswald could kill a president, I give you
>the immortal words of General Anthony Clement McAuliffe: "Nuts."

He could have. But the *evidence* doesn't show it.

>Or let me patronize you: You can't accept that our vaunted security
>services didn't have the first clue who killed JFK.

I think they knew all too well.

>Or even further:
>Lee Harvey Oswald led a far more exciting and engaged life than you.

Tis true, Oswald led a life that quite refutes the LNT'er portrayal of him.

>To the conspiracy-minded among you, I might be wrong, but I suspect
>that if your conspiracy involves Oswald somehow, you will be
>ineluctably led back to him as the lone assassin.

Why???

One of the *strongest* suggestions in this whole case is that he was tied into
the U.S. intelligence system... most likely military intelligence, but probably
traded or used by who needed him. The last year or two he seemed to be
connected most strongly with the FBI. Were the evidence to suggest that he
*did* shoot JFK, it would still *NOT* lead me to a 'lone assassin' theory.

>If you think that
>President Johnson or other high-echelon individuals active in
>government at the time are guilty, I think you have an extraordinary
>burden of proof.

The possible motives of those such as LBJ and Hoover is *also*
"extraordinarily" high.

>If you think the Illuminati or other supernatural
>agents were involved, I think I will never be able to prove you wrong.

Silly... might as well let "Count Baldoni" provide the new version of the WCR.

>I do think that we will never know the truth in the JFK assassination
>until there is an investigation ab initio, rather than in media res.
>And that means we all have to be willing to consider scenarios that do
>not conform to our preconceptions. It means that we have to be willing
>to consider the case without Oswald.

All it *really* means is that you treat this case like any other. Who had the
motive, means, and opportunity? What does the evidence suggest?

[aeffects]

On Dec 28, 6:54 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:

<nonsense as usual>

Lone Nut disinfo abounds here toots-e-roll... endless cutting and
pasting shows lurkers how feeble-minded you are.... c'mon Beetle!

[bigdog]

> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...

Sounds like the plot line for an interesting novel. Go ahead and write
one. Don't be deterred by all the other fictional accounts of the
assassination that are already out there. There's always room for one
more.

[Walt]

BRAVO!!! One of the best posts I've seen in this forum. And I
completely agree..."we have to be willing

to consider the case without Oswald."

Oswald is THE biggest red herring ever!!

Walt

[ejung...@gmail.com]

On Dec 28, 10:23 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
wrote:
> In article <d3cdc793-08ef-40fa-93e6-b91c978d9...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> ejungku...@gmail.com says...

Good point. I would add that the SS was probably the agency least
wired in to Oswald, which might suggest that those involved in the
coverup suspected them as well.

> Can you fit into your theory the fact that before JFK made it into the emergency
> room, a SS agent was already trying to get the back of the limo 'cleaned up'?
> (If this doesn't suggest forethought, I don't know what would)
>

No, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that some members of the
presidential detail were party to the assassination. However, I can't
make a deductive leap and conclude that they were under orders from
the legitimate chain of command. They might have been suborned by a
single person who was not a member of the U.S. Government.

> Can you fit into your theory the conditions that existed at the autopsy - with
> virtually every action being *dictated* by higher authority?  The refusal to
> allow the prosectors to examine JFK's clothing - even though it was there and
> within reach?
>

Yes. Wisely or unwisely, by the time of the autopsy the decision to
whitewash the assassination had already been made. I don't feel that
this implies foreknowledge, though.

> Certainly your theory can explain actions that happened much later...  But they
> are ill-equipped to explain what happened in just short minutes or hours...
>

Which is my point. Attempts to consider those crucial moments are all
too easily swept away to Minsk or Mexico City.

> >To those who would patronizingly tell me that I just can't accept that
> >an insignificant person like Oswald could kill a president, I give you
> >the immortal words of General Anthony Clement McAuliffe: "Nuts."
>
> He could have.  But the *evidence* doesn't show it.
>
> >Or let me patronize you: You can't accept that our vaunted security
> >services didn't have the first clue who killed JFK.
>
> I think they knew all too well.
>

It would only take one honest and courageous person to expose the
scheme. I like to think there were at least a few Americans of that
ilk in '63.

> >Or even further:
> >Lee Harvey Oswald led a far more exciting and engaged life than you.
>
> Tis true, Oswald led a life that quite refutes the LNT'er portrayal of him.
>
> >To the conspiracy-minded among you, I might be wrong, but I suspect
> >that if your conspiracy involves Oswald somehow, you will be
> >ineluctably led back to him as the lone assassin.
>
> Why???

Okay, you got me. The only reason I'm writing this is that I'm a
backyard photograph away from concluding Oswald did it. I'm trying to
convince myself otherwise.

>
> One of the *strongest* suggestions in this whole case is that he was tied into
> the U.S. intelligence system... most likely military intelligence, but probably
> traded or used by who needed him.  The last year or two he seemed to be
> connected most strongly with the FBI.  Were the evidence to suggest that he
> *did* shoot JFK, it would still *NOT* lead me to a 'lone assassin' theory.
>

Again, you got me. I was projecting.

> >If you think that
> >President Johnson or other high-echelon individuals active in
> >government at the time are guilty, I think you have an extraordinary
> >burden of proof.
>
> The possible motives of those such as LBJ and Hoover is *also*
> "extraordinarily" high.
>

So would the penalties have been if they were caught. Disenchanted
high-level conspirators would have had the power to crush not only
political careers but also entire political movements.

> >If you think the Illuminati or other supernatural
> >agents were involved, I think I will never be able to prove you wrong.
>
> Silly... might as well let "Count Baldoni" provide the new version of the WCR.
>

At least it probably wouldn't be as dry as the original.

> >I do think that we will never know the truth in the JFK assassination
> >until there is an investigation ab initio, rather than in media res.
> >And that means we all have to be willing to consider scenarios that do
> >not conform to our preconceptions. It means that we have to be willing
> >to consider the case without Oswald.
>
> All it *really* means is that you treat this case like any other.  Who had the
> motive, means, and opportunity?  What does the evidence suggest?

Oswald seems to have had little enough of all three. On the other
hand, a virulent hatred of JFK among certain groups and individuals
was well-documented at the time.

[ejung...@gmail.com]

>
> Sounds like the plot line for an interesting novel. Go ahead and write
> one. Don't be deterred by all the other fictional accounts of the
> assassination that are already out there. There's always room for one
> more.

I'd much rather write a novel about how Oswald's pubic hair caused him
to kill JFK.

[Walt]

Have you read Robert Oswald's book? He makes it very clear that the
FBI was in a PANIC by Saturday night. The Secret Service had taken
Marins and Robert into "protective custody" and the FBI wanted them in
their custody. According to Robert there was a high speed chase
through Dallas on saturday night because the FBI spotted Marina,
Robert, and Marguerite in a Secret sevice car. The FBI took off in
pursuit of the SS car and the SS agent told Marina, Robert, and
Marguerite to get down low because there might be gunfire. Hoover was
scared to death that Marina might spill the beans about Oswald being
employed by the FBI and he wanted her in the custody of his henchmen
ASAP.

It an interesting read from the perspective of someone who experienced
the gut wrenching fear of witnessing tough gun toting men ready to
engage in a gun-battle to protect their interests. It's no wonder
that Robert was willing to say whatever the thugs wanted him to
say...He saw them in action.

Walt

> was well-documented at the time.- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

ROTFLMAO.... That's funny........and almost as funny as the Warren
Report.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <e22f1a31-6e83-42c5...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ejung...@gmail.com says...
>
>On Dec 28, 10:23=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>> In article <d3cdc793-08ef-40fa-93e6-b91c978d9...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.=

I'm not convinced that the coverup was separate from the conspiracy. I
certainly admit the possibility, however.

Certain of the evidence leads me to believe that those who were responsible for
the assassination were *ALSO* responsible for much of the coverup. The autopsy
is the primary impetus here... as I don't believe that a coverup at the autopsy
could have been put in place so quickly without prior planning by those who
planned the murder.

>> Can you fit into your theory the fact that before JFK made it into
>> the emergency room, a SS agent was already trying to get the back
>> of the limo 'cleaned up'?
>> (If this doesn't suggest forethought, I don't know what would)
>
>No, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that some members of the
>presidential detail were party to the assassination. However, I can't
>make a deductive leap and conclude that they were under orders from
>the legitimate chain of command. They might have been suborned by a
>single person who was not a member of the U.S. Government.

I don't presume that there was any legal "chain of command" involved.

Far too many Americans would simply refuse to murder even someone that they
hated.

I see it more as a 'cabal' so to speak... simply different people, connected to
each other in one way or another, who put together this whole thing.

Certain members of the CIA, for example... probably put together the basic plan,
and began the process of turning Oswald into a patsy... this explains all those
'sightings' of Oswald that would have looked so damning if the WC had accepted
them as legitimate. Oswald shooting at the range, Oswald having a scope
mounted, Oswald declaring his Communist background at the auto dealership,
Oswald appearing to take orders from either the Cuban or Soviet embassies in
Mexico.

You can pinpoint certain people that *must* have been involved... such as
certain members of the Secret Service... and the unnamed military officer(s)
controlling the autopsy.

>> Can you fit into your theory the conditions that existed at the
>> autopsy - with virtually every action being *dictated* by higher
>> authority? The refusal to allow the prosectors to examine JFK's
>> clothing - even though it was there and within reach?
>>
>Yes. Wisely or unwisely, by the time of the autopsy the decision to
>whitewash the assassination had already been made. I don't feel that
>this implies foreknowledge, though.

I don't see the government acting this quickly. The military would not
undertake, *on their own*, and without being prior parties to the assassination
- to cover up the facts. What was done at the autopsy would have lead to a
court martial, prison, and dishonorable discharge (and loss of retirement
benefits) had it not been authorized at the highest levels. Keep in mind that
the Justice Department was headed by the *brother* of the murdered man.

Therefore they (the military officer(s) who controlled the autopsy) were either
part of the original assassination - or they were under orders from those who
were.

>> Certainly your theory can explain actions that happened much later...
>> But they are ill-equipped to explain what happened in just short minutes
>> or hours...
>
>Which is my point. Attempts to consider those crucial moments are all
>too easily swept away to Minsk or Mexico City.

Lost me...

>> >To those who would patronizingly tell me that I just can't accept that
>> >an insignificant person like Oswald could kill a president, I give you
>> >the immortal words of General Anthony Clement McAuliffe: "Nuts."
>>
>> He could have. But the *evidence* doesn't show it.
>>
>> >Or let me patronize you: You can't accept that our vaunted security
>> >services didn't have the first clue who killed JFK.
>>
>> I think they knew all too well.
>
>It would only take one honest and courageous person to expose the
>scheme. I like to think there were at least a few Americans of that
>ilk in '63.

It *has* been exposed. As Larry Hancock demonstrated, in his book "Someone
Would Have Talked"; *many* people have talked about the conspiracy.

We now know that at least some of the people that walked out of that autopsy
fully expected the report to say that JFK was shot from the front. They
certainly knew that the 'heat was on', they certainly knew that what they saw
wasn't what the WCR came out with - look at how difficult it was to get some of
these former military to testify in front of the HSCA! They were *REFUSING* to
testify to Congress until they had written authority from the Military to do so!

>> >Or even further:
>> >Lee Harvey Oswald led a far more exciting and engaged life than you.
>>
>> Tis true, Oswald led a life that quite refutes the LNT'er portrayal of him.
>>
>> >To the conspiracy-minded among you, I might be wrong, but I suspect
>> >that if your conspiracy involves Oswald somehow, you will be
>> >ineluctably led back to him as the lone assassin.
>>
>> Why???
>
>Okay, you got me. The only reason I'm writing this is that I'm a
>backyard photograph away from concluding Oswald did it. I'm trying to
>convince myself otherwise.

The backyard photo isn't going to put the Carcano in Oswald's hands on the 6th
floor.

That photo is *certainly* not going to explain how Oswald got down those stairs,
considering the time constraints - and that Truly was half a flight *ahead* of
Baker. Remember, the WCR could only get Oswald there ahead of Baker by a matter
of seconds, but they didn't take into account that Truly was half a flight
*AHEAD* of Baker - so they *really* needed to put Oswald into place ahead of
Truly.

That photo isn't going to explain why Oswald had zilch nitrates on his cheeks,
despite tests that showed "heavy deposits" on every test subject.

That photo isn't going to explain why eyewitnesses described shooters who were
DRESSED DIFFERENTLY THAN OSWALD. Oswald wasn't a fast change artist, as far as
I know.

That photo isn't going to explain the tremendous evidence of more than three
shots that day. (See http://www.websitewealthcollege.com/JFK/foster.html for
something I just put up today...)

And, most persuasively, that photo isn't going to explain why the WC and HSCA
provably *lied* about their own evidence. Since when is it required to lie to
support the 'truth'?

>> One of the *strongest* suggestions in this whole case is that he was
>> tied into the U.S. intelligence system... most likely military
>> intelligence, but probably traded or used by who needed him. The last
>> year or two he seemed to be connected most strongly with the FBI.
>> Were the evidence to suggest that he *did* shoot JFK, it would still
>> *NOT* lead me to a 'lone assassin' theory.
>
>Again, you got me. I was projecting.

It's not a "gotcha" game... I'm merely presenting evidence that you may or may
not know about, that seems to contradict the scenario that you laid out.

The explanation that is the most persuasive will be the one that best explains
*ALL* the known facts. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

>> >If you think that
>> >President Johnson or other high-echelon individuals active in
>> >government at the time are guilty, I think you have an extraordinary
>> >burden of proof.
>>
>> The possible motives of those such as LBJ and Hoover is *also*
>> "extraordinarily" high.
>
>So would the penalties have been if they were caught.

LBJ was already headed to prison. Hoover was headed to 'exile' ... being
forceably retired. I suspect that those are strong enough motives.

>Disenchanted
>high-level conspirators would have had the power to crush not only
>political careers but also entire political movements.
>
>> >If you think the Illuminati or other supernatural
>> >agents were involved, I think I will never be able to prove you wrong.
>>
>> Silly... might as well let "Count Baldoni" provide the new version of
>> the WCR.
>>
>At least it probably wouldn't be as dry as the original.

So true! :)

>> >I do think that we will never know the truth in the JFK assassination
>> >until there is an investigation ab initio, rather than in media res.
>> >And that means we all have to be willing to consider scenarios that do
>> >not conform to our preconceptions. It means that we have to be willing
>> >to consider the case without Oswald.
>>
>> All it *really* means is that you treat this case like any other. Who
>> had the motive, means, and opportunity? What does the evidence suggest?
>
>Oswald seems to have had little enough of all three. On the other
>hand, a virulent hatred of JFK among certain groups and individuals
>was well-documented at the time.

Oswald had an absolute *minimum* of all three. If the rifle weren't tied to him
(and it's a fairly loose bit of evidence that ties the rifle to him!) then I
wouldn't even allow for the 'minimum'.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <9f9b4323-6d48-4913...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
ejung...@gmail.com says...

Or Ruby's mother's teeth...

[Walt]

On 29 Dec, 15:35, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> In article <e22f1a31-6e83-42c5-b5a0-9e8f571f9...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> ejungku...@gmail.com says...

True but LBJ stripped RFK of his power almost immediately..... He
initally claimed that RFK needed to take time off for grief, and to be
with the family. RFK never was allowed back in the saddle.

Walt

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Ben Holmes]

In article <d2355bfa-9b93-47e2...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...

>
>On 29 Dec, 15:35, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:

>> In article <e22f1a31-6e83-42c5-b5a0-9e8f571f9...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> ejungku...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 28, 10:23=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article <d3cdc793-08ef-40fa-93e6-b91c978d9...@x29g2000prg.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> ejungku...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >A few old boys roll into Dallas, TX, on 11/22/63. Maybe they had their=

>
>> >> >own reasons to hate JFK. Maybe they were paid by someone who hated
>> >> >JFK. It doesn't really matter. They shoot JFK and get away clean.
>>

>> >> >The Secret Service, the Dallas Police Department, and the FBI start to=
>
>> >> >point fingers at each other, but the DPD are quick to see that they'll=

>
>> >> >soon be holding the wrong end of the cob. They are under so much

>> >> >pressure that they finger somebody against whom they have no evidence.=

>
>> >> >The evidence against this person accumulates only after his arrest.
>>
>> >> >In the meantime, the FBI and the Secret Service are turning up
>> >> >nothing. There wouldn't have been a motorcade if they'd felt there'd
>> >> >been a looming threat. It could take a long time to unravel.
>>
>> >> >The case against the suspect isn't looking very good. He stands his
>> >> >ground and there are so many eyes on him there is no chance he can be
>> >> >intimidated. Heads are fixing to roll. Then the suspect is shot in a
>> >> >police station while surrounded by police. He isn't wearing body
>> >> >armor.
>>
>> >> >What a mess.
>>
>> >> >Leaders of the federal government have a decision to make. They can
>> >> >initiate a manhunt, which would implicitly indict the Dallas civic
>> >> >structure, or they can stand behind the DPD, which would have the
>> >> >added benefit of forestalling widespread panic in the immediate
>> >> >aftermath.
>>

>> >> >To complicate matters, the suspect had been active on the world stage.=

>
>> >> >He may have been either the subject or the object of various
>> >> >intelligence or investigatory agencies. It doesn't really matter. But
>> >> >a full exposition of his actions would put agents or informants at
>> >> >risk.
>>
>> >> >Federal leaders choose to back the DPD. The biggest problem is that
>> >> >Katzenbach was right: Oswald sure puts the pat in patsy. The Warren
>> >> >Commission is formed to paint the patina of probity on the official
>> >> >proclamation. Misgivings run so high that 26 volumes of evidence are
>> >> >published that don't seem to support the official conclusion.
>>

>> >> >So that's my take. Just ordinary people trying to save their own skins=

>
>> >> >or the skins of others. From the excusable to the admirable.
>>

>> >> This unfortunately doesn't take into account actions that couldn't have=

>
>> >> taken place under such a scenario.
>>
>> >> Can you fit into your theory the fact that the two SS agents who were
>> >> supposed to be on the back of the limo were waved off at the airport?
>>
>> >Good point. I would add that the SS was probably the agency least
>> >wired in to Oswald, which might suggest that those involved in the
>> >coverup suspected them as well.
>>

>> I'm not convinced that the coverup was separate from the conspiracy. =A0I

>> certainly admit the possibility, however.
>>

>> Certain of the evidence leads me to believe that those who were responsibl=
>e for
>> the assassination were *ALSO* responsible for much of the coverup. =A0The =
>autopsy
>> is the primary impetus here... as I don't believe that a coverup at the au=
>topsy
>> could have been put in place so quickly without prior planning by those wh=

>o
>> planned the murder.
>>
>> >> Can you fit into your theory the fact that before JFK made it into
>> >> the emergency room, a SS agent was already trying to get the back
>> >> of the limo 'cleaned up'?
>> >> (If this doesn't suggest forethought, I don't know what would)
>>
>> >No, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that some members of the
>> >presidential detail were party to the assassination. However, I can't
>> >make a deductive leap and conclude that they were under orders from
>> >the legitimate chain of command. They might have been suborned by a
>> >single person who was not a member of the U.S. Government.
>>
>> I don't presume that there was any legal "chain of command" involved.
>>

>> Far too many Americans would simply refuse to murder even someone that the=
>y
>> hated.
>>
>> I see it more as a 'cabal' so to speak... simply different people, connect=

>ed to
>> each other in one way or another, who put together this whole thing.
>>

>> Certain members of the CIA, for example... probably put together the basic=
> plan,
>> and began the process of turning Oswald into a patsy... this explains all =
>those
>> 'sightings' of Oswald that would have looked so damning if the WC had acce=
>pted
>> them as legitimate. =A0Oswald shooting at the range, Oswald having a scope=
>
>> mounted, Oswald declaring his Communist background at the auto dealership,=
>
>> Oswald appearing to take orders from either the Cuban or Soviet embassies =

>in
>> Mexico.
>>
>> You can pinpoint certain people that *must* have been involved... such as

>> certain members of the Secret Service... and the unnamed military officer(=

>s)
>> controlling the autopsy.
>>
>> >> Can you fit into your theory the conditions that existed at the
>> >> autopsy - with virtually every action being *dictated* by higher
>> >> authority? The refusal to allow the prosectors to examine JFK's
>> >> clothing - even though it was there and within reach?
>>
>> >Yes. Wisely or unwisely, by the time of the autopsy the decision to
>> >whitewash the assassination had already been made. I don't feel that
>> >this implies foreknowledge, though.
>>

>> I don't see the government acting this quickly. =A0The military would not
>> undertake, *on their own*, and without being prior parties to the assassin=
>ation
>> - to cover up the facts. =A0What was done at the autopsy would have lead t=

>o a
>> court martial, prison, and dishonorable discharge (and loss of retirement

>> benefits) had it not been authorized at the highest levels. =A0Keep in min=

>d that
>> the Justice Department was headed by the *brother* of the murdered man.
>
>True but LBJ stripped RFK of his power almost immediately..... He
>initally claimed that RFK needed to take time off for grief, and to be
>with the family. RFK never was allowed back in the saddle.
>
>Walt

Yes... but the point is, if the Military couldn't be shielded by those with more
power than the head of the Justice Department - they certainly couldn't be
expected to risk their careers.

>> Therefore they (the military officer(s) who controlled the autopsy) were e=
>ither
>> part of the original assassination - or they were under orders from those =

>who
>> were.
>>
>> >> Certainly your theory can explain actions that happened much later...

>> >> But they are ill-equipped to explain what happened in just short minute=

>s
>> >> or hours...
>>
>> >Which is my point. Attempts to consider those crucial moments are all
>> >too easily swept away to Minsk or Mexico City.
>>
>> Lost me...
>>

>> >> >To those who would patronizingly tell me that I just can't accept that=
>
>> >> >an insignificant person like Oswald could kill a president, I give you=

>
>> >> >the immortal words of General Anthony Clement McAuliffe: "Nuts."
>>
>> >> He could have. But the *evidence* doesn't show it.
>>
>> >> >Or let me patronize you: You can't accept that our vaunted security
>> >> >services didn't have the first clue who killed JFK.
>>
>> >> I think they knew all too well.
>>
>> >It would only take one honest and courageous person to expose the
>> >scheme. I like to think there were at least a few Americans of that
>> >ilk in '63.
>>

>> It *has* been exposed. =A0As Larry Hancock demonstrated, in his book "Some=

>one
>> Would Have Talked"; *many* people have talked about the conspiracy.
>>

>> We now know that at least some of the people that walked out of that autop=
>sy
>> fully expected the report to say that JFK was shot from the front. =A0They=
>
>> certainly knew that the 'heat was on', they certainly knew that what they =
>saw
>> wasn't what the WCR came out with - look at how difficult it was to get so=
>me of
>> these former military to testify in front of the HSCA! =A0They were *REFUS=
>ING* to
>> testify to Congress until they had written authority from the Military to =

>do so!
>>
>> >> >Or even further:
>> >> >Lee Harvey Oswald led a far more exciting and engaged life than you.
>>

>> >> Tis true, Oswald led a life that quite refutes the LNT'er portrayal of =

>him.
>>
>> >> >To the conspiracy-minded among you, I might be wrong, but I suspect
>> >> >that if your conspiracy involves Oswald somehow, you will be
>> >> >ineluctably led back to him as the lone assassin.
>>
>> >> Why???
>>
>> >Okay, you got me. The only reason I'm writing this is that I'm a
>> >backyard photograph away from concluding Oswald did it. I'm trying to
>> >convince myself otherwise.
>>

>> The backyard photo isn't going to put the Carcano in Oswald's hands on the=
> 6th
>> floor.
>>
>> That photo is *certainly* not going to explain how Oswald got down those s=
>tairs,
>> considering the time constraints - and that Truly was half a flight *ahead=
>* of
>> Baker. =A0Remember, the WCR could only get Oswald there ahead of Baker by =
>a matter
>> of seconds, but they didn't take into account that Truly was half a flight=
>
>> *AHEAD* of Baker - so they *really* needed to put Oswald into place ahead =
>of
>> Truly.
>>
>> That photo isn't going to explain why Oswald had zilch nitrates on his che=

>eks,
>> despite tests that showed "heavy deposits" on every test subject.
>>

>> That photo isn't going to explain why eyewitnesses described shooters who =
>were
>> DRESSED DIFFERENTLY THAN OSWALD. =A0Oswald wasn't a fast change artist, as=
> far as
>> I know.
>>
>> That photo isn't going to explain the tremendous evidence of more than thr=
>ee
>> shots that day. =A0(Seehttp://www.websitewealthcollege.com/JFK/foster.html=

>for
>> something I just put up today...)
>>

>> And, most persuasively, that photo isn't going to explain why the WC and H=
>SCA
>> provably *lied* about their own evidence. =A0Since when is it required to =

>lie to
>> support the 'truth'?
>>
>> >> One of the *strongest* suggestions in this whole case is that he was
>> >> tied into the U.S. intelligence system... most likely military
>> >> intelligence, but probably traded or used by who needed him. The last
>> >> year or two he seemed to be connected most strongly with the FBI.
>> >> Were the evidence to suggest that he *did* shoot JFK, it would still
>> >> *NOT* lead me to a 'lone assassin' theory.
>>
>> >Again, you got me. I was projecting.
>>

>> It's not a "gotcha" game... I'm merely presenting evidence that you may or=

> may
>> not know about, that seems to contradict the scenario that you laid out.
>>

>> The explanation that is the most persuasive will be the one that best expl=
>ains
>> *ALL* the known facts. =A0I'm sure you'd agree with that.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >If you think
>>
>> ...

[ejung...@gmail.com]

True but LBJ stripped RFK of his power almost immediately..... He
initally claimed that RFK needed to take time off for grief, and to
be
with the family. RFK never was allowed back in the saddle.
Walt

The enmity between RFK and LBJ was no secret. And RFK was assassinated
under circumstances that were far more suspicious to me (Disclaimer: I
am not a trained suspicioner) than those surrounding his brother's
death. But I can't buy LBJ. His legacy on civil rights puts the lie to
any political motives he might have had.

[ejung...@gmail.com]

I have not read Robert Oswald's book. I will definitely do so.

What I have read leads me to believe that Robert accepts that Lee is
guilty.

[Walt]

LBJ was a P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N.... He didn't give a damn about
anybody but LBJ and LBJ's legacy.

He didn't give a damn about Negroes ..... Or any other minority. He
did what he thought would make him a "shining star" in American
history.

Walt

[ejung...@gmail.com]

>
> I'm not convinced that the coverup was separate from the conspiracy.  I
> certainly admit the possibility, however.
>
> Certain of the evidence leads me to believe that those who were responsible for
> the assassination were *ALSO* responsible for much of the coverup.  The autopsy
> is the primary impetus here... as I don't believe that a coverup at the autopsy
> could have been put in place so quickly without prior planning by those who
> planned the murder.
>

Prior planning does not necessarily imply complicity. That movies like
"Seven Days in May" and "Fail Safe" had been produced argues that
responses to an attempted coup might have been drawn up. I can accept
an attempted coup but not a successful one.

>
> I don't presume that there was any legal "chain of command" involved.
>

Yes, but extra-legal actions argue against a government conspiracy, to
my mind.

> Far too many Americans would simply refuse to murder even someone that they
> hated.
>

Agreed, although I would extend that reasoning to all humans, not just
Americans.

> I see it more as a 'cabal' so to speak... simply different people, connected to
> each other in one way or another, who put together this whole thing.
>

Hard to argue in today's political context.

> Certain members of the CIA, for example... probably put together the basic plan,
> and began the process of turning Oswald into a patsy... this explains all those
> 'sightings' of Oswald that would have looked so damning if the WC had accepted
> them as legitimate.  Oswald shooting at the range, Oswald having a scope
> mounted, Oswald declaring his Communist background at the auto dealership,
> Oswald appearing to take orders from either the Cuban or Soviet embassies in
> Mexico.
>

These episodes tend to distract from an objective analysis of the
assassination.

> You can pinpoint certain people that *must* have been involved... such as
> certain members of the Secret Service... and the unnamed military officer(s)
> controlling the autopsy.
>

I would add that if Oswald had been Military Intelligence, and was
sent to Russia before JFK's presidency, certain high-ranking officers
who had, post Eisenhower, developed an axe to grind would have been
aware of him. But that doesn't mean that they were still in the
military.

>
> I don't see the government acting this quickly.  The military would not
> undertake, *on their own*, and without being prior parties to the assassination
> - to cover up the facts.  What was done at the autopsy would have lead to a
> court martial, prison, and dishonorable discharge (and loss of retirement
> benefits) had it not been authorized at the highest levels.  Keep in mind that
> the Justice Department was headed by the *brother* of the murdered man.
>
> Therefore they (the military officer(s) who controlled the autopsy) were either
> part of the original assassination - or they were under orders from those who
> were.
>

Ibid

>
> The backyard photo isn't going to put the Carcano in Oswald's hands on the 6th
> floor.
>

Curry's conjecture.

> That photo is *certainly* not going to explain how Oswald got down those stairs,
> considering the time constraints - and that Truly was half a flight *ahead* of
> Baker.  Remember, the WCR could only get Oswald there ahead of Baker by a matter
> of seconds, but they didn't take into account that Truly was half a flight
> *AHEAD* of Baker - so they *really* needed to put Oswald into place ahead of
> Truly.
>

And the encounter with Oswald relieves T & B from the necessity of
reporting contact with anyone else.

> That photo isn't going to explain why Oswald had zilch nitrates on his cheeks,
> despite tests that showed "heavy deposits" on every test subject.
>

Nitrate tests are unreliable. He could've been fondling baloney.

> That photo isn't going to explain why eyewitnesses described shooters who were
> DRESSED DIFFERENTLY THAN OSWALD.  Oswald wasn't a fast change artist, as far as
> I know.
>
> That photo isn't going to explain the tremendous evidence of more than three
> shots that day.  (Seehttp://www.websitewealthcollege.com/JFK/foster.htmlfor
> something I just put up today...)
>

I promise to look at your site.

> And, most persuasively, that photo isn't going to explain why the WC and HSCA
> provably *lied* about their own evidence.  Since when is it required to lie to
> support the 'truth'?
>

Is that a rhetorical question?

>
> It's not a "gotcha" game... I'm merely presenting evidence that you may or may
> not know about, that seems to contradict the scenario that you laid out.
>

I welcome such evidence. And I thank you for your measured reply.

> The explanation that is the most persuasive will be the one that best explains
> *ALL* the known facts.  I'm sure you'd agree with that.
>

Disagree slightly. The Weak Law of Large Numbers suggests that a model
that could explain all of the known facts would not be powerful enough
to explain anything else.

[ejung...@gmail.com]

Or he did what he did to divert suspicion from his complicity in the
JFK assassination. As you say, there is little argument that he wasn't
the consummate politician.

However, did he ever arrogate power to himself? Did his party win in
the next election?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <fac93036-efbf-4cf3...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ejung...@gmail.com says...
>
>>
>> I'm not convinced that the coverup was separate from the conspiracy. =A0I

>> certainly admit the possibility, however.
>>

>> Certain of the evidence leads me to believe that those who were responsibl=
>e for
>> the assassination were *ALSO* responsible for much of the coverup. =A0The =
>autopsy
>> is the primary impetus here... as I don't believe that a coverup at the au=
>topsy
>> could have been put in place so quickly without prior planning by those wh=

>o
>> planned the murder.
>>
>Prior planning does not necessarily imply complicity. That movies like
>"Seven Days in May" and "Fail Safe" had been produced argues that
>responses to an attempted coup might have been drawn up. I can accept
>an attempted coup but not a successful one.

You're speaking of responses *to* a possible coup. What possible "response"
details the need to *AVOID* gathering the evidence??? Such as at the autopsy.
Prior planning in order to *squelch* public knowledge is easily understandable -
but refusing to gather the evidence in the first place argues strongly that they
already knew 'who done it'.

Another example of presumed prior planning such as the Secret Service agent who
was washing out the back of the limo within minutes after it pulled into
Parkland *strongly* argues for a conspiracy, not governmental prior planning
scenarios.

The man you are sworn to protect is in the emergency room, and your first
thought is to wash away the evidence in the limo???

>> I don't presume that there was any legal "chain of command" involved.
>>
>Yes, but extra-legal actions argue against a government conspiracy, to
>my mind.

I've never felt that the government wasn't capable of the same actions that
ordinary men are.

If men can murder - a government can. And history is *filled* with government
sponsored murder. Even the U.S. ... such as Isoroku Yamamoto. (Although
clearly not analogous with an internal coup)

>> Far too many Americans would simply refuse to murder even someone that
>> they hated.
>
>Agreed, although I would extend that reasoning to all humans, not just
>Americans.

Sadly, I wouldn't. There are societies and cultures that aren't so concerned
with human life.

>> I see it more as a 'cabal' so to speak... simply different people,
>> connected to each other in one way or another, who put together this
>> whole thing.
>
>Hard to argue in today's political context.
>
>> Certain members of the CIA, for example... probably put together the
>> basic plan, and began the process of turning Oswald into a patsy... this
>> explains all those 'sightings' of Oswald that would have looked so damning
>> if the WC had accepted them as legitimate. Oswald shooting at the range,
>> Oswald having a scope mounted, Oswald declaring his Communist background
>> at the auto dealership, Oswald appearing to take orders from either the
>> Cuban or Soviet embassies in Mexico.
>>
>These episodes tend to distract from an objective analysis of the
>assassination.

Not in my opinion. They demonstrate the heart of the conspiracy - which shows
that an effort was made to create a patsy.

>> You can pinpoint certain people that *must* have been involved... such as
>> certain members of the Secret Service... and the unnamed military
>> officer(s) controlling the autopsy.
>
>I would add that if Oswald had been Military Intelligence, and was
>sent to Russia before JFK's presidency, certain high-ranking officers
>who had, post Eisenhower, developed an axe to grind would have been
>aware of him. But that doesn't mean that they were still in the
>military.
>
>>
>> I don't see the government acting this quickly. The military would not
>> undertake, *on their own*, and without being prior parties to the
>> assassination - to cover up the facts. What was done at the autopsy
>> would have lead to a court martial, prison, and dishonorable discharge
>> (and loss of retirement benefits) had it not been authorized at the
>> highest levels. Keep in mind that the Justice Department was headed
>> by the *brother* of the murdered man.
>>
>> Therefore they (the military officer(s) who controlled the autopsy)
>> were either part of the original assassination - or they were under
>> orders from those who were.
>>
>Ibid
>
>>
>> The backyard photo isn't going to put the Carcano in Oswald's hands
>> on the 6th floor.
>
>Curry's conjecture.

Hardly "conjecture".

*NO-ONE* was able to put Oswald there after the noon hour or so.

Eyewitnesses did *NOT* describe him.

>> That photo is *certainly* not going to explain how Oswald got down
>> those stairs, considering the time constraints - and that Truly was
>> half a flight *ahead* of Baker. Remember, the WCR could only get Oswald
>> there ahead of Baker by a matter of seconds, but they didn't take into
>> account that Truly was half a flight *AHEAD* of Baker - so they *really*
>> needed to put Oswald into place ahead of Truly.
>
>And the encounter with Oswald relieves T & B from the necessity of
>reporting contact with anyone else.
>
>> That photo isn't going to explain why Oswald had zilch nitrates on his
>> cheeks, despite tests that showed "heavy deposits" on every test subject.
>>
>Nitrate tests are unreliable. He could've been fondling baloney.

You missed the point *ENTIRELY*. Nitrate tests are "unreliable" because there's
alternate ways to have nitrate deposits.

But the multiple tests done by Guinn demonstrated that EACH AND EVERY TIME a
Carcano was fired, "heavy deposits" easily detectable by NAA were left on their
cheeks.

Oswald's cheeks were nitrate FREE.

There's nothing "unreliable" about your cheeks having detectable deposits of
nitrates from firing a Carcano.

>> That photo isn't going to explain why eyewitnesses described shooters
>> who were DRESSED DIFFERENTLY THAN OSWALD. Oswald wasn't a fast change
>> artist, as far as I know.
>>
>> That photo isn't going to explain the tremendous evidence of more
>> than three shots that day. (See
>> http://www.websitewealthcollege.com/JFK/foster.html for
>> something I just put up today...)
>>
>I promise to look at your site.

Tain't much - just there for those who don't have "Pictures of the Pain."

>> And, most persuasively, that photo isn't going to explain why the WC
>> and HSCA provably *lied* about their own evidence. Since when is it
>> required to lie to support the 'truth'?
>>
>Is that a rhetorical question?

For most people, yes. For LNT'ers - an unanswerable one.

>> It's not a "gotcha" game... I'm merely presenting evidence that you
>> may or may not know about, that seems to contradict the scenario that
>> you laid out.
>
>I welcome such evidence. And I thank you for your measured reply.

Despite what the trolls say - I treat others as I'm treated.

I lead people to the evidence. It's not up to me to make 'em believe or
disbelieve.

[Walt]

On 29 Dec, 19:50, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> In article <fac93036-efbf-4cf3-af59-af524fd0b...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> ejungku...@gmail.com says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I'm not convinced that the coverup was separate from the conspiracy. =A0I
> >> certainly admit the possibility, however.
>
> >> Certain of the evidence leads me to believe that those who were responsibl=
> >e for
> >> the assassination were *ALSO* responsible for much of the coverup. =A0The =
> >autopsy
> >> is the primary impetus here... as I don't believe that a coverup at the au=
> >topsy
> >> could have been put in place so quickly without prior planning by those wh=
> >o
> >> planned the murder.
>
> >Prior planning does not necessarily imply complicity. That movies like
> >"Seven Days in May" and "Fail Safe" had been produced argues that
> >responses to an attempted coup might have been drawn up. I can accept
> >an attempted coup but not a successful one.
>
> You're speaking of responses *to* a possible coup.  What possible "response"
> details the need to *AVOID* gathering the evidence???  Such as at the autopsy.
> Prior planning in order to *squelch* public knowledge is easily understandable -
> but refusing to gather the evidence in the first place argues strongly that they
> already knew 'who done it'.
>
> Another example of presumed prior planning such as the Secret Service agent who
> was washing out the back of the limo within minutes after it pulled into
> Parkland *strongly* argues for a conspiracy, not governmental prior planning
> scenarios.

Ben, Where are the photos or reports of a SS agent washing out the
Limo?

> >to explain anything else.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[cdddraftsman]

On Dec 29, 4:17 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:

He was a "shining star" in American history. As shiny as you are dull
and boring reciting your regurgahistory that only a lunitic would
believe .

tl

[Ben Holmes]

In article <beb3d6ff-ce2f-4051...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...

>
>On 29 Dec, 19:50, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:

>> In article <fac93036-efbf-4cf3-af59-af524fd0b...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.=

>com>,
>> ejungku...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I'm not convinced that the coverup was separate from the conspiracy. =

>=3DA0I

>> >> certainly admit the possibility, however.
>>

>> >> Certain of the evidence leads me to believe that those who were respons=
>ibl=3D
>> >e for
>> >> the assassination were *ALSO* responsible for much of the coverup. =3DA=
>0The =3D
>> >autopsy
>> >> is the primary impetus here... as I don't believe that a coverup at the=
> au=3D
>> >topsy
>> >> could have been put in place so quickly without prior planning by those=
> wh=3D

>> >o
>> >> planned the murder.
>>
>> >Prior planning does not necessarily imply complicity. That movies like
>> >"Seven Days in May" and "Fail Safe" had been produced argues that
>> >responses to an attempted coup might have been drawn up. I can accept
>> >an attempted coup but not a successful one.
>>

>> You're speaking of responses *to* a possible coup. =A0What possible "respo=
>nse"
>> details the need to *AVOID* gathering the evidence??? =A0Such as at the au=
>topsy.
>> Prior planning in order to *squelch* public knowledge is easily understand=
>able -
>> but refusing to gather the evidence in the first place argues strongly tha=

>t they
>> already knew 'who done it'.
>>

>> Another example of presumed prior planning such as the Secret Service agen=

>t who
>> was washing out the back of the limo within minutes after it pulled into

>> Parkland *strongly* argues for a conspiracy, not governmental prior planni=

>ng
>> scenarios.
>
>Ben, Where are the photos or reports of a SS agent washing out the
>Limo?

A good primer to start with would be this one:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/add21438d83d7578

>> The man you are sworn to protect is in the emergency room, and your first
>> thought is to wash away the evidence in the limo???
>>
>> >> I don't presume that there was any legal "chain of command" involved.
>>
>> >Yes, but extra-legal actions argue against a government conspiracy, to
>> >my mind.
>>

>> I've never felt that the government wasn't capable of the same actions tha=
>t
>> ordinary men are.
>>
>> If men can murder - a government can. =A0And history is *filled* with gove=
>rnment
>> sponsored murder. =A0Even the U.S. ... such as Isoroku Yamamoto. =A0(Altho=

>ugh
>> clearly not analogous with an internal coup)
>>
>> >> Far too many Americans would simply refuse to murder even someone that
>> >> they hated.
>>
>> >Agreed, although I would extend that reasoning to all humans, not just
>> >Americans.
>>

>> Sadly, I wouldn't. =A0There are societies and cultures that aren't so conc=

>erned
>> with human life.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I see it more as a 'cabal' so to speak... simply different people,
>> >> connected to each other in one way or another, who put together this
>> >> whole thing.
>>
>> >Hard to argue in today's political context.
>>
>> >> Certain members of the CIA, for example... probably put together the

>> >> basic plan, and began the process of turning Oswald into a patsy... thi=
>s
>> >> explains all those 'sightings' of Oswald that would have looked so damn=
>ing
>> >> if the WC had accepted them as legitimate. Oswald shooting at the range=
>,
>> >> Oswald having a scope mounted, Oswald declaring his Communist backgroun=
>d
>> >> at the auto dealership, Oswald appearing to take orders from either the=

>
>> >> Cuban or Soviet embassies in Mexico.
>>
>> >These episodes tend to distract from an objective analysis of the
>> >assassination.
>>

>> Not in my opinion. =A0They demonstrate the heart of the conspiracy - which=

> shows
>> that an effort was made to create a patsy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> >> You can pinpoint certain people that *must* have been involved... such =

>> >> half a flight *ahead* of Baker. Remember, the WCR could only get Oswald=

>
>> >> there ahead of Baker by a matter of seconds, but they didn't take into

>> >> account that Truly was half a flight *AHEAD* of Baker - so they *really=

>*
>> >> needed to put Oswald into place ahead of Truly.
>>
>> >And the encounter with Oswald relieves T & B from the necessity of
>> >reporting contact with anyone else.
>>
>> >> That photo isn't going to explain why Oswald had zilch nitrates on his

>> >> cheeks, despite tests that showed "heavy deposits" on every test subjec=

>t.
>>
>> >Nitrate tests are unreliable. He could've been fondling baloney.
>>

>> You missed the point *ENTIRELY*. =A0Nitrate tests are "unreliable" because=

> there's
>> alternate ways to have nitrate deposits.
>>

>> But the multiple tests done by Guinn demonstrated that EACH AND EVERY TIME=
> a
>> Carcano was fired, "heavy deposits" easily detectable by NAA were left on =

>their
>> cheeks.
>>
>> Oswald's cheeks were nitrate FREE.
>>

>> There's nothing "unreliable" about your cheeks having detectable deposits =

>of
>> nitrates from firing a Carcano.
>>
>> >> That photo isn't going to explain why eyewitnesses described shooters
>> >> who were DRESSED DIFFERENTLY THAN OSWALD. Oswald wasn't a fast change
>> >> artist, as far as I know.
>>
>> >> That photo isn't going to explain the tremendous evidence of more
>> >> than three shots that day. (See
>> >>http://www.websitewealthcollege.com/JFK/foster.htmlfor
>> >> something I just put up today...)
>>
>> >I promise to look at your site.
>>
>> Tain't much - just there for those who don't have "Pictures of the Pain."
>>
>> >> And, most persuasively, that photo isn't going to explain why the WC
>> >> and HSCA provably *lied* about their own evidence. Since when is it
>> >> required to lie to support the 'truth'?
>>
>> >Is that a rhetorical question?
>>

>> For most people, yes. =A0For LNT'ers - an unanswerable one.

>>
>> >> It's not a "gotcha" game... I'm merely presenting evidence that you
>> >> may or may not know about, that seems to contradict the scenario that
>> >> you laid out.
>>
>> >I welcome such evidence. And I thank you for your measured reply.
>>
>> Despite what the trolls say - I treat others as I'm treated.
>>

>> I lead people to the evidence. =A0It's not up to me to make 'em believe or=

[tomnln]

<ejung...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:634ff0eb-ed3c-482d...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not read Robert Oswald's book. I will definitely do so.

What I have read leads me to believe that Robert accepts that Lee is
guilty.

Robert Oswald & family were under Secret Service Protection.

In his book Robert states that by Sunday night after listening to the Secret
Service the Biggest Suspect was the FBI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Walt]

However, did he ( LBJ) ever arrogate power to himself?

Yes I believe he did.... I believe our Constitution says that in the
event of the death of the President the Vice President shall assume
the cloak of power of the presidency, but not the office, until such
a time that a new president can be duly elected. I don't believe the
framers of the constitution ever intended for any man to be president
unless he was duly elected. Johnson had no business taking the oath of
office for President.... He was the Vice President, and it was his
duty to shoulder the duties of the President, and call for a
presidential election.

We could argue that point and resolve nothing . Many scholarly lawyers
have argued the point in the past, but I believe LBJ arrogated power
to himself when he took the oath of office on board Airforce One. He
knew that he had no right to grab the office of the President but he
pretended that he had got a legal ruling from the Attorney General
(RFK) and Bobby had concurred with his idea that the Vice President
becomes the President when the former President dies in office.

Walt

election?- Hide quoted text -

[Bud]

Who did the waving? A known and confirmed conspirator would be
useful in unraveling this conspiracy. Why hasn`t this been done?

> Can you fit into your theory the fact that before JFK made it into the emergency
> room, a SS agent was already trying to get the back of the limo 'cleaned up'?
> (If this doesn't suggest forethought, I don't know what would)

Again, Ben wants to pretend these events are destinations. If they
are conspiracy actions, they are leads, leads which I don`t see the
kooks following. Probably because like all conspiracy leads, they go
nowhere, because there really is nowhere outside of kook imagination
to go.

> Can you fit into your theory the conditions that existed at the autopsy - with
> virtually every action being *dictated* by higher authority?

Yah, Burkley, on behalf of the Kennedy family. Were they "in on
it"?

> The refusal to
> allow the prosectors to examine JFK's clothing - even though it was there and
> within reach?

When they did look at the clothing, they said it only confirmed
their conclusions.

> Certainly your theory can explain actions that happened much later... But they
> are ill-equipped to explain what happened in just short minutes or hours...

No conspiracy theories can explain these things. They aren`t even
offered, because they look ridiculous in print. For instance, Ben`s
kook version of the cleaning of the limo needs the SS agent told prior
to the assassination that his job is to clean the backseat of the limo
as soon as possible.

> >To those who would patronizingly tell me that I just can't accept that
> >an insignificant person like Oswald could kill a president, I give you
> >the immortal words of General Anthony Clement McAuliffe: "Nuts."
>
> He could have. But the *evidence* doesn't show it.

Sure it does. Oz was were his rifle was kept. He goes to work with
a long paper covered object. Kennedy is shot from where Oz is known to
have been. Oz`s rifle is found at that location. It`s a very simple.
All kooks can do is attack or criticize, you`ll never see them put a
better explaination on the table for these things.

> >Or let me patronize you: You can't accept that our vaunted security
> >services didn't have the first clue who killed JFK.
>
>
> I think they knew all too well.

Like I said, it was pretty simple.

> >Or even further:
> >Lee Harvey Oswald led a far more exciting and engaged life than you.
>
> Tis true, Oswald led a life that quite refutes the LNT'er portrayal of him.

Lifelong political fantatic.

> >To the conspiracy-minded among you, I might be wrong, but I suspect
> >that if your conspiracy involves Oswald somehow, you will be
> >ineluctably led back to him as the lone assassin.
>
> Why???
>
> One of the *strongest* suggestions in this whole case is that he was tied into
> the U.S. intelligence system... most likely military intelligence, but probably
> traded or used by who needed him.

Wherever kooks need him for their kooky theories.

> The last year or two he seemed to be
> connected most strongly with the FBI. Were the evidence to suggest that he
> *did* shoot JFK, it would still *NOT* lead me to a 'lone assassin' theory.

Spoken like a true kook. There isn`t even evidence to :suggest: Oz
was the murder. Just his rifle, his prints where the shots were fired
from, him known to be were the shots were fired rom, his politicals
obsessions, ect don`t even suggest to Ben that Oz might be the
shooter.

> >If you think that
> >President Johnson or other high-echelon individuals active in
> >government at the time are guilty, I think you have an extraordinary
> >burden of proof.
>
> The possible motives of those such as LBJ and Hoover is *also*
> "extraordinarily" high.

These two are high on the list of people the kooks want to believe
are responsible.

> >If you think the Illuminati or other supernatural
> >agents were involved, I think I will never be able to prove you wrong.
>
> Silly... might as well let "Count Baldoni" provide the new version of the WCR.

Or kooks. Except they can`t seem to put a version of events
together.

> >I do think that we will never know the truth in the JFK assassination
> >until there is an investigation ab initio, rather than in media res.
> >And that means we all have to be willing to consider scenarios that do
> >not conform to our preconceptions. It means that we have to be willing
> >to consider the case without Oswald.
>
> All it *really* means is that you treat this case like any other.

Exactly. The DPD should have treated it as any homicide, put it in
front of a Dallas jury, and fry the obviously guilty party.

> Who had the
> motive, means, and opportunity? What does the evidence suggest?

That Oz, the political fanatic took his rifle to work and shot
some people with it from there.

[bigdog]

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Last night I was about to concede the title of ACJ 2007 Dumbshit of
the Year to Chico. I did say I didn't think Walt would concede the
title without a fight and he certainly has not disappointed. Can you
imagine anyone being so fucking stupid that they think the VP is not
supposed to assume the Presidency in the event of the death or
resignation of the President. I guess that means we've been fucking up
the process ever since William Henry Harrison caught a cold at his
innaugural and croaked a month later. That damn Tyler staged a fucking
coup.

Here's a clue for you, Walt. LBJ was duly elected as Vice-President.
The voters knew who they would be getting in the event JFK could not
complete his term. Unlike you, they understood how the system works.
Every VP who has ever ascended to the Presidency has been duly elected
to his position by the Electoral College with the exception of Gerry
Ford. He assumed the VP spot through the provisions of an amendment
that was passed in the wake of the JFK assassination. A previous
amendment had specified that the Speaker of the House would be next in
line in the event there was no sitting VP, which raised the specter of
party change in the White House without an election. So Ford's
ascendency, just like every VP before him, was a Constitutional
process.

I really think this latest post puts you ahead of Chico, but that will
be up to the judges. Chico, you've got work to do. You too, Healy.

[Walt]

On 30 Dec, 07:01, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:

> > In article <d3cdc793-08ef-40fa-93e6-b91c978d9...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > ejungku...@gmail.com says...

Ben: The possible motives of those such as LBJ and Hoover is *also*
"extraordinarily" high.

Dud:  These two are high on the list of people the kooks want to
believe are responsible.

Dear Dud,.... CT's don't "want" to believe that LBJ , and Hoover were
responsible for the murders of JFK and LHO, but commonsense dictates
that if there was a conspiracy to murder JFK, and cover up the truth
afterward, then LBJ and Hoover are at the very top of the pinnacle of
conspirators. There's no doubt that there was a cover-up, even an
imbecile can see that. So who would want to cover up the truth but
the conspirators?? And who were the only men who had the power to
orchestrate the "investigation"?

So common sense, and the present day evidence, indicates that there
was in fact a cover-up and a concerted effort to keep information away
from the public Since it's very obvious that there was a coverup
then by extension the people who orchestrated the cover-up were the
conspirators.

This isn't Albert's theory on relativity, ( I couldn't spell Einstein)
so even you should be able to comprehend this simple therorem.

Walt

>
> > >If you think the Illuminati or other supernatural
> > >agents were involved, I think I will never be able to prove you wrong.
>
> > Silly... might as well let "Count Baldoni" provide the new version of the WCR.
>
>    Or kooks. Except they can`t seem to put a version of events
> together.
>
> > >I do think that we will never know the truth in the JFK assassination
> > >until there is an investigation ab initio, rather than in media res.
> > >And that means we all have to be willing to consider scenarios that do
> > >not conform to our preconceptions. It means that we have to be willing
> > >to consider the case without Oswald.
>
> > All it *really* means is that you treat this case like any other.
>
>    Exactly. The DPD should have treated it as any homicide, put it in
> front of a Dallas jury, and fry the obviously guilty party.
>
> >  Who had the
> > motive, means, and opportunity?  What does the evidence suggest?
>
>     That Oz, the political fanatic took his rifle to work and shot

> some people with it from there.- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

Hmmmmm.....Now that you mention it ....Wasn't that damn Tyler also a
Texan just like LBJ?

Perhaps you should check the notes of James Madison which he took
during the secret deliberations in 1787.

Madison was one of the founders of The Constitution.... He said: The
wording they ( the founders) approved was:....Quote:... "In the event
of the death of an incumbent, the Vice President should serve as
acting President until a new President is chosen"... Unquote

You really should check the facts before you make a fool of yourself.
or.... Look before you leap, still water runs deep....

Walt

>
> Here's a clue for you, Walt. LBJ was duly elected as Vice-President.
> The voters knew who they would be getting in the event JFK could not
> complete his term. Unlike you, they understood how the system works.
> Every VP who has ever ascended to the Presidency has been duly elected
> to his position by the Electoral College with the exception of Gerry
> Ford. He assumed the VP spot through the provisions of an amendment
> that was passed in the wake of the JFK assassination. A previous
> amendment had specified that the Speaker of the House would be next in
> line in the event there was no sitting VP, which raised the specter of
> party change in the White House without an election. So Ford's
> ascendency, just like every VP before him, was a Constitutional
> process.
>
> I really think this latest post puts you ahead of Chico, but that will

> be up to the judges. Chico, you've got work to do. You too, Healy.- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

On 30 Dec, 10:19, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Psssst....Bighog. Is there a difference between the oath for the
presidency, and the oath for the vice presidency??

Johnson took the oath for the VP... What is the wording of that
oath??

Walt

> The voters knew who they would be getting in the event JFK could not
> complete his term. Unlike you, they understood how the system works.
> Every VP who has ever ascended to the Presidency has been duly elected
> to his position by the Electoral College with the exception of Gerry
> Ford. He assumed the VP spot through the provisions of an amendment
> that was passed in the wake of the JFK assassination. A previous
> amendment had specified that the Speaker of the House would be next in
> line in the event there was no sitting VP, which raised the specter of
> party change in the White House without an election. So Ford's
> ascendency, just like every VP before him, was a Constitutional
> process.
>
> I really think this latest post puts you ahead of Chico, but that will

> be up to the judges. Chico, you've got work to do. You too, Healy.- Hide quoted text -

[Ben Holmes]

In article <5e72a708-51a7-4b31...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...

>
>On 30 Dec, 07:01, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Ben Holmes wrote:

>> > In article <d3cdc793-08ef-40fa-93e6-b91c978d9...@x29g2000prg.googlegroup=

>> > This unfortunately doesn't take into account actions that couldn't have =

>taken
>> > place under such a scenario.
>>

>> > Can you fit into your theory the fact that the two SS agents who were su=

>pposed
>> > to be on the back of the limo were waved off at the airport?
>>

>> =A0 Who did the waving? A known and confirmed conspirator would be

>> useful in unraveling this conspiracy. Why hasn`t this been done?
>>

>> > Can you fit into your theory the fact that before JFK made it into the e=
>mergency
>> > room, a SS agent was already trying to get the back of the limo 'cleaned=

> up'?
>> > (If this doesn't suggest forethought, I don't know what would)
>>

>> =A0 Again, Ben wants to pretend these events are destinations. If they

>> are conspiracy actions, they are leads, leads which I don`t see the
>> kooks following. Probably because like all conspiracy leads, they go
>> nowhere, because there really is nowhere outside of kook imagination
>> to go.
>>

>> > Can you fit into your theory the conditions that existed at the autopsy =

>- with
>> > virtually every action being *dictated* by higher authority?
>>

>> =A0 =A0Yah, Burkley, on behalf of the Kennedy family. Were they "in on
>> it"?
>>
>> > =A0The refusal to
>> > allow the prosectors to examine JFK's clothing - even though it was ther=
>e and
>> > within reach?
>>
>> =A0 =A0When they did look at the clothing, they said it only confirmed
>> their conclusions.
>>
>> > Certainly your theory can explain actions that happened much later... =
>=A0But they
>> > are ill-equipped to explain what happened in just short minutes or hours=
>...
>>
>> =A0 No conspiracy theories can explain these things. They aren`t even
>> offered, because they look ridiculous in print. For instance, =A0Ben`s

>> kook version of the cleaning of the limo needs the SS agent told prior
>> to the assassination that his job is to clean the backseat of the limo
>> as soon as possible.
>>
>> > >To those who would patronizingly tell me that I just can't accept that
>> > >an insignificant person like Oswald could kill a president, I give you
>> > >the immortal words of General Anthony Clement McAuliffe: "Nuts."
>>

>> > He could have. =A0But the *evidence* doesn't show it.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Sure it does. Oz was were his rifle was kept. He goes to work with

>> a long paper covered object. Kennedy is shot from where Oz is known to
>> have been. Oz`s rifle is found at that location. It`s a very simple.
>> All kooks can do is attack or criticize, you`ll never see them put a
>> better explaination on the table for these things.
>>
>> > >Or let me patronize you: You can't accept that our vaunted security
>> > >services didn't have the first clue who killed JFK.
>>
>> > I think they knew all too well.
>>

>> =A0 =A0Like I said, it was pretty simple.

>>
>> > >Or even further:
>> > >Lee Harvey Oswald led a far more exciting and engaged life than you.
>>

>> > Tis true, Oswald led a life that quite refutes the LNT'er portrayal of h=
>im.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Lifelong political fantatic.

>>
>> > >To the conspiracy-minded among you, I might be wrong, but I suspect
>> > >that if your conspiracy involves Oswald somehow, you will be
>> > >ineluctably led back to him as the lone assassin.
>>
>> > Why???
>>

>> > One of the *strongest* suggestions in this whole case is that he was tie=
>d into
>> > the U.S. intelligence system... most likely military intelligence, but p=

>robably
>> > traded or used by who needed him.
>>

>> =A0 =A0Wherever kooks need him for their kooky theories.

>>
>> > The last year or two he seemed to be

>> > connected most strongly with the FBI. =A0Were the evidence to suggest th=
>at he
>> > *did* shoot JFK, it would still *NOT* lead me to a 'lone assassin' theor=
>y.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Spoken like a true kook. There isn`t even evidence to :suggest: Oz

>> was the murder. Just his rifle, his prints where the shots were fired
>> from, him known to be were the shots were fired rom, his politicals
>> obsessions, ect don`t even suggest to Ben that Oz might be the
>> shooter.
>>
>> > >If you think that
>> > >President Johnson or other high-echelon individuals active in
>> > >government at the time are guilty, I think you have an extraordinary
>> > >burden of proof.
>>
>
>Ben: The possible motives of those such as LBJ and Hoover is *also*
>"extraordinarily" high.

I gave *exactly* this argument in a post within the last day or so.

I obviously agree. I suspect that you missed who was saying what...

>Dud: These two are high on the list of people the kooks want to
>believe are responsible.
>
>Dear Dud,.... CT's don't "want" to believe that LBJ , and Hoover were
>responsible for the murders of JFK and LHO, but commonsense dictates
>that if there was a conspiracy to murder JFK, and cover up the truth
>afterward, then LBJ and Hoover are at the very top of the pinnacle of
>conspirators. There's no doubt that there was a cover-up, even an
>imbecile can see that. So who would want to cover up the truth but
>the conspirators?? And who were the only men who had the power to
>orchestrate the "investigation"?
>
>So common sense, and the present day evidence, indicates that there
>was in fact a cover-up and a concerted effort to keep information away
>from the public Since it's very obvious that there was a coverup
>then by extension the people who orchestrated the cover-up were the
>conspirators.
>
>This isn't Albert's theory on relativity, ( I couldn't spell Einstein)
>so even you should be able to comprehend this simple therorem.
>
>Walt
>
>
>
>>
>> > >If you think the Illuminati or other supernatural
>> > >agents were involved, I think I will never be able to prove you wrong.
>>

>> > Silly... might as well let "Count Baldoni" provide the new version of th=
>e WCR.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Or kooks. Except they can`t seem to put a version of events

>> together.
>>
>> > >I do think that we will never know the truth in the JFK assassination
>> > >until there is an investigation ab initio, rather than in media res.
>> > >And that means we all have to be willing to consider scenarios that do
>> > >not conform to our preconceptions. It means that we have to be willing
>> > >to consider the case without Oswald.
>>
>> > All it *really* means is that you treat this case like any other.
>>
>> Exactly. The DPD should have treated it as any homicide, put it in
>> front of a Dallas jury, and fry the obviously guilty party.
>>
>> > Who had the

>> > motive, means, and opportunity? =A0What does the evidence suggest?

[bigdog]

What went on in secret deliberations is irrelevant. The only thing
releveant is the wording that was ultimately ratified by the original
13 states. That wording is as follows:

"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the
said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President"

There is no provision in the Constitution for a special election. It
was never done before or since 1963. Prior to JFK, 7 other presidents
had died in office. In each and every case, the VP became President of
the United States. None of them were ever considered an acting
President. Each served the remaining term of office until the next
regularly scheduled election. For you to even suggest LBJ's assumption
of the office was illegitimate is ludicrous. It reveals the depths
many CTs will go to in order to find something sinister.

[bigdog]

LBJ took the oath for VP on 01/20/61. He became President at 1:00 CST
on 11/22/63 when JFK was pronounced dead. He took the Presidential
oath of office a short time later. Not that it's terribly relevant but
there is no Constitutional oath of office for VP. By act of Congress
in 1884 the following oath has been taken by the VP, both houses of
Congress, and cabinet officers:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

So much for the civics lesson.

[tomnln]

"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca9fb256-3646-4a0a...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Lapdog is trying to sound like an American.

Address these>>>

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/orders_of_silence.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altering_evidence.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/gil_jesus_page.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/AUDIO%20PAGE.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/autopsy.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/characters.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/croft_photo_with_anaylisis.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/VEITNAM.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CIA.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm

[Walt]

OK ...Now explain what is meant by "the same"?
Is "the same" referring to the "powers and duties" of the president?
If that is what they meant ( and I think it is) then the VP merely
assumes the powers and duties of the President...he does NOT become
president. If this wasn't they way they intended then why would they
specify that the President MUST be duly elected. The VP was elected
to be VP NOT the President. That's why the VP takes a different oath
than the Pres.

Walt

>
> There is no provision in the Constitution for a special election. It
> was never done before or since 1963. Prior to JFK, 7 other presidents
> had died in office. In each and every case, the VP became President of
> the United States. None of them were ever considered an acting
> President. Each served the remaining term of office until the next
> regularly scheduled election. For you to even suggest LBJ's assumption
> of the office was illegitimate is ludicrous. It reveals the depths

> many CTs will go to in order to find something sinister.- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

Ha.ha. ha, ha, ROTFLMAO.....

So now Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams are CT's, Huh dimbulb??
Those are just two of the more distinguished and venerable men who
thought the VP merely assumed the duties of the President, he did NOT
actually become THE President.

Walt

[YoHarvey]

Man, these CT's are so ignorant.....ignorant people everywhere have
got to be screaming "give us a break".

[bigdog]

What a fucking dipshit. The primary purpose of having a Vice-President
is to have a President-in-waiting if it were to become necessary. His
only official duty is to preside over the Senate. They could have
hired a secretary to do that job.

[Walt]

> hired a secretary to do that job.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey bighog.... Yer probably unaware that LBJ was already "gettin his
ducks in a row" as soon as he became VP. He wanted it clarified about
who becomes President in the event that the President dies in office.
Of course it was RFK as attorney General who was asked to answer that
question. Robert Kennedy concluded that it was the sense of the 1887
Constitutional convention that should a President die in office
"merely the powers and duties devolve on the Vice President , not the
office itself." That's what the AG ruled in 1961..... so yuk it up,
you're only showing how stupid you really are. ( Of course I already
knew that).....I mean what kinda moron would believe the Warren Report
is the truth??

Walt

[ejung...@gmail.com]

Walt,

I think you are correct in many of your particulars, but I also think
that the ambiguity of the Constitution is the real culprit. There are
indications that President Johnson was seeking retirement from
politics before the assassination. He also certainly sought advice
before being sworn in on Air Force 1 (1.5?).

We will almost certainly see a new Constitutional Convention in our
lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes. The spirit of the law is too
strong a part of the fabric of our culture for the letter of the law
to interfere. Bills of Attainder, Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
these are life-and-death issues, but the language holds no meaning
anymore.

I, for one, will cheer when the three-fifths clause is stricken from
the record forever. But I hope that people like you will keep the new
drafters close to the Earth, where they need to be for all of our
sakes.

[bigdog]

> Walt- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What a load of horseshit!!! The 1887 Constitutional Convention
ratified no amendments. Whatever the sense of that convention might
have been, it was irrelevant to Constitutional law. You cannot change
the Constitution on a whim. With the death of every President before
that convention, the Vice-President BECAME the new President. With the
death or resignation of every President since 1887, the Vice-President
BECAME the new President. Everyone of these men took the PRESIDENTIAL
oath of office upon becoming the new President and everyone of them
was universally recognized as a full fledged President. This is backed
up not just by Constitutional law but historic precedence. LBJ became
president at 1:00 pm CST on 11/22/63, even before he took the oath of
office. He was universally recognized as such. To assert that LBJ was
not the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief from
that moment forward is absurd. Only a fringe wacko like you could come
up with something so ridiculous.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <6e42cbcc-1f30-4a0f...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
ejung...@gmail.com says...

>
>On Dec 30, 6:22=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 30 Dec, 17:24, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 30, 4:26=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 30 Dec, 14:24, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>> > > > On Dec 30, 1:12=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On 30 Dec, 10:19, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>> > > > > > On Dec 30, 7:06=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On 29 Dec, 19:33, ejungku...@gmail.com wrote:
>>

>> > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 4:17=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrot=

>e:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On 29 Dec, 17:56, ejungku...@gmail.com wrote:
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > True but LBJ stripped RFK of his power almost immediatel=
>y..... He
>> > > > > > > > > > initally claimed that RFK needed to take time off for gr=
>ief, and to
>> > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > with the family. =A0 RFK never was allowed back in the s=
>addle.
>> > > > > > > > > > Walt
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > The enmity between RFK and LBJ was no secret. And RFK wa=
>s assassinated
>> > > > > > > > > > under circumstances that were far more suspicious to me =
>(Disclaimer: I
>> > > > > > > > > > am not a trained suspicioner) than those surrounding his=
> brother's
>> > > > > > > > > > death. But I can't buy LBJ. His legacy on civil rights p=

>uts the lie to
>> > > > > > > > > > any political motives he might have had.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > LBJ was a P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N.... =A0 He didn't give a dam=

>n about
>> > > > > > > > > anybody but LBJ and LBJ's legacy.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > =A0He didn't give a damn about Negroes ..... Or any other =
>minority. =A0 He
>> > > > > > > > > did what he thought would make him a "shining star" in Ame=
>rican
>> > > > > > > > > history.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Walt
>>
>> > > > > > > > Or he did what he did to divert suspicion from his complicit=
>y in the
>> > > > > > > > JFK assassination. As you say, there is little argument that=

> he wasn't
>> > > > > > > > the consummate politician.
>>
>> > > > > > > > However, did he ever arrogate power to himself?
>>
>> > > > > > > However, did he ( LBJ) ever arrogate power to himself?
>>

>> > > > > > > Yes I believe he did.... =A0I believe our Constitution says th=
>at in the
>> > > > > > > event of the death of the President the Vice President =A0shal=
>l assume
>> > > > > > > the cloak of =A0power of the presidency, but not the office, u=
>ntil such
>> > > > > > > a time that a new president can be duly elected. I don't belie=
>ve the
>> > > > > > > framers of the constitution ever intended for any man to be pr=
>esident
>> > > > > > > unless he was duly elected. Johnson had no business taking the=
> oath of
>> > > > > > > office for President.... He was the Vice President, and it was=

> his
>> > > > > > > duty to shoulder the duties of the President, and call for a
>> > > > > > > presidential election.
>>

>> > > > > > > We could argue that point and resolve nothing . Many scholarly=
> lawyers
>> > > > > > > have argued the point in the past, but I believe LBJ arrogated=
> power
>> > > > > > > to himself when he took the oath of office on board Airforce O=
>ne. He
>> > > > > > > knew that he had no right to grab the office of the President =
>but he
>> > > > > > > pretended that he had got a legal ruling from the Attorney Gen=
>eral
>> > > > > > > (RFK) and Bobby had concurred with his idea that the Vice Pres=
>ident
>> > > > > > > becomes the President when the former President dies in office=
>.
>>
>> > > > > > > Walt
>>
>> > > > > > > =A0election?- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>

>> > > > > > Last night I was about to concede the title of ACJ 2007 Dumbshit=
> of
>> > > > > > the Year to Chico. I did say I didn't think Walt would concede t=
>he
>> > > > > > title without a fight and he certainly has not disappointed. Can=
> you
>> > > > > > imagine anyone being so fucking stupid that they think the VP is=

> not
>> > > > > > supposed to assume the Presidency in the event of the death or

>> > > > > > resignation of the President. I guess that means we've been fuck=
>ing up
>> > > > > > the process ever since William Henry Harrison caught a cold at h=
>is
>> > > > > > innaugural and croaked a month later. That damn Tyler staged a f=
>ucking
>> > > > > > coup.
>>
>> > > > > Hmmmmm.....Now that you mention it ....Wasn't that damn Tyler also=

> a
>> > > > > Texan just like LBJ?
>>
>> > > > > Perhaps you should check the notes of James Madison which he took
>> > > > > during the secret deliberations in 1787.
>>

>> > > > > Madison was one of the founders of The Constitution.... He said: T=
>he
>> > > > > wording they ( the founders) approved was:....Quote:... "In the ev=

>ent
>> > > > > of the death of an incumbent, the Vice President should serve as
>> > > > > acting President until a new President is chosen"... Unquote
>>

>> > > > > You really should check the facts before you make a fool of yourse=

>lf.
>> > > > > or.... Look before you leap, still water runs deep....
>>
>> > > > > Walt
>>

>> > > > > > Here's a clue for you, Walt. LBJ was duly elected as Vice-Presid=
>ent.
>> > > > > > The voters knew who they would be getting in the event JFK could=
> not
>> > > > > > complete his term. Unlike you, they understood how the system wo=
>rks.
>> > > > > > Every VP who has ever ascended to the Presidency has been duly e=
>lected
>> > > > > > to his position by the Electoral College with the exception of G=
>erry
>> > > > > > Ford. He assumed the VP spot through the provisions of an amendm=
>ent
>> > > > > > that was passed in the wake of the JFK assassination. A previous=
>
>> > > > > > amendment had specified that the Speaker of the House would be n=
>ext in
>> > > > > > line in the event there was no sitting VP, which raised the spec=

>ter of
>> > > > > > party change in the White House without an election. So Ford's
>> > > > > > ascendency, just like every VP before him, was a Constitutional
>> > > > > > process.
>>

>> > > > > > I really think this latest post puts you ahead of Chico, but tha=
>t will
>> > > > > > be up to the judges. Chico, you've got work to do. You too, Heal=

>y.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > What went on in secret deliberations is irrelevant. The only thing

>> > > > releveant is the wording that was ultimately ratified by the origina=

>l
>> > > > 13 states. That wording is as follows:
>>

>> > > > "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Deat=

>h,
>> > > > Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the
>> > > > said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President"
>>
>> > > OK ...Now explain what is meant by "the same"?

>> > > Is "the same" =A0referring to the "powers and duties" of the president=

>?
>> > > If that is what they meant ( and I think it is) then the VP merely
>> > > assumes the powers and duties of the President...he does NOT become

>> > > president. =A0 If this wasn't they way they intended then why would th=
>ey
>> > > specify that the President MUST be duly elected. =A0The VP was elected=
>
>> > > to be VP NOT the President. =A0That's why the VP takes a different oat=

>h
>> > > than the Pres.
>>
>> > > Walt
>>

>> > > > There is no provision in the Constitution for a special election. It=
>
>> > > > was never done before or since 1963. Prior to JFK, 7 other president=
>s
>> > > > had died in office. In each and every case, the VP became President =

>of
>> > > > the United States. None of them were ever considered an acting
>> > > > President. Each served the remaining term of office until the next

>> > > > regularly scheduled election. For you to even suggest LBJ's assumpti=

>on
>> > > > of the office was illegitimate is ludicrous. It reveals the depths

>> > > > many CTs will go to in order to find something sinister.- Hide quote=

>d text -
>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > What a fucking dipshit. The primary purpose of having a Vice-President
>> > is to have a President-in-waiting if it were to become necessary. His
>> > only official duty is to preside over the Senate. They could have
>> > hired a secretary to do that job.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Hey bighog.... Yer probably unaware that LBJ was already "gettin his
>> ducks in a row" as soon as he became VP. He wanted it clarified about
>> who becomes President in the event that the President dies in office.
>> Of course it was RFK as attorney General who was asked to answer that

>> question. =A0Robert Kennedy concluded that it was the sense of the 1887

>> Constitutional convention that should a President die in office
>> "merely the powers and duties devolve on the Vice President , not the

>> office itself." =A0That's what the AG ruled in 1961..... so yuk it up,
>> you're only showing how stupid you really are. =A0( Of course I already

>> knew that).....I mean what kinda moron would believe the Warren Report
>> is the truth??
>>
>> Walt
>
>Walt,
>
>I think you are correct in many of your particulars, but I also think
>that the ambiguity of the Constitution is the real culprit. There are
>indications that President Johnson was seeking retirement from
>politics before the assassination. He also certainly sought advice
>before being sworn in on Air Force 1 (1.5?).
>
>We will almost certainly see a new Constitutional Convention in our
>lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes. The spirit of the law is too
>strong a part of the fabric of our culture for the letter of the law
>to interfere. Bills of Attainder, Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
>these are life-and-death issues, but the language holds no meaning
>anymore.
>
>I, for one, will cheer when the three-fifths clause

My suspicion is that you don't understand what the 3/5ths clause *was*.

It was *forced* down the throat of the South in order to limit their political
power - thus making a peaceful elimination of slavery possible (although it
didn't come peacefully)

The South *wanted* Blacks to be counted as whole men in order to gain the
maximum political representation in Congress. Thus, what you are *NOW* trying
to argue is what Blacks at the time would have despised you for.

Sadly, history books don't teach this - since it's far more palatable to the
Leftists in the educational system to point to this as an example of what it
actually is *not*.

Here's a cite for you:

"The origins of the clause are to be found in the debate between the northern
states and the southern states over the issue of political representation. The
South wanted to count blacks as whole persons, in order to increase its
political power. The North wanted blacks to count for nothing - not for the
purpose of rejecting their humanity, but in order to preserve and strengthen the
antislavery majority in Congress. It was not a proslavery southerner but an
antislavery northerner, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who proposed the
three-fifths compromise. The effect was to limit the South's political
representation and its ability to protect the institution of slavery. Frederick
Douglass understood this: he called the three-fifths clause 'a downright
disability laid upon the slaveholding states' which deprived them of 'two-fifths
of their natural basis of representation'. So a provision of the Constitution
that was antislavery and pro-black in intent as well as in effect is today cited
to prove that the American founders championed the cause of racist oppression."
- What's Great About America by Dinesh D'Souza, page 109-110.

>is stricken from
>the record forever.

I trust it never will be - for it showed the efforts even then to truly allow
*all* men freedom.

[Walt]

Yes, I agree...The wording is not clear...and I said that in the first
paragraph of my post, but there a couple of assholes in this N.G.who
want to blame me for that ambiguous wording.

There are
> indications that President Johnson was seeking retirement from

> politics before the assassination. Yes, that's true.... RFK was planning on sending him off to a Federal Retirement Farm
and giving him a nice suit of blue denim.

He also certainly sought advice before being sworn in on Air Force 1

(1.5?). Yes it is reported that he had the audacity to call the
Attorney General just a couple of hours after his brother had been
murdered in Dallas and ask him for his opinion about taking the oath
of office. The Only reason Johnson did that was because he knew he'd
be critisized for grabbing the reins of power by being sworn in as
President before JFK was even buried. He knew he could argue with his
critics that Bobby recommended that he take the oath immediately. Of
Course bobby didn't even want to talk to LBJ under normal conditions
so you can imagine what he must have thought when LBJ called and asked
for his opinion, just minutes after he learned that his brother was
dead. He probably told LBJ to do what ever he damned well wanted to
do, because there was nobody standing in his way now.

Walt

>
> We will almost certainly see a new Constitutional Convention in our
> lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes. The spirit of the law is too
> strong a part of the fabric of our culture for the letter of the law
> to interfere. Bills of Attainder, Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
> these are life-and-death issues, but the language holds no meaning
> anymore.
>
> I, for one, will cheer when the three-fifths clause is stricken from
> the record forever. But I hope that people like you will keep the new
> drafters close to the Earth, where they need to be for all of our

> sakes.- Hide quoted text -

[aeffects]

> that moment forward is absurd. Only a fringe ...

even old SCAB is getting testy -- YANK that Nutter's C-H-A-I-N

> read more »

[justm...@gmail.com]

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

For Walt...

Main Index > Cases and Codes > U.S. Constitution > Twenty-Fifth
Amendment

U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Fifth Amendment
Twenty-Fifth Amendment - Presidential Vacancy, Disability, and
Inability

Amendment Text | Annotations
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of
his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written
declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be
discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the
principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body
as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately
assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the
powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a
majority of either the principal officers of the executive department
or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within
four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-
eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress within
twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or,
if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is
required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses
that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and
duties of his office.

Annotations
Presidential Succession

The Twenty-fifth Amendment was an effort to resolve some of the
continuing issues revolving about the office of the President; that
is, what happens upon the death, removal, or resignation of the
President and what is the course to follow if for some reason the
President becomes disabled to such a degree that he cannot fulfill his
responsibilities? The practice had been well established that the Vice
President became President upon the death of the President, as had
happened eight times in our history. Presumably, the Vice President
would become President upon the removal of the President from office.
Whether the Vice President would become acting President when the
President became unable to carry on and whether the President could
resume his office upon his recovering his ability were two questions
that had divided scholars and experts. Also, seven Vice Presidents had
died in office and one had resigned, so that for some twenty per cent
of United States history there had been no Vice President to step up.
But the seemingly most insoluble problem was that of presidential
inability--Garfield lying in a coma for eighty days before succumbing
to the effects of an assassin's bullet, Wilson an invalid for the last
eighteen months of his term, the result of a stroke--with its
unanswered questions: who was to determine the existence of an
inability, how was the matter to be handled if the President sought to
continue, in what manner should the Vice President act, would he be
acting President or President, what was to happen if the President
recovered. Congress finally proposed this Amendment to the States in
the aftermath of President Kennedy's assassination, with the Vice
Presidency vacant and a President who had previously had a heart
attack.

This Amendment saw multiple use during the 1970s and resulted for the
first time in our history in the accession to the Presidency and Vice-
Presidency of two men who had not faced the voters in a national
election. First, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned on October 10,
1973, and President Nixon nominated Gerald R. Ford of Michigan to
succeed him, following the procedures of Sec. 2 of the Amendment for
the first time. Hearings were held upon the nomination by the Senate
Rules Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, both Houses
thereafter confirmed the nomination, and the new Vice President took
the oath of office December 6, 1973. Second, President Richard M.
Nixon resigned his office August 9, 1974, and Vice President Ford
immediately succeeded to the office and took the presidential oath of
office at noon of the same day. Third, again following Sec. 2 of the
Amendment, President Ford nominated Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York
to be Vice President; on August 20, 1974, hearings were held in both
Houses, confirmation voted and Mr. Rockefeller took the oath of office
December 19, 1974. 1

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] For the legislative history, see S. Rep. No. 66, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1965); H.R. Rep. No. 203, 89th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1965); H.R. Rep. No. 564, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). For an
account of the history of the succession problem, see R. Silva,
Presidential Succession (1951).

Sponsored Links
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment25/

[Walt]

Thank you.....What you have posted merely shows that Bighog and the
rest of the LNer's who have attacked me with ad hominem crudeness are
no more correct than I am, nor am I anymore wrong than they are.
Other scholarly, and venerable men, have debated just exactly what the
framers of the Constitution intended, and nmothing was resolved.

Walt

[bigdog]

On Dec 31, 1:22 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:

>
> Thank you.....What you have posted merely shows that Bighog and the
> rest of the LNer's who have attacked me with ad hominem crudeness are
> no more correct than I am, nor am I anymore wrong than they are.
> Other scholarly, and venerable men, have debated just exactly what the
> framers of the Constitution intended, and nmothing was resolved.
>
> Walt
>

This whole discussion began when you posted the following comments:

[quote on]

Yes I believe he did.... I believe our Constitution says that in the
event of the death of the President the Vice President shall assume
the cloak of power of the presidency, but not the office, until such
a time that a new president can be duly elected. I don't believe the
framers of the constitution ever intended for any man to be president
unless he was duly elected. Johnson had no business taking the oath
of
office for President.... He was the Vice President, and it was his
duty to shoulder the duties of the President, and call for a
presidential election.

We could argue that point and resolve nothing . Many scholarly
lawyers
have argued the point in the past, but I believe LBJ arrogated power
to himself when he took the oath of office on board Airforce One. He
knew that he had no right to grab the office of the President but he
pretended that he had got a legal ruling from the Attorney General
(RFK) and Bobby had concurred with his idea that the Vice President
becomes the President when the former President dies in office.

[quote off]

You charged that LBJ had illegally seized the office of President of
the United States. He did exactly what 7 of his predecessors had done
upon the death of the President and what it was taken for granted that
he would do upon the death of JFK. In none these 8 instances was a
special election called to elect a President to fill out the unexpired
term. It was universally accepted that the VP became President
automatically and would hold office until the next regularly scheduled
election. Your charge that LBJ had done something illegally flies in
the face of established precedence and you could not have been more
wrong.

The world was a very dangerous place in November, 1963. It was just 13
months after the US and USSR had come to the brink of nuclear war.
Many high ranking officials in the US government wondered if the
assassination of JFK might be the precursor to a pre-emptive first
strike by the Soviets. We could not afford to be without a President
and Commander-in-Chief for even 1 hour. It was imperative that LBJ
immediately take charge of the office of President. Along with that
went the authority to access the nuclear launch codes, carried at all
times with the President in a brief case euphemistically referred to
as "the football". By immediately taking the reigns of the office of
President, LBJ sent a message to friend and foe alike around the globe
that the United States government had not been decapitated. To have
done otherwise would have been a dereliction of duty.

[Walt]

The difference betwen our views is apparent...

I believe that LBJ was a C-R-O-O-K first and secondarily a P-O-L-I-T-I-
C-I-A-N, ( Though it's hard to say if anybody could tell which
chacteristic was predominant) I believe he seized power so that he
could control any investigation into the murder of JFK. You believe
otherwise..... and your in a minority, because 90% of Americans don't
believe the Warren report. If you don't want to accept my word for
that just ask anybody the next time you have the opportunity for
casual conversation. Just mention the Kennedy assassination and listen
to the response.

Walt

[bigdog]

> Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wrong again. He "seized" power because that is what he had the right
and duty to do. I am hardly an admirer of LBJ and I have no doubt he
did many things that were of questionable legality, but his taking
over the office of President of the United States on the afternoon of
11/22/63 was 100% in accordance with the law and historical precedent.
No one of any significance doubted that he automatically became
President upon the death of JFK. The Secret Service detail immediately
addressed him as Mr. President at Parkland once it was confirmed that
JFK was dead. Every news commentator that I have listened to who was
covering the event immediately began refering to him as President
Johnson. Not one refered to him as "acting President". To suggest that
LBJ illegally seized power is a fruitcake idea.

[Walt]

Yes, HIS secret service agents.....But not JFK's SS body guards.....
But that proves NOTHING. Simply because someone addresses another in
a certain fashion does not make it a fact. If I called you a child
molester would that be a fact?

And simply because others in history had grabbed the office of the
President, does not mean that it was what the framers had in mind when
they wrote: ......

"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the
said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President"

Devolve------ To roll down..... To cause to pass to a substitute.

That seems to me that they were saying that the powers, and duties, of
the office shall be passed to a substitute; the Vice President.

Walt

[robcap...@netscape.com]

Here is the original Constitution statement:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the

said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the
Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death,
Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President,
declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer
shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President
shall be elected.

It was then amended by the 20th amendment, which was ratified 1/23/33,
which read:

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the
President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President
elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been
chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the
President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President
elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;
and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a
President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified,
declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one
who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly
until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

I think this is more clear, if the dead President was not yet SWORN in
then he they could hold new elections, but if he was acting President
at the time of his death, the normal assumption of power went to the
V.P. Recently we saw this when Dubya had surgery, Cheney assumed the
powers of President during this time.

In the 25th amendment, ratified 2/10/67, they made it a flat-out
statement so it would be clear:

1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death
or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

> We will almost certainly see a new Constitutional Convention in our
> lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes. The spirit of the law is too
> strong a part of the fabric of our culture for the letter of the law
> to interfere. Bills of Attainder, Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
> these are life-and-death issues, but the language holds no meaning
> anymore.
>
> I, for one, will cheer when the three-fifths clause is stricken from
> the record forever. But I hope that people like you will keep the new
> drafters close to the Earth, where they need to be for all of our

> sakes.- Hide quoted text -

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:57c20145-df83-4eb8...@z11g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Maybe thats because 90% of Americans don't know what the hell they are
talking about when it comes to the assassination. The only reference point
most of them have is Stones 'JFK' and the paranoid ramblings of lunatics
like you. Ever heard of mass hysteria? Goebbels knew that if you tell a lie
often enough most will end up believing it. You are an idiot Walt.

Walt

[Walt]

On 31 Dec, 20:01, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message

> Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Let me ask you..... You say most Americans don't believe the W.R.
because of Oliver Stones movie "JFK"

Did most Americans accept the Warren Report as the truth BEFORE Oliver
Stones Movie??

If not.... When did most Americans start to doubt that the government
was telling them the truth?

[Walt]

On 31 Dec, 20:01, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message

> like you. an idiot Walt.Ever heard of mass hysteria? Goebbels knew that if you tell a lie

> often enough most will end up believing it. You are

Ever heard of mass hysteria? Goebbels knew that if you tell a lie
often enough most will end up believing it.

Are you standing on yer head?.....You've got things upside down....

If you can clear the fog from yer brain for just a moment, I'd remind
you that it was J.Edgar Hoover ( Goebbels) who told LBJ and Nick
Katzenbach that " We need to put out something that will convince the
American people that the assassination was the work of one man,......
And we should cut off any speculation about his possible motives"

Let me translate that for you..... Hoover (Goebbels) :.."If we don't
want to wind up in the electric chair, we need to come up with a lie
that the gullible public will believe.... We'll just tell them that
Oswald was the lone nut killer, but we haven't found any reason that
he would want to kill the president. It's true that his wife says that
he admired JFK and she said he thought JFK was doing a good job as
president, but the public won't know that because she can't speak
english. Nick, can you draft a release to give to the newspapers?

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:b0a9167d-a3b4-4025...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Go fuck yourself Walt. You lost any right to ask me questions when you said
I was disgusting.

I don't deal with scum like you, I'll just continue to point out what a
bigotted piece of shit you are.

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:83ad4215-2a68-4c84...@e26g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Walt, you do know who Goebbels was don't you stump? Get back to me when
you've finished your stroke moron.

[Walt]

Well I think you are disgusting..and I pity you.....but what the hell
does that have to do with answering a simple question?

I'll repeat it for you....Let me ask you..... You say most Americans

don't believe the W.R. because of Oliver Stones movie

"JFK"..........Did most Americans accept the Warren Report as the

truth BEFORE Oliver Stones Movie??
Did most Americans accept the Warren Report as the truth BEFORE
Oliver
Stones Movie??

If they didn't.... then you can hardly blame the movie for the
opinions that most American's hold. Where did they get the idea
that they were being hoodwinked?.... Could it have started when the
accused killer was executed (lynched) without
even a chance to defend himself. He had a total of about 2 minutes
in two days ( 3 seconds here, 5 seconds there) to deny the charges
that were being hurled at him.

This isn't difficult....answer the question......Did most Americans

accept the Warren Report as the truth BEFORE Oliver Stones Movie??

Walt

>
> I don't deal with scum like you, I'll just continue to point out what a

> bigotted piece of shit you are.- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

Hey Dave you were wrong.....He/she does wish me ill, It wants me to
enjoy myself...It said..."Go fuck yourself Walt." Of course he/she a
little drunk or somethin cuz what it's suggestin is physically
impossible....bit it shows that it wants me to enjoy myself.

Walt

>
> I don't deal with scum like you, I'll just continue to point out what a

> bigotted piece of shit you are.- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

On 31 Dec, 20:01, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message

Oh I see.... You are more knowledgable than 90% of the American
people. Damn....you must be smart, a regular walking encyclopedia.
Where did you learn so much about the assassination?

The only reference point
> most of them have is Stones 'JFK' and the paranoid ramblings of lunatics
> like you. Ever heard of mass hysteria? Goebbels knew that if you tell a lie
> often enough most will end up believing it. You are an idiot Walt.
>

[Sam Brown]

fuck off bigot.

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:3c0c3457-1973-4440...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:534271b1-d625-460c...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

If you are an example of the intellectual capability of the average
American, then yes I am.

Damn....you must be smart, a regular walking encyclopedia.
Where did you learn so much about the assassination?

Its called reading Walt. Try it.

[Walt]

Well ok, so I'm an idiot...... Aren't you embarrassed about being
exposed as a dumbass ( about the assassination) by an idiot?? Do
you actually know any FACTS about the murder?

Walt

>
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[aeffects]

he/she/it? LMFAO!

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:94c05a1d-9120-4a68...@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Walt

I know enough FACTS to know that Oswald (your golden boy) is guilty.
You however are terminally stupid. Stay stupid, who gives a shit. Bigot
always are.

[Sam Brown]

"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b0ece02-dec5-4cdf...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Fuck off Junkie. "You dig?" Retard.

[Walt]

It's FACT.....That males were created to propagate a species by
fertilizing the ovum of the female. Apparently you don't even know
this elementary FACT.

Walt

[Walt]

I'm now a "bigot" because I believe homsexuals are queer. I think you
should know that 99.999% of the human race are "biggoted" in the same
way I am. Something that is a freak of nature is queer.

Walt

[Walt]

> > > > > the United States. Yes that's correct.... I believe LBJ acted exactly like a dictator in some uncivilized tribal nation after he had the chief of the tribe murdered.

He did exactly what 7 of his predecessors had done
> > > > > upon the death of the President

Your "reasoning" seems to be....Well, most politicians dip their hands
into the taxpayers till, and it's an accepted practice so therfore
it's ok.

and what it was taken for granted that
> > > > > he would do upon the death of JFK. In none these 8 instances was a
> > > > > special election called to elect a President to fill out the unexpired
> > > > > term. It was universally accepted that the VP became President
> > > > > automatically and would hold office until the next regularly scheduled
> > > > > election. Your charge that LBJ had done something illegally flies in
> > > > > the face of established precedence and you could not have been more
> > > > > wrong.
>
> > > > > The world was a very dangerous place in November, 1963. It was just 13
> > > > > months after the US and USSR had come to the brink of nuclear war.
> > > > > Many high ranking officials in the US government wondered if the
> > > > > assassination of JFK might be the precursor to a pre-emptive first
> > > > > strike by the Soviets. We could not afford to be without a President
> > > > > and Commander-in-Chief for even 1 hour.

THAT'S exactly why we have a Vice President..... Quote...."In Case of

the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the

said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President".....unquote

The VP is supposed to pick up the reins and drive the wagon until the
President recovers from an illness or accident that incapacitated him.
If the President dies or is removed from office then the VP drives the
wagon until a new President can be duly elected.

It was imperative that LBJ
> > > > > immediately take charge of the office of President.

Yes, I agree it was his duty to take charge of the office of the
President.....But that doesn't mean he was actually THE president.

Along with that
> > > > > went the authority to access the nuclear launch codes, carried at all
> > > > > times with the President in a brief case euphemistically referred to
> > > > > as "the football". By immediately taking the reigns of the office of
> > > > > President, LBJ sent a message to friend and foe alike around the globe
> > > > > that the United States government had not been decapitated. To have
> > > > > done otherwise would have been a dereliction of duty.

All true......But he still had no right to take the Presidential oath
of office..... He basically abbrogated the power devoled to him to
make himself THE President.

Walt

[justm...@gmail.com]

Walt? Your just as insane as the rest of the stooges, make that 5!
Thanks for admitting to being a bigot, it seems to run in the family
of CT misfits around here.
He had every right to take the oath, he was VP and their job is to
take over as acting President in a situation like this. Those little
voices in your head have really messed you up bad Walt...ever consider
sharing the black leather couch with your buddies Healy, Jesus and
Rossley?

[Gil Jesus]

On Jan 1, 11:54�am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Walt? Your just as insane as the rest of the stooges, make that 5!
> Thanks for admitting to being a bigot, it seems to run in the family
> of CT misfits around here.

AND YOU SHOULD TALK ?

BIGOT JUSTME's USE OF THE WORD "FAGGOT"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f6f01f17e7576000

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4603e6fc16667f80

BIGOT JUSTME'S USE OF THE TERM "SISSY"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d6f13999639fc587

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f94449ca6cb9b275

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ee148ec2ece0a2d

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4603e6fc16667f80

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b5496d84d37e49a9

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e446a3f76ab693ce

NO ONE USES MORE BIGOTED SLURS THAN JUSTME

[justm...@gmail.com]

Only towards you, you sissified, lying, racist, bigot, fagot!! There
that about covers it....tell me Chico, do you get more for those
bumpers with or without the rust? Failure as a cop, failure as a
Walmart parking lot security attendent, failure with women, failure as
a JFK researcher, you're even a failure as a mommas boy.
Is there anything you excel in besides making posts to yourself under
different names and deceiving news servers after you have been banned
from them? What a loser.

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:438dec80-8615-4001...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Walt

You have exactly the same beliefs as those people who blew your son in-law
to smithereens. Proud of your self terrorsit scum.

[Walt]

And now I'm a "terrorsit scum." ( what the hell ever that is?) because
I believe homosexuals are freaks of nature. Is a "terrorsit scum"
someone who also knows that homosexuals are abnormal??

Walt

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:47c2100c-df4a-44d5...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Yep dumbarse. Why dont you do us all a favour and strap a bomb to your chest
like the rest of your hater friends in the extremist islamic movement. You
are a disgrace to democracy and free thinking countrys everywhere. You dont
deserve the freedoms you were born with, and I'm certain you've never done a
damn thing to protect them either. You are a chicken shit piece of dirt.

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:47c2100c-df4a-44d5...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Oh well done bigot, picked me up on a typo. Tell me, ever strung a black man
from a tree? You are filth. Stay in whatever backwater shithole you live
in, the civilised world doesn't want you.

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:438dec80-8615-4001...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Got a cite for that terrorist? Nah, just more Walt bullshit. No wonder your
grandkids have behavioral problems, they are as sick as you. It's genetic.

[aeffects]

Sammy, Now THAT is not going to win you any points with the Veterans
in the house (Rita included) Walt terrorist scum? You need help hon,
quickly! Lesbian or NOT I'll pray for the repose of your sorry arsed
soul -- you seem to be dead inside Sammy from down-undah....

You keep this sort of foolishness up I'm going to have to find your
*animating* brother in Hollyweird and forward a few of these posting
along to him

[aeffects]

she's outted Walt..... she's not gay - never was, she's a homofob, a
terrified one at that..... her cover when she made herself first known
here was to change the subject of each and every thread she posts in,
plain and simple..... and I'll bet she's in Fresno and using a Aussie
remailer.... LMFAO!

This is the length Nutter's will go to, they now know its just a
matter of time.....

[justm...@gmail.com]

Healy? We all know you're not playing with a full deck. You provoke
Sam with your comments, and now Walt has joined in on the band wagon.
You both, along with Rossley and Jesus are as uneducated as they come
when it comes to homosexuality. It is NOT a lifestyle, its a sexual
preference. There are more homosexuals in our government and holding
important jobs then you could ever imagine. They are still human
beings and work, support our government, fight in our wars and do
everything the rest of us do as hetrosexuals. Walt is totally WRONG
when he says that 99.999% of people think gays are freaks. His head is
so far up his ass he refuses to see that changes that have occured
over the years. Do a google search on Polls accepting homosexuality,
other then the few discriminating Christians like Gil Jesus, the
majority of the WORLD accepts homosexuality. AIDS is no longer blamed
on gays. Its a world wide disease, it affects everyone! And while
we're on that subject, AIDS is NOT a disease, it's a virus. A virus
that spreads many different ways...not just through gays. There are
gay congressmen and women, there are gay Aides working in the White
House, and to really throw you all into a tizzy, there is a poll among
Americans that would favor a gay president. I would associate with gay
people around the world before I would chose to have any of you as
friends or aquaintances. You show the American public what a bunch of
close minded, discriminating bunch of fools you really are. You have
NO education on the subject, yet you say the most ridiculous things,
that only an imbecile would say. Read the following article and then
start shitting your pants when the next Presidential nominee is a
Homosexual. I hope you're all still alive to experience it. And
someday I hope one of your children or grandchildren spring the big
taboo on you and tell you their gay. Are you going to talk to them the
way you talk to Sam? What a bunch of fucking jerks the 5 of you are.
Adults? Hardly, grade school children are more educated on the subject
then any of you are. You're pathetic Americans to say the least.

http://www.thinkyouth.org/author/politeen/

The first gay President of the United States
October 7, 2007
The first gay President of the United States

By James Mason

The chances are that when the clock strikes noon on January 20th,
2009, history will be made. Why? Because in the current election for
President of the United States, there is a female candidate, a
hispanic candidate, an African-American candidate, and a mormon
candidate, each with a decent chance of winning the Presidency and
each, if elected, would be a first for the United States. But the
question is: how about a gay candidate? When will America have it's
first gay President?

Â

James McGreevey: Governor of New Jersey, 2002-2004

Congressman Barney Frank: Massachusetts' 4th District, 1981-present

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin: Wisconsin's 2nd District, 1999-present

Homosexuality is generally accepted in the United States, and every
single Democratic Presidential Candidate supports gay civil unions or
gay marriage, ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the
military, banning job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and
protecting gays against hate crimes by law. Also, a recent poll shows
that 55% of Americans would vote for a gay person for President-
showing that technically, if a gay candidate was right on the issues
and the majority of the American people liked their ideas, they could
win.

 Then why is it that there is still so much doubt about the
electability of a gay candidate? Why hasn't there ever been a serious
gay contender for the Presidency? The only openly gay candidate for
President was David McReynolds, who ran as the nominee of the
Socialist Party in 1980 and 2000- gaining approximately 5,000 votes in
each election. There are plenty of gay politicians who could mount a
decent campaign for the Presidency- people like Congressman Barney
Frank (D-MA), who is the Chairman of the House Banking Committee, and
considered one of the most articulate and intelligent members of
Congress.

 Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin is another example, a Democrat from
Wisconsin who spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention on the
issue of healthcare. Another possibility is former New Jersey Governor
James McGreevey, who resigned in 2004 after coming out as gay and
admitting he had an affair with an employee- but has managed to
rebuild his reputation and political credibility since. Why haven't
any of these people stepped forward? Even if they didn't have a real
chance of winning, they would still be able to make an impact on the
race and on future races as well.

 They might be able to make the idea of a gay President of the United
States more realistic, and show the American people that there is no
such thing as a "gay agenda", that gays are concerned about the same
issues that straight people are, issues like the Iraq War, healthcare,
the minimum wage, and global warming. In 1984 and 1988, Rev. Jesse
Jackson was a candidate for President. At the time, people said that
he was the first real Black candidate for the White House.

 Now, in 2007, Senator Barack Obama has a real chance of winning, and
it's because 23 years ago, Jackson began building the road towards a
Black President. Without Jackson, it's likely that Obama would have no
chance today. Same with Hillary Clinton; in 1972, Congresswoman
Shirley Chisholm became the first woman who mounted a serious
mainstream candidacy for the Presidency. In 2000, Elizabeth Dole made
a run for the Presidency, and while Dole's candidacy may have been
shortlived, it still helped make the idea of a female President more
realistic for the American people. And in 2004, former Senator Carol
Mosley Braun made a run for President too.

 Without Chisholm, Dole and Braun, Hillary Clinton would probably not
have a chance of becoming President. It's all about building towards
the White House, and while we may not have a President McGreevey,
President Baldwin or President Frank come 2009, their candidacies
would build the blocks towards a gay Commander-in-Chief at some point
in the future. Some would probably say that their candidacies would be
a waste because they'd have no chance of winning, but unlike some
people who have already announced their candidacies even though they
have no chance, a gay candidate would be serving a purpose.

 Somewhere in America, there's a teenager dreaming of one day
becoming President of the United States. However, they're not too sure
if it's worth trying because it might not be possible, simply because
they're gay, lesbian or bisexual. Back in the 1940's, there were Black
teenagers thinking the same thing, and female teens might have felt
the same way, maybe until even the 1970's or 80's. But now, they have
people from their community standing up for them by running for the
highest office in the land, but what do gay people have? Nothing.

 It's time for that to change. Governor McGreevey, Congressman Frank,
Congresswoman Baldwin, stand up and make history. Be the person who
made the difference, who changed America forever and who made the
possibility of breaking the glass ceiling, of a gay person becoming
President of the United States, a little more true. Millions of
Americans are asking for your help and leadership- and now it's time
for you to answer their call.

Written by James Mason · Filed Under Civil Rights, Democrats, Election
2008, GLBT Rights, History, White House

[Walt]

That's not what it say's on my DD214

[Walt]

Oh my goodness!!..... Simply because I recognize the homosexuality is
abnormal, you think I could harm someone.

I shun homosexuals..... and I pity them...... but I don't hate
them.... They're just queers to me.

You really should see a shrink.....there's something seriously wrong
between yer ears.

[justm...@gmail.com]

I rest my case, Walt your a disgrace to Americans...a discriminating
vermon just like your buddies.
Pity them??? ROFLMAO 45% of them have a better life then you'll ever
see Walt. You need to get out more .

[Walt]

What ever it is.....It needs psychiatric help, it is seriously sick.
I'm a little ashamed of myself for even responding ti it's ad hominem
attacks on me, but I'm compelled to refute the nonsense just as I'm
compelled to refute the nonsense handed to us by the warren
Commission.

[Walt]

What an utterly absurd and presumptive statement....... First off; you
have no idea of how I live. And secondly I'm perfectly happy with my
lifestyle. The only problem with my lifestyle is there are just too
many queers out of the closet.

Walt

[justm...@gmail.com]

As I said Walt, your a disgrace to Americans. There are too many
bigoted individuals like yourself in this country. Keep in mind Walt,
when you're on your death bed or in need of medical attention to save
your life it might be a homosexual that is there to help you as a
professional and an American. It's a damn shame they can't or won't
look at you and say "Die bastard, you think i'm queer and a freak"
That would be what you deserve!

[justm...@gmail.com]

As I said Walt, your a disgrace to Americans. There are too many

[Walt]

I believe there's an analogy here.... A snooty, holier-than- thou,
woman once told Winston Churchill; " If you were my husband, I'd put
poison in your tea"..... Churchill replied: "If you were my wife,
madam, I'd drink it"

[Walt]

On 2 Jan, 03:11, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:

I donno, Dave.....Is there a funny farm in Fresno??

[aeffects]

LMFAO! Yank that NUTTER'S chain!

[Sam Brown]

"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:357989b0-a87e-46b6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Dont bother poodle fucker. I couldnt give a shit.

>
> You keep this sort of foolishness up I'm going to have to find your
> *animating* brother in Hollyweird and forward a few of these posting
> along to him

Told you 50 times Junkie, can't be bothered going over it with you again.
Now fuck off, you're high again. Talk to me when you've finished either high
school or rehab.

[Sam Brown]

"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:437af1dc-acc8-4057...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Stay off the drugs Junkie, you get more paranoid by the minute. ROTFLMAO.

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:a138ba84-a8a6-4a73...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

You should be. Shut your bigotted yap.

[Sam Brown]

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message

news:93d7f93d-1650-428f...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Yeah sure. Catering corp I'm sure. Now fuck off old man, the smell is
rancid.

[aeffects]

On Jan 2, 12:32 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message

gawd, and you're suppose to be creative? -- Maybe you are a 13 year
old (as a few lurker's think) Lone Nutter's arent; going to be
happy..... LMFAO!

>
> > You keep this sort of foolishness up I'm going to have to find your
> > *animating* brother in Hollyweird and forward a few of these posting
> > along to him
>
> Told you 50 times Junkie, can't be bothered going over it with you again.
> Now fuck off, you're high again. Talk to me when you've finished either high
> school or rehab.

Sammy from down-undah, don't ya just love it when I YANK that Lone
Neuter C-H-A-I-N

<sniperoo>

[guybann...@aol.com]

On Dec 28 2007, 6:54 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Logic and the Killing
> Of John Kennedy
> By Gary Sumner (c)2002

> There is not the slightest chance on earth that a conspiracy was
> involved in the assassination of President John Kennedy.

Didn't you also once claim that there was no conspiracy involved in
the assassination of Julius Caesar -- that the perpetrators all
happened to show up to stab him @ the same time/place "by sheer
coincidence"?

-- A FORMER believer in the Lone Nut Theory vis the JFK
assassination
Now a *disbeliever* of "lone nut" deniers of reality ("YO
Adrian!") on the Internet
Must read books for those sincerely interested in the Truth:
John Armstrong: "Harvey and Lee"
Joan Mellen: "A Farewell to Justice"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDING FATHERS DO? ...

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on
certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive."

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in
matters of principle, stand like a rock."

-- Thomas Jefferson

PLEASE EMAIL THESE LINKS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW:

www.predatoryaliens.com
www.immigrationshumancost.org
www.daylaborers.org
www.alipac.us

"The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave" by Heather MacDonald
www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

See the COLOSSAL costs of illegal aliens to the American taxpayer:
www.immigrationcounters.com

www.AmericanPatrol.com
www.SaveOurState.org
www.escapingjustice.com

Just two of MANY American cops murdered by illegals:
www.deputydavidmarch.com
www.kriseggle.org

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an
irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of
freedom in the minds of men."
-- Samuel Adams
.
"Unfortunately, the majority of illegal aliens who are here
are engaged in criminal activity. Identity theft, use of
fraudulent social security numbers and green cards, tax
evasion, driving without licenses represent some of the
crimes that are engaged in by the majority of illegal aliens
on a daily basis merely to maintain and hide their illegal
status. In addition, violent crime and drug distribution and
possession is also prevalent among illegal aliens. Over 25%
of today's federal prison population are illegal aliens. In some
areas of the country, 12% of felonies, 25% of burglaries and
34% of thefts are committed by illegal aliens."

-- Testimony of District Attorney John M. Morganelli before
the House Subcommittee on immigration, Border, Security
and Claims