what conspiracy?
Tom Braun
May 14, 1998
With all due respect - enough is enough.
For far too long, conspiracy theorists (CTs) have been getting away with
murder in the JFK case. They seem to feel that all they need to do is
to find flaws with the Warren Report (WR), and thus they have proved the
sort of massive conspiracy and cover-up they have alleged for decades.
WRONG!!
Let’s give CTs their due: they are doing the job of good defense
attorneys in casting doubts on the "prosecutorial" WR. Fine - in a
court of law, they might even have gotten Oswald acquitted (after OJ
Simpson’s trial, I’ll believe anything). But that does NOT mean that
the massive, government-wide plot and cover-up have been demonstrated -
any more than, by invoking the possibility of a police conspiracy
against OJ, Johnnie Cochran actually demonstrated such a plot. Even
Simpson's bizarre acquittal did not mean the jury believed such a police
conspiracy occurred - only that they had doubts as to Simpson's guilt.
Well, the same rule applies here. If you wish to say the WR has
problems, fine. If you wish to doubt that LHO was the lone assassin,
fine - that's your right. But do NOT keep saying that you have proved
anything other than a reasonable doubt about the WR. It has been nearly
35 years since the crime took place. That's long enough to solve
anything. (And stop with the nonsense that "Well, we could solve it,
but 'they' have the smoking-gun documents locked up" - if they're locked
up, how do you know they exist?) From here on, we skeptics have the
right to demand that CTs present a CASE.
A case - you know, like prosecutors present in court. For better or
worse, the WR at least presented one: a suspect; his gun; his palm
prints; his presence in the building; the "curtain rods" he brought to
work; his expertise with rifles; witnesses who saw someone of LHO's
rough description firing from the Depository window; ballistics tests
that indicated the bullets came from above and behind; only three wounds
total (certainly within one man's abilities); LHO's flight from
the scene; his probable murder of Tippitt; etc. Can you challenge these
points? Certainly - but at least it is an intact case. We skeptics
therefore have the right, from here on, to demand that CTs prosecute and
convict the plotters, NOT simply acquit LHO.
Specifically, we demand to know:
1) If not LHO, then who did it? And that means actual names of actual
suspects, not nebulous terms like "the Mafia," "the Cubans," "the CIA,"
etc. After all, the WR did not simply blame "leftists" or "young men
without fathers."
2) Why did they do it? And this requires better reasoning than: "JFK
wanted to pull us out of Vietnam; they shot him; then Vietnam happened;
therefore..." That shows no cause-and-effect at all. We will never
know whether JFK would have pulled us out. Nor could the plotters have
been any more certain that LBJ would put us in, unless he was part of
the plot - an accusation that REALLY requires some substantiation.
3) How did they do it? Where were the gunmen? How many? Who were
they? How many shots did they fire? If they fired eight or nine shots
(as has been alleged), why was no one else hit in the car? Explain how
they accounted for intangibles. For instance, the way that Connally
collapsed after being merely wounded is the same thing that could have
happened to JFK - so why was there not a literal rain of bullets,
perhaps 20 or more, to ensure the hit?
4) How did they mastermind the cover-up? How did they get the Warren
Commission, the FBI, the CIA, the autopsy doctors, the people who
altered the Zapruder film and the autopsy records, and the rest of the
required army to cooperate and to never talk as people have in every
other plot you can name? Sure, some people have said some things; but
after 35 years, we still do not know the specifics of the plot - that's
a world-class cover-up.
5) Most of all: what specific evidence do you have to support charges
1-4? This must be more than "We KNOW Oswald didn't do it alone;
therefore..." How far do you suppose that would go in court? That's
the test: supply evidence that would hold up in court under
cross-examination (that's a prosecutor's job).
And that's it. Give us skeptics a case we can examine. For every flaw
that CTs have found in the WR, I suspect we can find ten times as many
flaws in any plot theory. Have the courage to submit your case to
scrutiny. It is well past time for CTs to prove their case, not just
disprove the WR's.
Thomas E. Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
Tom Braun
Robert Harris
Hi, Tom!
You seem to be trolling again. Why do you insist on conducting your
investigation with a ball bat in your hands:-)
You know very well that not only have I presented a "CASE" but that you
can't touch it with a proverbial ten foot pole. The last time we debated,
you snipped 98% of all the arguments I presented to you and then ran for
the hills.
Why don't you give it another try?
I say the evidence that there was a flurry of very closely spaced shots at
the end of the attack is beyond doubt, reasonable or otherwise. You can
read my article again by clicking on the first link at the following URL:
I will be glad to talk about your points below after we resolve the
question of multiple shooters - one step at a time.
Good luck Tom - hope you do better than you did before:-)
Robert Harris
--
Check out my website, The JFK Assassination Home Page
http://www.thuntek.net/jfk/
the FTP site is:
ftp://ftp.thuntek.net/pub/users/sub/reharris/
SNana1
Here is a great example of the WC believer showing interest in the JFK
assassination. I find that amazing. The murder was solved by the WC, no one
has proven a conspiracy (not necessarily a massive one) and he demands that
the public present a case and has decided that a 35 year staute of limitations
applies. Why?? Once again I ask why do the WC believers involve themselves in
research of the assassination if they are happy and content with the results of
the WC. I suspect they have more doubt about the WC and the assassination than
they will admit and they are very uncomfortable questioning any government
position on any subject. Fine, but that is not a reason to demand anything
from this group or any other that does have questions will continue to seek the
WHOLE truth about the assassination. At least we have an admission that the WC
"had problems, (what an understatement) and that Oswald would probably have
been aquitted (da, you think?) The responsibility for conducting a murder
investigation, naming names, bringing charges and trying cases is the
governments not the public's responsibility. The public has the right and
responsibility to demand that the government fulfill their responsibility, this
has not been done in the JFK assassination, although two self interested groups
have conducted looked into the assassination and decided that the relevant
documents, which do exist, should be kept from the public. The writer asks for
proof of a conspiracy and a wrap up of the scenario of the assassination. This
is not a sitcom or hour detective show. Admittedly, many people have used the
Kennedy name and the murder with the sole purpose of making a name for
themselves and money. There are many more who are sincerely interested in
finding out the truth about the assassination and they have every right and the
responsibilty to question the ridiculous response of the government in the form
of the WC that they were provided.
Snana1
ritchie linton
Robert Harris wrote:
>
> In article <355B7F...@sprynet.com>, cawr...@sprynet.com wrote:
>
> > May 14, 1998
> >
> > With all due respect - enough is enough.
> >
> > For far too long, conspiracy theorists (CTs) have been getting away with
> > murder in the JFK case. They seem to feel that all they need to do is
> > to find flaws with the Warren Report (WR), and thus they have proved the
> > sort of massive conspiracy and cover-up they have alleged for decades.
> >
> > WRONG!!
> >
> > Let’s give CTs their due: they are doing the job of good defense
> > attorneys in casting doubts on the "prosecutorial" WR. Fine - in a
> > court of law, they might even have gotten Oswald acquitted (after OJ
> > Simpson’s trial, I’ll believe anything). But that does NOT mean that
> > the massive, government-wide plot and cover-up have been demonstrated -
> > any more than, by invoking the possibility of a police conspiracy
> > against OJ, Johnnie Cochran actually demonstrated such a plot. Even
> > Simpson's bizarre acquittal did not mean the jury believed such a police
> > conspiracy occurred - only that they had doubts as to Simpson's guilt.
> >
> > Well, the same rule applies here. If you wish to say the WR has
> > problems, fine. If you wish to doubt that LHO was the lone assassin,
> > fine - that's your right. But do NOT keep saying that you have proved
************************
Well, legally, that is the test, after all.It evolved in our culture for the simple
reason that its all too easy to accuse.Its something else again to prove to a reasonable
doubt.
Without regard to the preverse finding in the Simpson case, the test remains the same on
a case by case basis.In this case, on the basis of a thorough review of the evidence
against the accused, I have decided to acquit.Quite forcefully, actually.Without
deciding anything else, I have decided that Oswald was innocent. He did not do anything
in my opinion because all the evidence says to me he could not.
Here is where I seem to differ with a lot of other CT. Without running off immediately
to try to explain which CT seemed to work, I try to understand the one that did not. The
frame on Oswald does not hold the real pictures we have all seen, and so I ask myself,
why was Oswald framed in the way it was done? What were the people who planted the false
evidence thinking you would think when they planted it? Something must have gone wrong
with what they planned. By the test of proof, it does not hold up, and when you frame a
guy, you hope that it will.
After reading a lot of stuff in support of the case against the accused, it seems to me
that he did nothing. Yet evidence remains that makes it LOOK look it was him, and
somebody did that. Rifles do not walk into buildings by themselves and hide under boxes.
Thats a frame and thats a CT. Question still is- of what type?
Ritchie
Tracy Riddle
Tom Braun <cawr...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
<355B7E...@sprynet.com>...
> May 14, 1998
> Let’s give CTs their due: they are doing the job of good defense
> attorneys in casting doubts on the "prosecutorial" WR. Fine - in a
> court of law, they might even have gotten Oswald acquitted (after OJ
> Simpson’s trial, I’ll believe anything). But that does NOT mean that
> the massive, government-wide plot and cover-up have been demonstrated -
> any more than, by invoking the possibility of a police conspiracy
> against OJ, Johnnie Cochran actually demonstrated such a plot. Even
> Simpson's bizarre acquittal did not mean the jury believed such a police
> conspiracy occurred - only that they had doubts as to Simpson's guilt.
Here we go again; more comparisons to the OJ trial. Believe it or not, I
happen to think OJ was guilty.
> Well, the same rule applies here. If you wish to say the WR has
> problems, fine. If you wish to doubt that LHO was the lone assassin,
> fine - that's your right. But do NOT keep saying that you have proved
> anything other than a reasonable doubt about the WR. It has been nearly
> 35 years since the crime took place. That's long enough to solve
> anything. (And stop with the nonsense that "Well, we could solve it,
> but 'they' have the smoking-gun documents locked up" - if they're locked
> up, how do you know they exist?) From here on, we skeptics have the
> right to demand that CTs present a CASE.
>
> A case - you know, like prosecutors present in court. For better or
> worse, the WR at least presented one:
> a suspect;
Yeah, a guy who was saying nice things about JFK in public just a few weeks
before the assassination.
> his gun;
A crummy rifle with a sticky bolt-action, one that was ordered through the
mail to guarantee a paper trail leading right to him.
> his palm prints
The palm print which magically appeared on the rifle days after the
assassination. 1984 FBI agent Vincent Drain told Henry Hurt:
"I just don't believe there was ever a print...All I can figure is that it
was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday
night. You could take the print off Oswald's card and put it on the rifle.
Something like that happened."
> his presence in the building;
Really bizarre, considering he worked there.
> the "curtain rods" he brought to work
If Oswald had a piece of luggage big enough to carry the rifle in from New
Orleans to Dallas, why didn't he just use that instead of going to the
trouble of making a paper bag?
> his expertise with rifles;
"expertise"? Not only was he a lousy shot in the Marines, he showed no
signs of being a rifle enthusiast: no spare ammo or empty boxes, no
cleaning equipment, no gun magazines or books, nothing.
> witnesses who saw someone of LHO's
> rough description firing from the Depository window;
You're not referring to Brennan, are you? His statements were so
contradictory the HSCA didn't even bother to question him.
> ballistics tests
> that indicated the bullets came from above and behind;
Sure; the physical evidence left at the scene was supposed to point toward
a lone gunman in the TSBD. Initial reports of extra bullets retrieved and
other holes in the limo indicate that the crime scene was "cleaned up" to
remove evidence of other gunmen.
> only three wounds
> total (certainly within one man's abilities);
Three wounds? Try eight wounds in two men, seven of them caused by that
remarkably pristine bullet.
> LHO's flight from the scene;
Flight? He lounged around for a few minutes after the shooting, bought
himself a Coke, then walked right out the front door.
> his probable murder of Tippitt; etc.
When his landlady last saw him, he was standing at the corner waiting for a
bus that was to take him *away* from the Tippit murder scene.
> Can you challenge these
> points? Certainly - but at least it is an intact case.
It's intact as long as you don't look at it too closely.
> We skeptics
> therefore have the right, from here on, to demand that CTs prosecute and
> convict the plotters, NOT simply acquit LHO.
>
> Specifically, we demand to know:
>
> 1) If not LHO, then who did it? And that means actual names of actual
> suspects, not nebulous terms like "the Mafia," "the Cubans," "the CIA,"
> etc. After all, the WR did not simply blame "leftists" or "young men
> without fathers."
Do you know the names of the men who killed Jimmy Hoffa? I don't, but it's
a safe bet that some of his rivals in the mob were behind it. Do we need to
know the names of the men who did it? It would be nice, but it isn't
necessary and probably isn't even possible at this late date.
> 2) Why did they do it? And this requires better reasoning than: "JFK
> wanted to pull us out of Vietnam; they shot him; then Vietnam happened;
> therefore..." That shows no cause-and-effect at all. We will never
> know whether JFK would have pulled us out. Nor could the plotters have
> been any more certain that LBJ would put us in, unless he was part of
> the plot - an accusation that REALLY requires some substantiation.
My belief is that some Cuban exiles and their blood brothers in the
intelligence community and the mafia were behind the assassination. They
were furious that JFK had gone soft on Castro (shutting down the exile
raids, starting back-channel talks with Castro, refusing to invade during
the missile crisis). So they decided to assassinate him and at the same
time frame a man with a pro-Castro public image; this would hopefully cause
the public to think Castro had killed Kennedy, and this would lead to a US
invasion of Cuba. Who would want this to happen? The people I named above,
plus a few like-minded Kennedy haters in Dallas.
Instead, the feds decided they didn't want to start WWIII, the liberals
didn't want to look for a communist conspiracy, and the conservatives
didn't want to look for a right-wing conspiracy. So virtually everyone
agreed that it would be in the best interests of the country to blame the
assassination on a "lone nut," who was already conveniently dead. What was
it John McCloy said when he joined the Warren Commission? He wanted to
prove to the world that America was not a banana republic whose government
could be changed by a conspiracy.
> 3) How did they do it? Where were the gunmen? How many? Who were
> they? How many shots did they fire? If they fired eight or nine shots
> (as has been alleged), why was no one else hit in the car?
There were probably only four or five shots fired. Who knows why no one
else was hit? They were just damned lucky.
> Explain how
> they accounted for intangibles. For instance, the way that Connally
> collapsed after being merely wounded is the same thing that could have
> happened to JFK
Connally was not completely out of sight once he fell over, though. It was
not an easy operation; they only had a small window of opportunity to shoot
JFK.
> - so why was there not a literal rain of bullets,
> perhaps 20 or more, to ensure the hit?
It would be a bit hard to frame a lone gunman with a bolt-action rifle if
witnesses heard 20 shots fired.
> 4) How did they mastermind the cover-up? How did they get the Warren
> Commission, the FBI, the CIA, the autopsy doctors, the people who
> altered the Zapruder film and the autopsy records, and the rest of the
> required army to cooperate and to never talk as people have in every
> other plot you can name?
Many people participated in the cover-up not because they were involved in
the plot, but because they felt it was the best thing for the country to
find no conspiracy, only a lone nut. Here's one of my favorite quotes (from
Time magazine, just a week after the assassination):
"Assassination has never been an instrument of politics in the US; no plot
to seize power, no palace intrigue, has ever cost an American President his
life. The three assassins whose bullets killed Presidents Lincoln,
Garfield, and McKinley were lonely psychopaths, adrift from reason in a
morbid fascination with the place history gives those who reverse its
orderly progress. Each sought an hour of mad glory - and each died
convinced that history would understand."
A nice, comfortable myth - the system is safe and sound, except for the
occasional lone nut who comes along like a natural disaster. It doesn't
seem to matter to Time that Booth didn't act alone, nor was he a "lonely
psychopath."
> Sure, some people have said some things; but
> after 35 years, we still do not know the specifics of the plot - that's
> a world-class cover-up.
It would only be a world-class coverup if most Americans still believed the
WC. They don't. The specifics of the plot - names, etc. - were probably
known only to a relatively small number of people, most of whom are
probably dead.
Tracy
John Ritchson
Tom Braun wrote:
[snip]
> It is well past time for CTs to prove their case, not just
> disprove the WR's.
>
> Thomas E. Braun
> cawr...@sprynet.com
Greetings, I would just like to point out a few facts and you may
do with them as you like.
Fact: The rifle entered into evidence and identified as a M91/38
6.5x52mm Mannlicher Carcano serial# 2766 is a very rare ceremonial
rifle of Mussolini's Gardia del Duce known as a Moschettieri del Duce
Carcano which would hardly be sold as a cheap surplus rifle by a
sporting goods store in Chicago for some $22.00 dollars and change.
Fact: Two of the spent cartridges entered into evidence as Winchester/
Western 6.5x52mm Mannlicher Carcano cartridges are in fact 6.5x54mm
Mannlicher Schoenauer cartridges which cannot be chambered in a
Carcano rifle.
Fact: One unfired cartridge alledgedly recovered at the scene, and
entered into evidence as a Winchester/Western Carcano cartridge is
in fact a European made cartridge.
Fact: The stretcher bullet identified as WC Exhibit CE-399 is in fact
a 6-groove bullet which could not have been fired through any stock
Carcano rifle which has a 4-grooved barrel.
Fact: These facts PROVE *CONSPIRACY* to falsify material evidence
in a capitol murder case. *CASE-CLOSED*
With Regard,
John Ritchson(SSGT. 499th TC USATC HG US Army Class of 69)
(GunSmith/Ballistician,Black Eagle Gun Works)
(Survivor, SE Asian Games, 11BRAVO7,Tet 1970)
************************************************************
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that
heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but
"That's Funny..." Isaac Asimov
************************************************************
r...@iname.com
In article <6jje1n$4...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Sarge.....
Tremendous post.....
Very informative.
Good work as usual.
Keep it up, please.
BOB VERNON
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Michael Beck
On Sat, 16 May 1998 01:08:30 -0600, John Ritchson
<jo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Tom Braun wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> It is well past time for CTs to prove their case, not just
>> disprove the WR's.
>>
>> Thomas E. Braun
>> cawr...@sprynet.com
>
> Greetings, I would just like to point out a few facts and you may
>do with them as you like.
>
> Fact: The rifle entered into evidence and identified as a M91/38
>6.5x52mm Mannlicher Carcano serial# 2766 is a very rare ceremonial
>rifle of Mussolini's Gardia del Duce known as a Moschettieri del Duce
>Carcano which would hardly be sold as a cheap surplus rifle by a
>sporting goods store in Chicago for some $22.00 dollars and change.
>
What is your basis for this assertion?
> Fact: Two of the spent cartridges entered into evidence as Winchester/
>Western 6.5x52mm Mannlicher Carcano cartridges are in fact 6.5x54mm
>Mannlicher Schoenauer cartridges which cannot be chambered in a
>Carcano rifle.
Bull! They were positively identified as 6.5x52 MC cartridges. Are
you claiming that the FBI/ATF/DPD made such a ridiculous error?
Are you making this claim based on your "measurement" of a photograph?
If so, please explain how you account for the distortions contained in
*any* photograph in order to ensure accurate dimensional gaging.
>
> Fact: One unfired cartridge alledgedly recovered at the scene, and
>entered into evidence as a Winchester/Western Carcano cartridge is
>in fact a European made cartridge.
So? Where did you get this tidbit?
>
> Fact: The stretcher bullet identified as WC Exhibit CE-399 is in fact
>a 6-groove bullet which could not have been fired through any stock
>Carcano rifle which has a 4-grooved barrel.
It is not! It is a four groove bullet that exists to this day in the
national archives. Go there and take a look at it yourself.
>
> Fact: These facts PROVE *CONSPIRACY* to falsify material evidence
>in a capitol murder case. *CASE-CLOSED*
The murder did not occur in the "capitol". However, it *was* a
capital murder case and Oswald would have died in the electric chair
upon his conviction.
Tom Braun
May 19
My congratulations to Ritchie Linton! He and I may disagree about Oswald (who did it, in my
view). But at least Mr. Linton is doing what I had hoped: refusing to latch onto one of the
wild conspiracy theories that are ten times more fantastic than the single-bullet theory,
and that have absolutely nothing to support them other than doubts about Oswald's guilt..
Tom Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
ritchie linton wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > In article <355B7F...@sprynet.com>, cawr...@sprynet.com wrote:
> >
> > > May 14, 1998
> > >
> > > With all due respect - enough is enough.
> > >
> > > For far too long, conspiracy theorists (CTs) have been getting away with
> > > murder in the JFK case. They seem to feel that all they need to do is
> > > to find flaws with the Warren Report (WR), and thus they have proved the
> > > sort of massive conspiracy and cover-up they have alleged for decades.
> > >
> > > WRONG!!
> > >
> > > Let’s give CTs their due: they are doing the job of good defense
> > > attorneys in casting doubts on the "prosecutorial" WR. Fine - in a
> > > court of law, they might even have gotten Oswald acquitted (after OJ
> > > Simpson’s trial, I’ll believe anything). But that does NOT mean that
> > > the massive, government-wide plot and cover-up have been demonstrated -
> > > any more than, by invoking the possibility of a police conspiracy
> > > against OJ, Johnnie Cochran actually demonstrated such a plot. Even
> > > Simpson's bizarre acquittal did not mean the jury believed such a police
> > > conspiracy occurred - only that they had doubts as to Simpson's guilt.
> > >
> > > Well, the same rule applies here. If you wish to say the WR has
> > > problems, fine. If you wish to doubt that LHO was the lone assassin,
> > > fine - that's your right. But do NOT keep saying that you have proved
> > > anything other than a reasonable doubt about the WR. **********************
>
> ************************
> Well, legally, that is the test, after all.It evolved in our culture for the simple
> reason that its all too easy to accuse.Its something else again to prove to a reasonable
> doubt.
>
> Without regard to the preverse finding in the Simpson case, the test remains the same on
> a case by case basis.In this case, on the basis of a thorough review of the evidence
> against the accused, I have decided to acquit.Quite forcefully, actually.Without
> deciding anything else, I have decided that Oswald was innocent. He did not do anything
> in my opinion because all the evidence says to me he could not.
>
> Here is where I seem to differ with a lot of other CT. Without running off immediately
> to try to explain which CT seemed to work, I try to understand the one that did not. The
> frame on Oswald does not hold the real pictures we have all seen, and so I ask myself,
> why was Oswald framed in the way it was done? What were the people who planted the false
> evidence thinking you would think when they planted it? Something must have gone wrong
> with what they planned. By the test of proof, it does not hold up, and when you frame a
> guy, you hope that it will.
>
> After reading a lot of stuff in support of the case against the accused, it seems to me
> that he did nothing. Yet evidence remains that makes it LOOK look it was him, and
> somebody did that. Rifles do not walk into buildings by themselves and hide under boxes.
> Thats a frame and thats a CT. Question still is- of what type?
>
> Ritchie
>
Tom Braun
With all due respect to Mr. Ritchson, his facts do little more than cast
doubt on the Warren Report's case. CT's have done that for 32 years. What
Mr. Ritchson's facts do NOT do is what I called for in my original posting:
tell us who did it. Isn't it about time for CT's to finally "solve" this
case by naming and then nailing the perpetrators?
Tom Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
John Ritchson wrote:
> Tom Braun wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > It is well past time for CTs to prove their case, not just
> > disprove the WR's.
> >
> > Thomas E. Braun
> > cawr...@sprynet.com
>
> Greetings, I would just like to point out a few facts and you may
> do with them as you like.
>
> Fact: The rifle entered into evidence and identified as a M91/38
> 6.5x52mm Mannlicher Carcano serial# 2766 is a very rare ceremonial
> rifle of Mussolini's Gardia del Duce known as a Moschettieri del Duce
> Carcano which would hardly be sold as a cheap surplus rifle by a
> sporting goods store in Chicago for some $22.00 dollars and change.
>
> Fact: Two of the spent cartridges entered into evidence as Winchester/
> Western 6.5x52mm Mannlicher Carcano cartridges are in fact 6.5x54mm
> Mannlicher Schoenauer cartridges which cannot be chambered in a
> Carcano rifle.
>
> Fact: One unfired cartridge alledgedly recovered at the scene, and
> entered into evidence as a Winchester/Western Carcano cartridge is
> in fact a European made cartridge.
>
> Fact: The stretcher bullet identified as WC Exhibit CE-399 is in fact
> a 6-groove bullet which could not have been fired through any stock
> Carcano rifle which has a 4-grooved barrel.
>
> Fact: These facts PROVE *CONSPIRACY* to falsify material evidence
> in a capitol murder case. *CASE-CLOSED*
>
Tom Braun
Sigh - this response proves everything I have been saying. The first part
simply rehashes all the things presunably wrong with the WR - in other words,
the first part does the defense attorney job. But this no more shows a
conspiracy than did Johnnie Cochran's nonsense prove a police conspiracy by
OJ's acquittal. And then we have nebulous statements like "some Cuban exiles
and their blood brothers in the intelligence community and the mafia" did it.
What specific evidence do you have, Tracy, that these folks did it, other than
your gut feelings? With all due respect, I am tired of hearing such fuzzy
accusations. Also, you have the feds, the liberals and the conservatives
agreeing to the cover-up. When's the last time this bunch ever agreed on
*anything,* let alone covering up an assassination? Also: "It would be a bit
hard to frame a lone gunman with a bolt-action rifle if witnesses heard 20
attempting to assassinate the president, would be more concerned about blaming
a patsy afterward than with ensuring the hit at the moment. How credible is
that?! And finally: "Many people participated in the cover-up not because they
were involved in the plot, but because they felt it was the best thing for the
assertions that may make you feel good, but that has NO evidence to back it up.
Tom Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
Tom Braun
This is an interesting, yet evasive response. It basically says: CT's can throw
around all the wild ideas they want, insist there was a conspiracy and cover-up,
yet never do even what the WC did: name a suspect. How can CT's be so sure a
conspiracy took place when they cannot even do this? It is an excuse for CT
laziness. So far, Jim Garrison remains the only CT who actually tried to tell us
who did it - for that, I give him great credit. And no, I do not doubt the WC - I
find it bothersome that so many form their views on government, and whom they vote
for, in part based on conspiracies and cover-ups that almost certainly did not
happen.
Tom Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
Tracy Riddle
> Sigh - this response proves everything I have been saying. The first
part
> simply rehashes all the things presunably wrong with the WR - in other
words,
> the first part does the defense attorney job. But this no more shows a
> conspiracy than did Johnnie Cochran's nonsense prove a police conspiracy
by
> OJ's acquittal. And then we have nebulous statements like "some Cuban
exiles
> and their blood brothers in the intelligence community and the mafia" did
it.
> What specific evidence do you have, Tracy, that these folks did it, other
than
> your gut feelings?
Well, how about this?
10/1/1963 meeting of anti-Castro Cubans and right-wing Americans in the
Dallas suburb of Farmer's Branch; a recording of the conversation exists. A
member of the audience taped Bay of Pigs vet Nestor Castellanos ranting
about JFK. The tape was turned over to the Dallas police; officer George
Butler gave Anthony Summers a copy of the tape in 1978, which had not been
made public before. The HSCA also obtained a copy of the tape.
CASTELLANOS. Get him out! Get him out! The quicker, the sooner the better.
He's doing all kinds of deals...Mr. Kennedy is kissing Mr. Khrushchev. I
wouldn't be surprised if he had kissed Castro, too....we're waiting for
Kennedy the 22d, buddy. We're going to see him in, one way or the other.
We're going to give him the works when he gets in Dallas. Mr. good ol'
Kennedy. I wouldn't even call him President Kennedy. He stinks.
QUESTIONER. Are you insinuating that since this downfall came through the
leader there [Castro in Cuba], that this might come to us...?
CASTELLANOS. Yes ma'am, your present leader. He's the one who is doing
everything right now to help the United States to become Communist.
"We're waiting for Kennedy the 22nd...We're going to give him the works
when he gets in Dallas." The Cuban exiles were known for shooting their
mouths off about upcoming events (like the Bay of Pigs invasion). We also
know that various Cuban exiles and their allies immediately went on a
campaign to blame Castro for the assassination - by falsely claiming that
Oswald had been in Miami, that he had been seen talking with Castro agents,
etc.
> With all due respect, I am tired of hearing such fuzzy
> accusations. Also, you have the feds, the liberals and the conservatives
> agreeing to the cover-up. When's the last time this bunch ever agreed on
> *anything,* let alone covering up an assassination?
Liberal and conservative politicians in Washington both praised J. Edgar
Hoover during his reign as FBI director because they were scared to death
of him. Hoover proclaimed "no conspiracy" almost instantly after the
assassination. Who on the WC was going to disagree with Hoover publicly
back in '64?
> Also: "It would be a bit
> hard to frame a lone gunman with a bolt-action rifle if witnesses heard
20
> shots fired" - I'm astonished that anyone would actually believe killers,
> attempting to assassinate the president, would be more concerned about
blaming
> a patsy afterward than with ensuring the hit at the moment. How credible
is
> that?!
Think about it. It's just like Joseph Milteer said: somebody has to be
picked up so the public thinks the guilty party has been caught. You can't
have the public still thinking that the gunman or gunmen are at large. And
the real gunmen certainly aren't going to sacrifice themselves. So some
unwitting person has to be caught, framed and silenced quickly. And Oswald,
who was hanging around with Cuban exiles in New Orleans that summer, and
who had a public image as a pro-Castro activist, was a perfect candidate.
> And finally: "Many people participated in the cover-up not because they
> were involved in the plot, but because they felt it was the best thing
for the
> country to find no conspiracy, only a lone nut" - another of those wild
> assertions that may make you feel good, but that has NO evidence to back
it up.
No, it doesn't make me "feel good" at all, Tom. I could give you a thousand
and one press editorials from that time showing how the number one concern
within the Establishment was to preserve America's image of stability and
responsibility in the world. Comments from across the political spectrum
reflected this feeling: let's just forget about it, don't open a can of
worms, let's not have the public or our
allies lose faith in American institutions, etc.
As for assertions, I have yet to read anything specific from you; you
didn't bother to refute any of the statements in my post. You can't expect
people to believe the WC just because you insist that there is "no
evidence" of a conspiracy. That won't cut it. If you can't effectively
refute the overwhelming evidence for a conspiracy, then no one has a reason
to switch sides. Here are a couple of good ones for you to work on:
11/20/1963 Two Dallas police officers on routine patrol entered Dealey
Plaza and noticed several men standing behind the wooden fence on the
grassy knoll. The men were engaged in what appeared to be "mock target
practice," according to the officers, aiming rifles over the fence into the
plaza. By the time the officers got behind the fence, the men were gone,
having left in a nearby parked car. The policemen didn't report the
incident until after the assassination; the FBI issued a report about it
11/26, but it was suppressed until it was released via the FOIA in 1978.
From the Los Angeles Times 11/23/1963: "Fifteen minutes before Mr. Kennedy
was shot, an Oxnard telephone supervisor overheard a woman caller whisper
to someone: 'The President is going to be killed.' The call was intercepted
by supervisors of the General Telephone Co. in Oxnard at 10:10am, Pacific
Standard Time...Telephone executives said it is impossible to trace the
call but said it originated in the Oxnard-Camarillo area. Ray Sheehan,
general manager of the telephone company there, said: 'One of our
supervisors picked up the call. The caller kept dialing, although her call
was connected. Then she started whispering. Another supervisor listened in
and was able to hear the woman saying, 'The President is going to be
killed.' Sheehan said the mysterious call was reported to the FBI - after
the President had been shot."
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
> With all due respect to Mr. Ritchson, his facts do little more than cast
> doubt on the Warren Report's case. CT's have done that for 32 years.
What
> Mr. Ritchson's facts do NOT do is what I called for in my original
posting:
> tell us who did it. Isn't it about time for CT's to finally "solve" this
> case by naming and then nailing the perpetrators?
>
The trail is just a bit cold by now. We may never know for sure who pulled
the trigger(s) or who else was involved. But logic dictates that if the
evidence against Oswald falls apart upon close inspection, then *someone
else* did it. Especially given the fact that Oswald *liked* JFK, and was
even praising him at an ACLU meeting less than a month before the
assassination.
Tracy
Steve Keating
Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
>
> The trail is just a bit cold by now. We may never know for sure who pulled
> the trigger(s) or who else was involved. But logic dictates that if the
> evidence against Oswald falls apart upon close inspection, then *someone
> else* did it. Especially given the fact that Oswald *liked* JFK, and was
> even praising him at an ACLU meeting less than a month before the
> assassination.
First of all, Tracy, please cite the evidence against LHO that "falls apart
upon close inspection." Secondly, you mention that LHO "liked" JFK. That may or
may not have been the case, but it matters little to a sociopath with an
agenda. LHO had the perfect opportunity befall him and JFK was merely an
instrument or tool to meet LHO's needs at the time. LHO was a frustrated,
unstable man whose life was in the toilet at that point. In his way of
thinking, he had nothing left to do but to make that final statement. He would
have killed Jackie if she had been president of the USA.
Steve K.
>
>
> Tracy
SNana1
If you are tired of hearing "fuzzy" accusations why do you bother to take part
in any assassination discussion. Don't worry about it, you got your man
(Oswald) and the world is safe for democracy.
The over 80% of us who have not been fooled by the WC still at least for the
time being have the freedom to question and I believe have reasonable cause to
doubt the official assassination position. Even members of the WC doubted the
conclusions.
By the way, I agree that the killers would be more concerned about ensuring the
hit at the moment, that is a very good reason they would not have left it in
the hands of Oswald.
Snana1
ritchie linton
Tracy Riddle wrote:*******In part, something I agree with. SEE Below****
>
> Tom Braun <cawr...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
> <35621903...@sprynet.com>...
> > With all due respect to Mr. Ritchson, his facts do little more than cast
> > doubt on the Warren Report's case. CT's have done that for 32 years.
> What
> > Mr. Ritchson's facts do NOT do is what I called for in my original
> posting:
> > tell us who did it. Isn't it about time for CT's to finally "solve" this
> > case by naming and then nailing the perpetrators?
> >
>
> the trigger(s) or who else was involved. But logic dictates that if the
> evidence against Oswald falls apart upon close inspection, then *someone
******************
So my question is, does your "someone else" INCLUDE Oswald? Do you mean that he did not
act, or that he did not act alone?
Logic dictates as you say, but logic also dictates that if the case of his movement of
the rifle into the 6th floor "falls apart upon close inspection", then by further
deduction, he did nothing at all.Can you get him to that window in a CT without a "case
that falls apart upon close inspaction"?
Without him in that window, there is no known accomplice for the alledged GK assassin,
and without an accomplice, there can be no GK assassin. By definition, there is no
single person crossfire.To have a crossfire takes two people, and you seem to say that
Oswald was not one of them.On the evidence, which you say "falls apart".
So which is it? Did Oswald do anything or not?
BTW, this is a really tough question, logically speaking, so go slow. The deductions
that then logically flow from the answer are troubling, whichever way one goes.
Regards,
Ritchie
Especially given the fact that Oswald *liked* JFK, and was
> even praising him at an ACLU meeting less than a month before the
> assassination.
>
> Tracy
Tony Pitman
Tracy Riddle wrote:
> Tom Braun <cawr...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
> <356379F1...@sprynet.com>...
> > First of all, I reject the notion that "the evidence against Oswald
> falls
> apart
> > upon close inspection." Just one example, his rifle: the simplest
> reason
> it
> > was there was because he brought, used and left it.
>
> Again, as I said, it's easy to believe that as long as you don't look
> at
> the evidence too closely.
>
> > The simplest reason his
> > palm prints were on it is because he fired the gun.
>
> "Prints"? There was only one palm print allegedly found on the rifle,
> and
> not one mention of it was made until after Oswald was dead. Are you
> aware
> that the authorities took the rifle and a fingerprint kit to the
> mortuary
> and insisted on being alone with Oswald's corpse?
Is that right Tracy? They took the rifle to the morgue when they
fingerprinted his corpse? That has to be highly unusual and bloody
strange.
Tony
Michael Beck
On 21 May 1998 04:01:05 GMT, "Tracy Riddle" <tri...@tfb.com> wrote:
>Tom Braun <cawr...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
><356379F1...@sprynet.com>...
>> First of all, I reject the notion that "the evidence against Oswald falls
>apart
>> upon close inspection." Just one example, his rifle: the simplest reason
>it
>> was there was because he brought, used and left it.
>
>Again, as I said, it's easy to believe that as long as you don't look at
>the evidence too closely.
Actually, that's the case with the conspiracy theories. They *all*
fall down at some point.
>
>> The simplest reason his
>> palm prints were on it is because he fired the gun.
>
>"Prints"? There was only one palm print allegedly found on the rifle, and
>not one mention of it was made until after Oswald was dead. Are you aware
>that the authorities took the rifle and a fingerprint kit to the mortuary
>and insisted on being alone with Oswald's corpse?
How do you explain the fingerprints photographed at the crime scene?
You *do* know about those prints don't you? You haven't *forgotten*
about that fact have you?
>
>> All this business about
>> how "they" put LHO's palm print on the rifle posthumously requires a leap
>of
>> faith in conspiracy, to say the least. What evidence exists that this
>happened
>> - beyond that it was *possible* to put the palm print on the rifle this
>way?
>
>The person who said it was "possible" was FBI agent Vincent Drain, who was
>involved in the transportation of the Carcano to the FBI lab. He's hardly
>some wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
No. You are.
>
>> I submit that CT's have taken too many possibilities and turned them
>into
>> certainties. I submit that it is all CT's that fall apart upon even
>cursory
>> inspection.
>
>I submit this quote from Dallas police chief Jesse Curry: "The physical
>evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on
>the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F.
>Kennedy was assassinated...We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the
>rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building
>with a gun in his hand."
Except Brennan?
>
>> And: "*Someone else* did it." Maybe. But by "someone else," CT's rarely
>mean
>> just some other lone nut.
>
>You're saying that some other lone nut may have done the shooting but the
>cops picked up the wrong one and framed him anyway?
>
>> They mean that half the government participated in
>> the shooting, and the other half in the cover-up.
>
>Wrong. What did I say? Did I say that "half the government participated in
>the shooting?" No.
>
>> And with all due respect to
>> Mr. Riddle, that is simply too fantastic a claim to support with the
>available
>> evidence. Bill Clinton can't even keep the whereabouts of his zipper a
>> secret. He can't even shut up some twit he allegedly was boning in the
>Oval
>> Office.
>
>But there probably are a lot of more serious things that Clinton has gotten
>away with. The media has no problem reporting sex'n'money scandals;
>anything that goes much deeper than that (such as the Contra/cocaine
>connection) is just too scary to deal with.
I agree. Clinton has gotten away with worse offenses. However,
killing JFK wasn't one of them.
>
>> Nixon couldn't cover up Watergate successfully.
>
>There's a lot we still don't know about Watergate, particularly involving
>the CIA.
I think that dead horse has been beaten to a pulp.
>
>> We now know all about
>> the horrid Tuskegee experiments on blacks, about how the government lied
>for
>> decades as to how dangerous atmospheric nuclear tests were, about the
>secret
>> files J. Edgar Hoover kept on ordinary Americans, etc.
>
>And how many decades were those things successfully kept secret? Those are
>minor scandals compared to the assassination of a president.
Who would have conspired to keep it a secret? The list grows very
large when you start examining the evidence.
>
>> So if nothing else, the
>> notion that the JFK crime could have been pulled off and then covered up
>for 35
>> years so well that we *still* don't know who did it - that notion defies
>> credibility and the record of history.
>
>Sorry, Tom. The mere passage of time does not prove that the Warren
>Commission was right. That's a serious flaw in the lone-nutters' logic.
What flaw? What piece of evidence do *you* hold up as proof of a
conspiracy?
>
>Tracy
>
>
>
ritchie linton
Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com> wrote in article
> <3563DB...@idirect.com>...
>
> > So my question is, does your "someone else" INCLUDE Oswald? Do you mean
> that he did not
> > act, or that he did not act alone?
>
***********************************
OK. Lets stop right there.OK? I mean before we go any further, lets just deal with
this.Don't get me wrong-I'm not trying to stop you from saying anything- I just want to
go slow in the hopes I can get this right. So OK-are you firm on your stance that
" Oswald was not one of the shooters"? If so-and only if so- I want to go on.I don't
want to waste your time and it will if you are not firm on this point at the start.OK?
Let me explain a little. The things you go on to say below about parts of the case
against Oswald are- well, exactly that-parts of the case against Oswald. As you say,
having taken these things and ALL the OTHER parts of the case against into
consideration, it appears your considered opinion is that Oswald shot no one. So we can
stop there for a breather, if you will. Its not necessary to continue with Oswald in the
story as a shooter. Not anymore, if you are firm about this, because as you say, he shot
no one.Being firm, we say that makes him and his life and all that stufff no longer too
supicious and even not too important, since he did nothing.For the most part he is now
out of the story, his part being the most easily understood.It was simple. He was the
patsy. The man framed to make it LOOK like he did, since we say we agree he actually did
not.OK? So if you are firm that Oswald was innocent, then we can move on and look at the
frame. The evidence of the rifle and the bullet and the snipers nest is no longer
evidence in the shooting-he did nothing- and now becomes evidence of what the frame was
supposed to be. So lets look at what you then said:
The man was such a bad shot he couldn't
> even hit a rabbit with a shotgun when he was in the USSR. One of his fellow
> marines said that if he had to have anyone in the US shoot at him, it would
> be Oswald.
>
> The idea that Oswald could squeeze out of the sniper's nest, zig-zag around
> stacks of boxes to the opposite corner of the building, carefully hide the
> rifle beneath and behind numerous boxes (without leaving any prints on
> them), race down several flights of stairs (without people on the floors
> below hearing or seeing him - though he had to come out onto a landing on
> each floor) and then end up calm and cool in the 2nd floor lunchroom with a
> Coke in his hand - all within a minute and a half - is simply unbelievable.
> But then, it's just one of hundreds of unbelievable things we are asked to
> accept if we choose to believe in the official scenario.
>
> Tracy**************
**************
So now I ask you to look at what you say, no longer as parts of the case against Oswald,
but instead as problems with the frame. As you say, the frame appears a bit
"unbelievable", and I don't get that.Because you are right, I would say this arises
because something went wrong with the frame. When you frame a guy you do so in the hope
that the *false* evidence will be believed.
Do you want to start at the beginning, beginning with the conclusion that Oswald did not
shoot?
Ritchie
Tracy Riddle
> So my question is, does your "someone else" INCLUDE Oswald? Do you mean
that he did not
> act, or that he did not act alone?
Oswald was not one of the shooters. The man was such a bad shot he couldn't
Tracy Riddle
Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote in article
<3563B7EA...@southern.co.nz>...
> Is that right Tracy? They took the rifle to the morgue when they
> fingerprinted his corpse? That has to be highly unusual and bloody
> strange.
>
Don't be so suspicious, Tony! I'm sure there's some explanation the
lone-nutters can give us.
Actually, the FBI sent a crew to Miller Funeral Home in Fort Worth,
equipped with cameras, a crime lab kit and the Carcano. FBI agent Richard
Harrison told Gary Mack in 1978 that it was his understanding that his
fellow agent was to put Oswald's palm print on the rifle for "comparison
purposes." The funeral home director told Jim Marrs, "I had a heck of a
time getting the black fingerprint ink off his hands."
Tracy
Jean Davison
Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article
<01bd8523$7df1f380$7d84d4cc@triddle>...
If I remember correctly, the FBI didn't have possession of
the rifle when Oswald was at the funeral home (the night of
the 24th) -- it had been returned to the DPD that afternoon.
A researcher on Compuserve reported that the people he
talked to at Miller's said they did -not- see the FBI bring
in a rifle when they came to take fingerprints. If they
took the rifle there, Tracy, they wouldn't have needed
any black ink! ;-) Jean
Jean Davison
But most of that is *not* the "official scenario." It sounds
more like Weisberg's scenario. Jean
Howard J. Rogers
Tracy Riddle wrote in message <01bd8522$80e02f40$7d84d4cc@triddle>...
>ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com> wrote in article
><3563DB...@idirect.com>...
>
>> So my question is, does your "someone else" INCLUDE Oswald? Do you mean
>that he did not
>> act, or that he did not act alone?
>
>Oswald was not one of the shooters. The man was such a bad shot he couldn't
>even hit a rabbit with a shotgun when he was in the USSR. One of his fellow
>marines said that if he had to have anyone in the US shoot at him, it would
>be Oswald.
>
And this renowned bad shooter was set up by the conspiracy to be the
fallguy? You don't think that, to make their case just a little bit safe,
they might actually have framed someone who could plausibly have done the
shots the WC scenario requires him to have made? Instead they pick a
totally hopeless shot, according to you and your sources.
I find this difficult to work out. Something is wrong somewhere. Either he
*wasn't* such a hopeless shot as you (and the Marine source you cite) make
him out to be, in which case he could either have been a convincing patsy,
or the actual assassin. Or he really was hopeless. In which case he makes
the most unconvincing patsy imaginable, on the one hand, and clearly
wouldn't have been able to do what the WC alleges he did on the other.
You see the problem?
Regards
HJR
[Snip]
Tracy Riddle
Jean Davison <dav...@together.net> wrote in article
<01bd851b$39500a80$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
> Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article
> <01bd8522$80e02f40$7d84d4cc@triddle>...
> > ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com> wrote in article
> > <3563DB...@idirect.com>...
> >
> > > So my question is, does your "someone else" INCLUDE Oswald? Do you
mean
> > that he did not
> > > act, or that he did not act alone?
> >
> > Oswald was not one of the shooters. The man was such a bad shot he
couldn't
> > even hit a rabbit with a shotgun when he was in the USSR. One of his
fellow
> > marines said that if he had to have anyone in the US shoot at him, it
would
> > be Oswald.
> >
> > The idea that Oswald could squeeze out of the sniper's nest, zig-zag
around
> > stacks of boxes to the opposite corner of the building, carefully hide
the
> > rifle beneath and behind numerous boxes (without leaving any prints on
> > them), race down several flights of stairs (without people on the
floors
> > below hearing or seeing him - though he had to come out onto a landing
on
> > each floor) and then end up calm and cool in the 2nd floor lunchroom
with a
> > Coke in his hand - all within a minute and a half - is simply
unbelievable.
> > But then, it's just one of hundreds of unbelievable things we are asked
to
> > accept if we choose to believe in the official scenario.
>
> But most of that is *not* the "official scenario." It sounds
> more like Weisberg's scenario. Jean
Please tell me exactly what is incorrect with the statements above.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
<snipping for space>
> So now I ask you to look at what you say, no longer as parts of the case
against Oswald,
> but instead as problems with the frame. As you say, the frame appears a
bit
> "unbelievable", and I don't get that.Because you are right, I would say
this arises
> because something went wrong with the frame. When you frame a guy you do
so in the hope
> that the *false* evidence will be believed.
>
The conspirators were not godlike in their ability to know everything about
Oswald; remember that he was associating with many of these Cuban exiles in
New Orleans that summer. From this association they found out that he had
been in the Marines (where he had presumably been taught to shoot well),
defected to Russia, and was now acting like a pro-Castro activist. That's
all they felt they needed to know to frame him and make it appear that the
assassination was done by a Castro agent.
What they didn't know about Oswald were little things like - he didn't know
how to drive and didn't own a car; he was dyslexic; he didn't dislike JFK;
and he was a terrible shot. Yes, mistakes were made in the frame-up of LHO;
that's the reason why so few people believe the official story today. If
the frame-up had gone off perfectly, then there would be very few
conspiracy theorists today.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
Jean Davison <dav...@together.net> wrote in article
<01bd851b$132d77c0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
> Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article
> <01bd8523$7df1f380$7d84d4cc@triddle>...
> > Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote in article
> > <3563B7EA...@southern.co.nz>...
> >
> > > Is that right Tracy? They took the rifle to the morgue when they
> > > fingerprinted his corpse? That has to be highly unusual and bloody
> > > strange.
> > >
> >
> > Don't be so suspicious, Tony! I'm sure there's some explanation the
> > lone-nutters can give us.
> > Actually, the FBI sent a crew to Miller Funeral Home in Fort Worth,
> > equipped with cameras, a crime lab kit and the Carcano. FBI agent
Richard
> > Harrison told Gary Mack in 1978 that it was his understanding that his
> > fellow agent was to put Oswald's palm print on the rifle for
"comparison
> > purposes." The funeral home director told Jim Marrs, "I had a heck of a
> > time getting the black fingerprint ink off his hands."
>
> If I remember correctly, the FBI didn't have possession of
> the rifle when Oswald was at the funeral home (the night of
> the 24th) -- it had been returned to the DPD that afternoon.
Do you think FBI agent Harrison was just mistaken, then?
> A researcher on Compuserve reported that the people he
> talked to at Miller's said they did -not- see the FBI bring
> in a rifle when they came to take fingerprints.
And who was this researcher, who exactly were the "people" he talked to at
Miller's, when did he talk to them...? Details, please.
> If they
> took the rifle there, Tracy, they wouldn't have needed
> any black ink! ;-) Jean
They told the funeral home people that they needed to make another set of
Oswald's prints. They couldn't very well leave Oswald's body without any
ink on the fingers. What do you think they were up to, Jean? Why did they
need to take yet another set of his prints?
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
Howard J. Rogers <howa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
<6k38ct$al...@o2robox01.optus.net.au>...
>
> And this renowned bad shooter was set up by the conspiracy to be the
> fallguy? You don't think that, to make their case just a little bit
safe,
> they might actually have framed someone who could plausibly have done the
> shots the WC scenario requires him to have made? Instead they pick a
> totally hopeless shot, according to you and your sources.
Oswald wasn't "renowned" at the time for being a bad shot; there weren't
headline stories about it in the paper, Howard. The conspirators knew that
Oswald had been in the Marines, and they assumed he had been trained to
shoot well.
Tracy
Jean Davison
> > >
> > > > So my question is, does your "someone else" INCLUDE Oswald? Do you
> > > > mean that he did not act, or that he did not act alone?
> > >
> > > Oswald was not one of the shooters. The man was such a bad shot he
> > > couldn't even hit a rabbit with a shotgun when he was in the USSR.
> > > One of his fellow marines said that if he had to have anyone in the
> > > US shoot at him, it would be Oswald.
> > >
> > > The idea that Oswald could squeeze out of the sniper's nest, zig-zag
> > > around stacks of boxes to the opposite corner of the building, carefully
> > > hide the rifle beneath and behind numerous boxes (without leaving
> > > any prints on them), race down several flights of stairs (without people
> > > on the floors below hearing or seeing him - though he had to come
> > > out onto a landing on each floor) and then end up calm and cool in
> > > the 2nd floor lunchroom with a Coke in his hand - all within a minute
> > > and a half - is simply unbelievable.
> > > But then, it's just one of hundreds of unbelievable things we are asked
> > > to accept if we choose to believe in the official scenario.
> >
> > But most of that is *not* the "official scenario." It sounds
> > more like Weisberg's scenario. Jean
>
> Please tell me exactly what is incorrect with the statements above.
Okay. ;-) LHO didn't have to "zigzag" around boxes. Photos of
the 6th floor show a clear aisle to the back of the building and another
aisle over to the stairs. The rifle was dropped between two rows of
boxes right next to the stairwell "with another box or so pulled
over the top," according to Boone, the man who found it. [III, 293]
You can hear Boone describe it on TMWKK, and there are
photos of the box arrangement and the two aisles in First
Day Evidence. I don't know that these boxes were ever
checked for prints. If his prints *had* been found on the
"box or so" that were pulled or pushed over the top, what
would it prove, Tracy? His prints were on the rifle rest
boxes IN THE SN WINDOW, but hey, "he worked there,"
right? ;-)
Oswald didn't have to race downstairs. In the WC
reenactments, it took 1 min. 18 sec. at a normal walk
and 1 min. 14 sec. at a fast walk. [WR, 152] It has
also been reenacted by others in less than 90 seconds.
And both Baker and Truly said that their reenactment time
was a minimum, compared with how long it actually
took them.
The men on the 5th floor couldn't see the stairwell from
their position, and most of the other TSBD employees
were either outside or at the windows overlooking Elm,
unlike Mr. Oswald, the JFK admirer, who when Baker
first saw him was "walking away from the stairway,"
heading *into* the lunchroom, not already there.
His location at that particular place and time was
another one of those amazing coincidences, I
guess.
Both Truly and Baker testified that they saw
nothing in his hands. A few seconds later Oswald
walked through the adjoining room and Mrs. Reid
saw him carrying a *full* bottle.
Calm and cool? Hard to tell, since Oswald
didn't say a word when Baker confronted him with
a drawn pistol. On his shooting skills, why rely
on anecdotes when his Marine rifle score book
is available? Jean
Tom Braun
With all due respect, Tracy, your final sentence - "Sounds like a lot of
assertions and wild speculation to me. Too bad you don't have any evidence to
back it up" - is *precisely* how I fell about most conspiracy theorists.
Cheers,
Tom Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
Tracy Riddle wrote:
> Steve Keating <jkea...@lucent.com> wrote in article
> <3562E411...@lucent.com>...
> >
> > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >
> > > The trail is just a bit cold by now. We may never know for sure who
> pulled
> > > the trigger(s) or who else was involved. But logic dictates that if the
> > > evidence against Oswald falls apart upon close inspection, then
> *someone
> > > else* did it. Especially given the fact that Oswald *liked* JFK, and
> was
> > > even praising him at an ACLU meeting less than a month before the
> > > assassination.
> >
> > First of all, Tracy, please cite the evidence against LHO that "falls
> apart
> > upon close inspection."
>
> I've already argued with you numerous times about this subject, and it
> never sinks in with you, Steve. I fail to see any reason to keep going back
> over it, since you're not willing to look at the evidence without your
> blinders on.
>
> > Secondly, you mention that LHO "liked" JFK. That may or
> > may not have been the case, but it matters little to a sociopath with an
> > agenda.
>
> Please post some evidence that Oswald was a sociopath. A sociopath is
> someone who cares nothing for anyone but themselves; they don't even
> recognize that other people are real human beings. But Oswald was a devoted
> father who loved his daughters very much. Sociopaths also don't get
> interested in communist/leftist politics, since they care nothing about the
> plight of the working class, the poor or anyone else for that matter.
>
> > LHO had the perfect opportunity befall him and JFK was merely an
> > instrument or tool to meet LHO's needs at the time. LHO was a frustrated,
> > unstable man whose life was in the toilet at that point. In his way of
> > thinking, he had nothing left to do but to make that final statement. He
> would
> > have killed Jackie if she had been president of the USA.
>
> Sounds like a lot of assertions and wild speculation to me. Too bad you
> don't have any evidence to back it up.
>
> Tracy
Tom Braun
A simple, logical question, then: if Oswald "was such a bad shot he couldn't
even hit a rabbit with a shotgun," and if this knowledge could be uncovered as
easily as it was, then how the bloody hell could the conspirators have been
stupid enough to frame a patsy who was going to be so easily exposed as totally
incompetent?
Tom Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
Tracy Riddle wrote:
> ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com> wrote in article
> <3563DB...@idirect.com>...
>
> > So my question is, does your "someone else" INCLUDE Oswald? Do you mean
> that he did not
> > act, or that he did not act alone?
>
> Oswald was not one of the shooters. The man was such a bad shot he couldn't
> even hit a rabbit with a shotgun when he was in the USSR. One of his fellow
> marines said that if he had to have anyone in the US shoot at him, it would
> be Oswald.
>
> The idea that Oswald could squeeze out of the sniper's nest, zig-zag around
> stacks of boxes to the opposite corner of the building, carefully hide the
> rifle beneath and behind numerous boxes (without leaving any prints on
> them), race down several flights of stairs (without people on the floors
> below hearing or seeing him - though he had to come out onto a landing on
> each floor) and then end up calm and cool in the 2nd floor lunchroom with a
> Coke in his hand - all within a minute and a half - is simply unbelievable.
> But then, it's just one of hundreds of unbelievable things we are asked to
> accept if we choose to believe in the official scenario.
>
> Tracy
Tom Braun
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry when a CT like Tracy Riddle says that
something we skeptics say is "just one of hundreds of unbelievable things we are
asked to accept if we choose to believe in the official scenario." The
conspiracy theories are all *at least* ten times as unbelievable as the Warren
Report. Oswald's movements are "unbelievable" - but the notion that J. Edgar
Hoover could scare the entire government into covering-up the assassination (an
assertion Mr. Riddle has made) is, of course, quite believable. ;-)
Tom Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
Jean Davison wrote:
> Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article
> <01bd8522$80e02f40$7d84d4cc@triddle>...
> > ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com> wrote in article
> > <3563DB...@idirect.com>...
> >
> > > So my question is, does your "someone else" INCLUDE Oswald? Do you mean
> > that he did not
> > > act, or that he did not act alone?
> >
> > Oswald was not one of the shooters. The man was such a bad shot he couldn't
> > even hit a rabbit with a shotgun when he was in the USSR. One of his fellow
> > marines said that if he had to have anyone in the US shoot at him, it would
> > be Oswald.
> >
> > The idea that Oswald could squeeze out of the sniper's nest, zig-zag around
> > stacks of boxes to the opposite corner of the building, carefully hide the
> > rifle beneath and behind numerous boxes (without leaving any prints on
> > them), race down several flights of stairs (without people on the floors
> > below hearing or seeing him - though he had to come out onto a landing on
> > each floor) and then end up calm and cool in the 2nd floor lunchroom with a
> > Coke in his hand - all within a minute and a half - is simply unbelievable.
> > But then, it's just one of hundreds of unbelievable things we are asked to
> > accept if we choose to believe in the official scenario.
>
Tom Braun
Oh, for Pete's sake - this is getting bloody ridiculous! "What do you think
they were up to, Jean? Why did they need to take yet another set of his
took place?! No insult to Tracy Riddle, but I think any further attempts to
talk reason to him are a waste of keystrokes. He is still insisting the
emperor is clothed, when we all realized he was stark naked ages ago.
Tom Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
Tracy Riddle wrote:
> Jean Davison <dav...@together.net> wrote in article
> <01bd851b$132d77c0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
> > Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article
Tom Braun
I give up! I absolutely quit!! I will spend no more time responding to anything
Tracy Riddle says!!!
Tom Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
Tom Braun
Right: the conspirators screwed up this badly with Oswald; yet, according to
many CT's, they altered the autopsy records and the Zapruder film so well,
experts could not detect the alterations for years! Hey Tracy, I have a bridge
I would like to sell to you...
Tom Braun
cawr...@sprynet.com
Tracy Riddle wrote:
> ritchie linton <rli...@idirect.com> wrote in article
ritchie linton
Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote in message <01bd8522$80e02f40$7d84d4cc@triddle>...
> >
> >> So my question is, does your "someone else" INCLUDE Oswald? Do you mean
> >that he did not
> >> act, or that he did not act alone?
> >
> >Oswald was not one of the shooters. The man was such a bad shot he couldn't
> >even hit a rabbit with a shotgun when he was in the USSR. One of his fellow
> >marines said that if he had to have anyone in the US shoot at him, it would
> >be Oswald.
> >
>
> fallguy? You don't think that, to make their case just a little bit safe,
> they might actually have framed someone who could plausibly have done the
> shots the WC scenario requires him to have made? Instead they pick a
> totally hopeless shot, according to you and your sources.
>
> *wasn't* such a hopeless shot as you (and the Marine source you cite) make
> him out to be, in which case he could either have been a convincing patsy,
> or the actual assassin. Or he really was hopeless. In which case he makes
> the most unconvincing patsy imaginable, on the one hand, and clearly
> wouldn't have been able to do what the WC alleges he did on the other.
>
> You see the problem?
>
> Regards
> HJR
************************
I certainly do, which is why I raised the question in the first place. Good points you
make. So lets look again.
Oswald was not a great shot. The rifle they planted was not a great rifle. They planted
a single bullet. Those are the parts of the frame at its simplest. So from this I deduce
that the intended plan involved as simple easy single shot, in a way which would have
been believed.
See, implicit in your point is the fact that the actual shooting turned out to be
complex- several rapid difficult shots. That it happened that way does not mean that it
was planned that way. According to the evidenc of the frame, it was planned to be
simple. So I say obviously something went wrong with the plan, so that the evidence
planted no longer apperas to fit. As you say, Oswald now appears the most unconvincing
patsy imaginable. Because they left a mediocre shot with a single bullet and a poor
weapon, yet it turned out that there were multiple shots. Thats the problem. Nothing
fits and people do not believe.
The fact that it happened on Elm Street with multiple shots does not mean it was
planned that way.Not according to the evidence of the frame, at least.
Now, lets consider the 6th floor window. It was as far away from the Elm Street site as
you could get from inside the building, and the view is blocked by the oak tree. On teh
other hand, it offers a clear and unobstructed view of the Houston Street approach. If a
single fatal shot had been fired then front to back, would you still have problems
believing the case against the patsy?
Something went wrong.
RJ
pl...@webtv.net
Mr. Riddle,
Regarding Oswald's shooting scores while in Marine basic training: How
many scored rounds did he shoot at targets 75-100 yards downrange, using
a telescopic sight, with the rifle on a rest?
Perhaps some people are comparing apples and oranges on this LHO
marksmanship question?
Further, is there any explicit evidence that says he DID NOT practice
with a telescopic-sight equipped rifle at anytime between his return
from Russia and 11/22/63? Practice makes perfect, as they say. What
scores did SGT Ritchson get his first day at the range in basic
training? He seems to be an avid shooter today - can he tell us from
his observations as an Army NCO or as a civilian whether practice can
improve the performance of an initially-poor shooter? Not all poor
shooters, but some?
CTers, open your minds and do some objective reasoning, not just
"reasoning" which is a recital of inconsistencies in other people's
research or reporting or reasoning about the acts of still other people.
Please read this statement: LHO shot poorly during one 6 week period in
his life with one particular weapon so by definition he is a poor shot
for the rest of his life with ALL weapons. Now please try to explain to
me the valid deductive or inductive logical proof supporting such a
statement, a statement/assertion which is always part of the argument
used to "prove" LHO could NOT have solely made the shots that occured on
11/22/63.
Get real.
planr
Tracy Riddle
> A simple, logical question, then: if Oswald "was such a bad shot he
couldn't
> even hit a rabbit with a shotgun," and if this knowledge could be
uncovered as
> easily as it was, then how the bloody hell could the conspirators have
been
> stupid enough to frame a patsy who was going to be so easily exposed as
totally
> incompetent?
A simple, logical answer: the fact that Oswald couldn't shoot a rabbit with
a shotgun while he was in Russia came from the KGB's surveillance files.
These were not made available until AFTER the assassination. Next question?
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
> I give up! I absolutely quit!! I will spend no more time responding to
anything
> Tracy Riddle says!!!
Well, that's what the lone-nutters usually do after debating with me. Why
are you so upset? If you're right about the assassination, then everything
I say should be easily refutable. You should be able to demolish every
argument I make, but all I get from you is strident rhetoric.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
> With all due respect, Tracy, your final sentence - "Sounds like a lot of
> assertions and wild speculation to me. Too bad you don't have any
evidence to
> back it up" - is *precisely* how I fell about most conspiracy theorists.
Actually, I wrote that because that's what you lone-nutters constantly
accuse us of doing. But somehow, it's OK for your side to engage in all the
speculation needed to prop up the official story.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
> Oh, for Pete's sake - this is getting bloody ridiculous! "What do you
think
> they were up to, Jean? Why did they need to take yet another set of his
> prints?" - on this sort of "evidence," we are to assume that a massive
cover-up
> took place?!
So, please humor me and give me a good explanation for it.
> No insult to Tracy Riddle, but I think any further attempts to
> talk reason to him are a waste of keystrokes. He is still insisting the
> emperor is clothed, when we all realized he was stark naked ages ago.
>
Fine, don't waste any more time with me. If you think you can come on this
NG and act like a prosecuting attorney using melodramatic courtroom
tactics, you're sadly mistaken. It won't work with me and most of the
people here. I deal in facts (the government's own facts in most cases),
not emotional appeals.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
> Okay. ;-) LHO didn't have to "zigzag" around boxes. Photos of
> the 6th floor show a clear aisle to the back of the building and another
> aisle over to the stairs.
You know what I mean; Oswald did not have a clear path to make a beeline to
the opposite corner (as lone-nutter books often show in diagrams). Look at
the Posner issue of US News (Summer 1993): the diagram on page 76 shows
Oswald going *straight* from the SE corner to the NW corner. This clearly
wasn't possible.
> The rifle was dropped between two rows of
> boxes right next to the stairwell "with another box or so pulled
> over the top," according to Boone, the man who found it. [III, 293]
The rifle was very carefully hidden. That's why it took the cops so long to
find it. It was *not* just dropped into place (as the stand-in for Oswald
did in the WC's reenactment).
> You can hear Boone describe it on TMWKK, and there are
> photos of the box arrangement and the two aisles in First
> Day Evidence. I don't know that these boxes were ever
> checked for prints. If his prints *had* been found on the
> "box or so" that were pulled or pushed over the top, what
> would it prove, Tracy? His prints were on the rifle rest
> boxes IN THE SN WINDOW, but hey, "he worked there,"
> right? ;-)
I would expect to find *many* of his prints on numerous boxes if he had
been in the sniper's nest - not just a partial palmprint and one
fingerprint on a couple of boxes. And those other prints found on the SN's
boxes: they didn't match the prints of anyone else in the TSBD. Too bad the
FBI never tried to figure out who they belonged to.
> Oswald didn't have to race downstairs. In the WC
> reenactments, it took 1 min. 18 sec. at a normal walk
> and 1 min. 14 sec. at a fast walk. [WR, 152] It has
> also been reenacted by others in less than 90 seconds.
> And both Baker and Truly said that their reenactment time
> was a minimum, compared with how long it actually
> took them.
The WC had Baker do both a "normal walk" and a "fast walk," and it took him
about a minute and a half to reach the 2nd floor. But he testified that on
11/22, he was literally pushing people out of the way as he *ran* up to the
second floor. We can safely assume that it actually took him a lot less
time during the real event.
> The men on the 5th floor couldn't see the stairwell from
> their position, and most of the other TSBD employees
> were either outside or at the windows overlooking Elm,
> unlike Mr. Oswald, the JFK admirer, who when Baker
> first saw him was "walking away from the stairway,"
> heading *into* the lunchroom, not already there.
If he had gone into the vestibule from the stairs, then the first door
(which contained an automatic closing feature) would still have been
swinging shut. The angle through the door's window into the vestibule was
such that Baker could only have seen Oswald if he was coming from the south
(from the first floor).
> His location at that particular place and time was
> another one of those amazing coincidences, I
> guess.
> Both Truly and Baker testified that they saw
> nothing in his hands. A few seconds later Oswald
> walked through the adjoining room and Mrs. Reid
> saw him carrying a *full* bottle.
Baker's report originally read that Oswald had a Coke bottle in his hand
when he first saw him, but this was later crossed out.
> Calm and cool? Hard to tell, since Oswald
> didn't say a word when Baker confronted him with
> a drawn pistol.
Truly testified that Oswald wasn't sweating or breathing hard, or nervous
in any way. Supposedly, this is proof that Oswald was a cold-blooded killer
who didn't flinch when a cop pointed a gun at him. And yet, supposedly,
just 45 minutes later Oswald came unglued and shot a police officer.
> On his shooting skills, why rely
> on anecdotes when his Marine rifle score book
> is available? Jean
The score book indicates he was a mediocre shooter, and his fellow marines
remember him being even worse. This means that Oswald's superior may have
just passed him through rather than beat his head against the wall trying
to train him to shoot. After all, he wasn't going to be stationed in a
combat zone.
Tracy
Jean Davison
> > Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article
> > <01bd8523$7df1f380$7d84d4cc@triddle>...
> > > Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote in article
> > > <3563B7EA...@southern.co.nz>...
> > >
> > > > Is that right Tracy? They took the rifle to the morgue when they
> > > > fingerprinted his corpse? That has to be highly unusual and bloody
> > > > strange.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Don't be so suspicious, Tony! I'm sure there's some explanation the
> > > lone-nutters can give us.
> > > Actually, the FBI sent a crew to Miller Funeral Home in Fort Worth,
> > > equipped with cameras, a crime lab kit and the Carcano. FBI agent
> > > Richard Harrison told Gary Mack in 1978 that it was his understanding
> > > that his fellow agent was to put Oswald's palm print on the rifle for
> > > "comparison purposes." The funeral home director told Jim Marrs,
> > > "I had a heck of a time getting the black fingerprint ink off his hands."
> >
> > If I remember correctly, the FBI didn't have possession of
> > the rifle when Oswald was at the funeral home (the night of
> > the 24th) -- it had been returned to the DPD that afternoon.
>
> Do you think FBI agent Harrison was just mistaken, then?
What did he say, exactly? All I see in quotes is "comparison
purposes." For something like this, I'd like to see a direct quote
rather than a paraphrase, wouldn't you? According to a footnote
in Best Evidence, the FBI didn't have the rifle at this time.
> > A researcher on Compuserve reported that the people he
> > talked to at Miller's said they did -not- see the FBI bring
> > in a rifle when they came to take fingerprints.
>
> And who was this researcher, who exactly were the "people" he talked to at
> Miller's, when did he talk to them...? Details, please.
As I remember, it was Duke Lane, who is still on Compuserve,
I believe. I don't think he mentioned any names and I don't
recall the details exactly, sorry.
> > If they
> > took the rifle there, Tracy, they wouldn't have needed
> > any black ink! ;-) Jean
>
> They told the funeral home people that they needed to make another set of
> Oswald's prints. They couldn't very well leave Oswald's body without any
> ink on the fingers. What do you think they were up to, Jean? Why did they
> need to take yet another set of his prints?
Up until that time, the FBI hadn't fingerprinted Oswald, so far
as I know. The DPD had, but maybe the FBI wanted their own.
Or maybe they wanted to verify that the body was Oswald's.
Jean
Jean Davison
>
> > Okay. ;-) LHO didn't have to "zigzag" around boxes. Photos of
> > the 6th floor show a clear aisle to the back of the building and another
> > aisle over to the stairs.
>
> You know what I mean; Oswald did not have a clear path to make a beeline to
> the opposite corner (as lone-nutter books often show in diagrams). Look at
> the Posner issue of US News (Summer 1993): the diagram on page 76 shows
> Oswald going *straight* from the SE corner to the NW corner. This clearly
> wasn't possible.
Posner's diagram was wrong, but this is hardly the "official
version." What other lone-nutter books show this path? The WR
does not. I am simply saying that it's not the "official" view that
Oswald had to do all these "impossible" things in 90 seconds.
It's the "CT version of the LN version," and it's incorrect.
> > The rifle was dropped between two rows of
> > boxes right next to the stairwell "with another box or so pulled
> > over the top," according to Boone, the man who found it. [III, 293]
>
> The rifle was very carefully hidden. That's why it took the cops so long to
> find it. It was *not* just dropped into place (as the stand-in for Oswald
> did in the WC's reenactment).
Respectfully I say: you are wrong about this. I suggest you
look at the police photos in FDE. All he had to do was pause
in the aisle near the stairway, lean over a single, low row of
boxes, put the rifle behind them and shove one or two boxes
over the top. The photos show this, and it's what Boone
described. Boone found it when he walked around
to the end of the row and shined his light into the crevice
between the two rows. It was well hidden, but it could've
been done in a few seconds.
> > You can hear Boone describe it on TMWKK, and there are
> > photos of the box arrangement and the two aisles in First
> > Day Evidence. I don't know that these boxes were ever
> > checked for prints. If his prints *had* been found on the
> > "box or so" that were pulled or pushed over the top, what
> > would it prove, Tracy? His prints were on the rifle rest
> > boxes IN THE SN WINDOW, but hey, "he worked there,"
> > right? ;-)
>
> I would expect to find *many* of his prints on numerous boxes if he had
> been in the sniper's nest - not just a partial palm print and one
> fingerprint on a couple of boxes.
Why? Is this what fingerprint experts expect to find?
I don't think so. Three of his prints were found. How
many would it take to convince you he was in the SN?
How do you think those three got there without him?
> And those other prints found on the SN's
> boxes: they didn't match the prints of anyone else in the TSBD.
> Too bad the FBI never tried to figure out who they belonged to.
But they did. They identified all of these prints except
one as belonging to an FBI employee and a DPD
man who'd handled the boxes. [WR, 249]
> > Oswald didn't have to race downstairs. In the WC
> > reenactments, it took 1 min. 18 sec. at a normal walk
> > and 1 min. 14 sec. at a fast walk. [WR, 152] It has
> > also been reenacted by others in less than 90 seconds.
> > And both Baker and Truly said that their reenactment time
> > was a minimum, compared with how long it actually
> > took them.
>
> The WC had Baker do both a "normal walk" and a "fast walk," and it took him
> about a minute and a half to reach the 2nd floor. But he testified that on
> 11/22, he was literally pushing people out of the way as he *ran* up to the
> second floor. We can safely assume that it actually took him a lot less
> time during the real event.
It was *Oswald's stand-in* who did the normal walk/fast walk,
not Baker. What you're giving me here is Weisberg's
*interpretation* of the testimony, which I've heard before.
Are you aware that Truly brought up the "pushing people
out of the way" as something that might've slowed them
down a little on 11/22, in comparison to the reenactment?
Weisberg interpreted it as a sign of Baker's speed, instead.
How can you "safely assume" that it took them less time
on 11/22, when the two men themselves said the opposite?
> > The men on the 5th floor couldn't see the stairwell from
> > their position, and most of the other TSBD employees
> > were either outside or at the windows overlooking Elm,
> > unlike Mr. Oswald, the JFK admirer, who when Baker
> > first saw him was "walking away from the stairway,"
> > heading *into* the lunchroom, not already there.
>
> If he had gone into the vestibule from the stairs, then the first door
> (which contained an automatic closing feature) would still have been
> swinging shut. The angle through the door's window into the vestibule was
> such that Baker could only have seen Oswald if he was coming from the south
> (from the first floor).
Tracy, you are moving on to a different argument. Your
original statement on which I commented was that LHO
zigzagged, raced, etc. and ended up "calm and cool in
the 2nd floor lunchroom with a Coke in his hand - all within
a minute and a half." My point here was that he wasn't
in the lunchroom when Baker first saw him. Baker said
that the door might have been just closing -- he didn't
remember. I'll argue about the vestibule angle some
other time, maybe. But I'll ask you to think about
this: Oswald said he was in the domino room, NE
corner of the building, and went upstairs to the
lunchroom, NW corner. The closest route by
far was to take the same stairs that Truly and
Baker went up. How do you explain Oswald
coming from "the south"?
> > His location at that particular place and time was
> > another one of those amazing coincidences, I
> > guess.
What, no comment? ;-) Was it a coincidence
or wasn't it?
> > Both Truly and Baker testified that they saw
> > nothing in his hands. A few seconds later Oswald
> > walked through the adjoining room and Mrs. Reid
> > saw him carrying a *full* bottle.
>
> Baker's report originally read that Oswald had a Coke bottle in his hand
> when he first saw him, but this was later crossed out.
Sorry, your source(s) have misled you about this.
Baker's original report said nothing about a Coke. This
appeared in a statement handwritten by an FBI agent dated
9/23/64. Baker crossed it out before signing it. I don't
know why the agent wrote it.
> > Calm and cool? Hard to tell, since Oswald
> > didn't say a word when Baker confronted him with
> > a drawn pistol.
>
> Truly testified that Oswald wasn't sweating or breathing hard, or nervous
> in any way. Supposedly, this is proof that Oswald was a cold-blooded killer
> who didn't flinch when a cop pointed a gun at him. And yet, supposedly,
> just 45 minutes later Oswald came unglued and shot a police officer.
What makes you think he came unglued? It may've
been a very calculated move on his part. I don't
think his appearing "calm" in the lunchroom proves
a thing, one way or the other. Who said it did?
> > On his shooting skills, why rely
> > on anecdotes when his Marine rifle score book
> > is available? Jean
>
> The score book indicates he was a mediocre shooter, and his fellow marines
> remember him being even worse. This means that Oswald's superior may have
> just passed him through rather than beat his head against the wall trying
> to train him to shoot. After all, he wasn't going to be stationed in a
> combat zone.
His score book showed him making 48 and 49 points
out of a possible 50 at 200 yards without a scope. This
was probably in his first test, when he was a fairly new
Marine. His poorer scores came later, just before
he got out and defected. That was the test with the
Maggie's drawers, when Delgado said, "...he didn't
give a darn... He just qualified, that's it." I'm not
saying he was a world-class shot. I don't think
he had to be. After all, he got one Maggie's
drawers on 11/22. ;-) Jean
Vern Pascal
Conspiracies don't happen in America, they
only occur in the former Soviet Union, or Red China. All others can be
traced back to these twin evil
empires.........................................Jeff
Daeron
Tom Braun wrote:
The
> conspiracy theories are all *at least* ten times as unbelievable as the Warren
> Report. Oswald's movements are "unbelievable" - but the notion that J. Edgar
> Hoover could scare the entire government into covering-up the assassination (an
> assertion Mr. Riddle has made) is, of course, quite believable. ;-)
Indeed, it is quite believable and more. How so? Because Hoover kept
extensive dossiers on virtually everyone in government (certainly in the
upper echelons) not just MLK, or RFK, JFK. He therefore had more than
adequate 'firepower' to blackmail any recalcitrant - or uncooperative
official, into doing his bidding. (I.e. assisting ni the WC whitewash).
Where did the Hoover files come from? As in the case of MLK, via
extensive wiretaps. No one was safe, and Hoover did it for a number of
adminstrations. Any degree of thoughtful consideration, and awareness of
the sort of files he could compile, therefore provides more than ample
believability. He also had the motivation to do so, to protect his power
base/ position. Power is what it is all about and that's what Hoover
wanted. No President, or Administration, would be able to dump him with
impunity.
So yes - not to put too fine a point on it, but Hoover had more than
ample wherewithal to 'scare' *anyone in a position to do so*, to aid and
abet the cover-up/
--
"We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis.
JoeZircon
In article <01bd85fb$7b28d140$Loca...@NS1.together.net>, "Jean Davison"
<dav...@together.net> writes:
Let me expand on your answer a little, Jean. 16W662-663 (CE239) shows Oswald's
shooting scores from the marines. Oswald left this material with his *mother*,
and she passed it to the Warren Commission, so I trust nobody is going to claim
the government fabricated it later. In any case, the "Wednesday" results show
Oswald shot a 49 of a possible 50 points in that shooting test. The "Friday"
results show Oswald hit 48 of 50. On the intervening Thursday Oswald scored 43
of 50. As you note, they were from 200 yards, without a scope. But there's
more. These tests were rapid fire, from a sitting position. Sound familiar?
Delgado explained 'rapid fire' as 10 shots in 30 seconds, as I recall. That's
slightly over three seconds a shot, assuming the clock started with the first
shot. I don't know if it did. It may very well have started with the rifle at
the recruit's side, for all I know. Does anyone know how these tests were
conducted? (Tracy Riddle classifies this evidence as meaning Oswald was a
mediocre shot. He and I clearly have differing definitions of mediocre).
In any case, we've got Oswald tests results as:
200 yards, 10 shots in 30 seconds, rapid fire, no scope, sitting position.
Results: 9 bulls-eyes, 1 near miss.
And then theres the Warren Commission/Gerald Posner version of JFK
assassination:
45 to 88 yards, 3 shots in 8.5 seconds or more, scope or no scope (who knows?),
sitting position.
Results: 2 bulls-eyes, 1 total miss.
I say the evidence reveals Oswald was perfectly capable of making those shots.
In fact, based on his best shooting days in the marines, the evidence indicates
Oswald performed rather poorly on 11/22/63.
Why do I expect to start hearing that the evidence therefore shows Oswald
didn't fire those shots as he was a better shot than that, and if he had fired
them, he would have done better?
JZ
JoeZircon
In article <01bd85ed$e8b102e0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>, "Jean Davison"
<dav...@together.net> writes:
>
>Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article
><01bd8581$b2f4b960$3584d4cc@triddle>...
>>
>>
>> Jean Davison <dav...@together.net> wrote in article
>> <01bd851b$132d77c0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
>> > Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article
That's exactly right. They wanted to verify that the fingerprints of the
deceased matched those of the Lee Harvey Oswald they had on file. Moreover,
there was no need for the FBI to put Oswald's prints on the weapon on 11/24/63.
Day had already photographed FINGERprints on the weapon that belonged to
Oswald on the afternoon of 11/22/63. Those photos were published in the Warren
Commission volumes of evidence, and universally ignored by critics ever since.
Moreover, if they wanted to plant prints on the rifle, they wouldn't have used
*ink* to do it. The ink is used to make a fingerprint card, for the record.
When people leave prints behind on weapons and other materials, they don't
*ink* their fingers first. The fact that the corpse had ink on his fingers
after the FBI left, shows that the prints were made for a historical record,
not to plant prints on the weapon.
JZ
JoeZircon
In article <35638489...@sprynet.com>, Tom Braun <cawr...@sprynet.com>
writes:
<snip>
>"Two Dallas police officers on routine patrol entered Dealey Plaza [on Nov.
>20]
>and noticed several men standing behind the wooden fence on the grassy knoll.
>The men were engaged in what appeared to be 'mock target practice,' according
>to the officers." Right - these meticulous, evidence-altering, patsy-framing
>plotters, who covered *every* minute detail for 35 years, would just shrug
>off
>the fact that cops saw them (which they must have realized, because they left
>in a hurry). Trouble is, absolutely no evidence was *ever* found behind the
>fence to indicate that shooters fired from there. My guess: these two cops
>just wanted to make themselves important: "Hey, we can solve the
>assassination!"
<snip>
Actually, there's an even better explanation that doesn't assume anyone is
lying, or stretching the truth. See my other response on this subject in this
thread.
JZ
JoeZircon
In article <01bd83ed$2c79a7a0$2484d4cc@triddle>, "Tracy Riddle"
<tri...@tfb.com> writes:
<snip other stuff>
>11/20/1963 Two Dallas police officers on routine patrol entered Dealey
>Plaza and noticed several men standing behind the wooden fence on the
>grassy knoll. The men were engaged in what appeared to be "mock target
>practice," according to the officers, aiming rifles over the fence into the
>plaza. By the time the officers got behind the fence, the men were gone,
>having left in a nearby parked car. The policemen didn't report the
>incident until after the assassination; the FBI issued a report about it
>11/26, but it was suppressed until it was released via the FOIA in 1978.
>
<snip other stuff>
On the 20th, as Lee Harvey Oswald told his police interrogators, a co-worker in
the Depository brought in a couple of rifles to show around. Oswald's story was
subsequently confirmed by FBI investigation. The last we hear about these two
particular rifles, is they were taken out to the owner's *car*. This sounds a
lot like your story, minus the suspicious parts.
JZ
JoeZircon
In article <01bd8465$db8790e0$2984d4cc@triddle>, "Tracy Riddle"
<tri...@tfb.com> writes:
<snip>
>> All this business about
>> how "they" put LHO's palm print on the rifle posthumously requires a leap
>of
>> faith in conspiracy, to say the least. What evidence exists that this
>happened
>> - beyond that it was *possible* to put the palm print on the rifle this
>way?
>
>The person who said it was "possible" was FBI agent Vincent Drain, who was
>involved in the transportation of the Carcano to the FBI lab. He's hardly
>some wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
>
>
<snip>
Please advise where Drain said it was possible the FBI planted the palm print,
or put it on the rifle later. Either I'm misunderstanding your point, or you're
not being precise.
Thanks,
JZ
Bill Hamley
Bear in mind that the M-1 is not a bolt action rifle.
Bill
jerrymac
JoeZircon wrote in message
<199805231752...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Drain never said he thought the FBI planted the palmprint -- he was accusing
Day and the DPD of manufacturing the palmprint.
Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI first took possession of the rifle
about 11:45 PM 11/22/63. The palmprint was not turned over at that time.
On Saturday morning, FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona examined the
rifle for fingerprints -- he saw no evidence of the palmprint Day claimed to
have lifted from the underside of the barrel. The rifle was returned to DPD
on Sunday 11/24/63 (about 3:40 PM). After LHO's death, the FBI took control
of all the evidence. On 11/26/63, the evidence (including the rifle and the
lifted palmprint) was released to Agent Drain. Agent Drain has stated, "I
just don't believe there was ever a print." He went on to explain, "All I
can figure is that it was some kind of cushion, because they were getting a
lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald's card and
put it on the rifle. Something like that
happened." ( Quote from Reasonable Doubt pg.109)
Here's what Latona told the WC about the palmprint:
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been
developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the
fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the
cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as
to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came
from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so
complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself
as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to
process the rifle. <end quote>
Day did not photograph the print before lifting it, nor did he protect it
with cellophane as he did the smudged prints found on the trigger guard.
But Drain was not the only one skeptical about the palmprint. According to
Warren Commission General Counsel Lee Rankin: "Because of the circumstances
which now exist there is a serious question in the minds of the Commission
as to whether the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas
Police Department is a legitimate palm impression removed from the rifle
barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source and that for this
reason the matter needs to be resolved." The FBI later reported that it
approached Day to obtain more information about the palm print, and Day
refused to sign a new statement. (see CE 3145)
jerrymac
jerrymac
Jean Davison wrote in message
<01bd85fb$7b28d140$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
>Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article
><01bd85e7$e4e51580$3684d4cc@triddle>...
>> Jean Davison <dav...@together.net> wrote in article
>> <01bd8590$84e002a0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
>>
SNIPPED
>> > The rifle was dropped between two rows of
>> > boxes right next to the stairwell "with another box or so pulled
>> > over the top," according to Boone, the man who found it. [III, 293]
>>
>> The rifle was very carefully hidden. That's why it took the cops so long
to
>> find it. It was *not* just dropped into place (as the stand-in for Oswald
>> did in the WC's reenactment).
>
> Respectfully I say: you are wrong about this. I suggest you
>look at the police photos in FDE. All he had to do was pause
>in the aisle near the stairway, lean over a single, low row of
>boxes, put the rifle behind them and shove one or two boxes
>over the top. The photos show this, and it's what Boone
>described. Boone found it when he walked around
>to the end of the row and shined his light into the crevice
>between the two rows. It was well hidden, but it could've
>been done in a few seconds.
>
No matter how many seconds it took to place the MC in the crevice between
the boxes and shove the top boxes over, it had to take more time than the
poor-excuse of a recreation done for the WC. Witness Howlitt's statement:
STATE OF TEXAS,
County of Dallas, ss:
I, John Joe Howlett, being duly sworn say:
1. I am an agent in the Dallas office of the United States Secret Service.
2. On March 20, 1964, counsel to the President's Commission on the
Assassination of President Kennedy timed me as I walked from the southeast
corner of the sixth floor to the second floor lunchroom by the stairway in
the Texas School Book Depository Building.
3. During this test, I carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the
sixth floor northerly along the east aisle to the northeast corner, then
westerly along the north wall past the elevators to the northwest corner.
There I placed the rifle on the floor. I then entered the stairwell, walked
down the stairway to the second floor landing, and then into the lunchroom.
4. After the second test which was run at a fast walk," I was not
short-winded.
Signed this 11th day of August 1964, at Dallas, Tex.
(S)John Joe Howlett,
JOHN JOE HOWLETT.
He placed the rifle on the floor!!! No pausing at boxes, no leaning over,
no shifting them around -- NO NOTHING. Wow, that must have taken 1/4 of a
second!!!
jerrymac
Tracy Riddle
pl...@webtv.net wrote in article
<6k5gik$2b3$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> Please read this statement: LHO shot poorly during one 6 week period in
> his life with one particular weapon so by definition he is a poor shot
> for the rest of his life with ALL weapons. Now please try to explain to
> me the valid deductive or inductive logical proof supporting such a
> statement, a statement/assertion which is always part of the argument
> used to "prove" LHO could NOT have solely made the shots that occured on
> 11/22/63.
I have never said that his poor Marine performance therefore absolutely
proves that he did not shoot JFK. To me, it's simply one more fact on the
scale tipping the balance away from his guilt.
> Get real.
Oh, I have, planr, I have.
> planr
Tracy Riddle
> Now, lets consider the 6th floor window. It was as far away from the Elm
Street site as
> you could get from inside the building, and the view is blocked by the
oak tree. On teh
> other hand, it offers a clear and unobstructed view of the Houston Street
approach. If a
> single fatal shot had been fired then front to back, would you still have
problems
> believing the case against the patsy?
Obviously, that scenario would be much more believable. But a gunman on the
grassy knoll would not have a clear view of JFK on Houston St. I totally
agree with you that if Oswald was in the SN, he seems to have deliberately
made it as difficult as possible for himself to carry out the shooting.
> Something went wrong.
I don't have all the answers, Ritchie. In fact, I have a lot more questions
that answers. I just know that there is way too much about this case that
doesn't add up. If I can't construct an airtight conspiracy scenario that
suits you, I'm sorry. I never claimed to be able to do that.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
JoeZircon <joez...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199805231752...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> In article <01bd83ed$2c79a7a0$2484d4cc@triddle>, "Tracy Riddle"
That's a good theory, except that the parking lot behind the picket fence
belonged to the Sheriff's Department, not the TSBD. Also, it doesn't
explain why these men were aiming rifles over the fence.
Tracy
ritchie linton
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
And I never asked you to. I don't expect that you will have the answer, but you do have
a lot of good questions.
Lets back up a bit to earlier in the post when I asked you if you were going to be firm
in saying that Oswald did not shoot. Are you? You did say that. Are you sure? Is that
OK?
See, if you are sure, one of the first problems that arises is that Oswald's innocence
of any shooting greatly undermines the chance that there ever was a GK assassin. You
can't have a one man crossfire, and if there was a GK assassin, he had to have an
accomplice, and by what you firmly say, it was not Oswald.
A lot of people are generaally prepared to agree that the Wc was wrong-that you cannot
get Oswald to the 6th floor with the rifle- and without him there;well, theer goes the
accomplice. With no accomplice, there can be no crossfire-by definition a two man job at
the least- and if no accomplice, then no GK assassin.
Look at what you said above. See how the concept of a GK assassin crossfire is somehow
implicit in your reasoning? You said a gunman on the GK would not have a clear view onto
Houston Street, and who could disagree? But you do see what I mean about the implied
accepted notion of a GK assassin in the first place. If there was no Oswald with a rifle
in the 6th floor- and there was not, as you said and I agreed- there was no
crossfire.Unless all the shooting was all done by ghosts, for there is no other physical
evidence.
If there was no GK assassin and it was not Oswald, then we must be looking for something
else.
To return to my point about the nature of the frame up evidence, do you agree that it
was set in such a way that if a single shot from front to rear had happened while the
car approached on Houston Street, the frame would have worked and the Oswald story would
have been believed? If so, the only question is where was the gun that could have done
such a thing as to make the frame believable?
Ritchie
Thomas E. Braun
Daeron wrote:
> Tom Braun wrote:
> The
> > conspiracy theories are all *at least* ten times as unbelievable as the Warren
> > Report. Oswald's movements are "unbelievable" - but the notion that J. Edgar
> > Hoover could scare the entire government into covering-up the assassination (an
> > assertion Mr. Riddle has made) is, of course, quite believable. ;-)
>
> Indeed, it is quite believable and more. How so? Because Hoover kept
> extensive dossiers on virtually everyone in government (certainly in the
> upper echelons) not just MLK, or RFK, JFK. He therefore had more than
> adequate 'firepower' to blackmail any recalcitrant - or uncooperative
> official, into doing his bidding. (I.e. assisting ni the WC whitewash).
Oh, come on! It's one thing to suggest that Hoover had the clout to embarrass some
people into certain levels of cooperation; it's quite another thing to suggest that
this clout extended to covering up a presidential assassination.
>
>
> Where did the Hoover files come from? As in the case of MLK, via
> extensive wiretaps. No one was safe, and Hoover did it for a number of
> adminstrations. Any degree of thoughtful consideration, and awareness of
> the sort of files he could compile, therefore provides more than ample
> believability. He also had the motivation to do so, to protect his power
> base/ position. Power is what it is all about and that's what Hoover
> wanted. No President, or Administration, would be able to dump him with
> impunity.
Precisely: power is the name of the game. So why would Hoover - no idiot, no matter
what else he was - risk *everything* by covering for God knows who that hit JFK? Any
time Hoover wanted JFK out of the way, he just had to release his files before the
next election, not murder him.
>
>
> So yes - not to put too fine a point on it, but Hoover had more than
> ample wherewithal to 'scare' *anyone in a position to do so*, to aid and
> abet the cover-up/
And conspiracy theorists call the single-bullet theory "unbelievable"!
JoeZircon
In article <01bd86a4$2211eac0$5784d4cc@triddle>, "Tracy Riddle"
<tri...@tfb.com> writes:
And yours is a good story, minus any evidence. Here's the evidence:
The TSBD employees were known to park there. For example, Josephine Salinas, on
11/26/63 advised the FBI (CD205):
QUOTE ON
JOSEPHINE SALINAS, 13740 Birchlawn, advised she. FRANCES HERNANDEZ, and
HENRIETTA VARGAS, all employees of McKell Sportwear Company, Second Floor, 501
Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, while on their way home about 5:10 p.m. on November
19th, 1963, and after reaching the parking lot near the Texas School Book
Depository, observed two men with an automobile, about a 1956 Buick, color
light blue. The older of the two men handed a rifle to the younger man, who
then walked from the Buick toward a compact white car, but she did not know the
make of it. She stated the younger man might have been LEE HARVEY OSWALD, but
she is not able to say definitely it was OSWALD. She said she has no other
information.
QUOTE OFF
Vargas and Hernandez gave similar, but not identical stories in that same
Commission document. They placed the date as the 19th or the 21st. Close
enough to your date.
Of course, Warren Caster, 7W387-388, testified that he, on 11/20/63, brought
two rifles to the TSBD at about noon. He testified further that at the end of
the day, he carried them out, put them in his car, and took them home. Roy
Truly, 7W381-382, and Bill Shelley, gave similar, but not identical statements.
The men's statements of Castor's actions conforms with the statements of the
women who saw the men in the parking lot, cited above, and with the actions
cited by the police officers you mention. So, clearly (well, clearly to me, it
may not be that way to everybody), all these people were describing the same
incident, in pretty much the same way. With one glaring exception:
Where's the citation for that pointing the rifle over the fence? Do you have
anything further on that? Enquiring minds want to know.
JZ
JoeZircon
In article <6k7def$a...@news3.newsguy.com>, "jerrymac" <jerr...@mci2000.com>
writes:
>JoeZircon wrote in message
><199805231752...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>In article <01bd8465$db8790e0$2984d4cc@triddle>, "Tracy Riddle"
>><tri...@tfb.com> writes:
>>
>><snip>
Well, now I'm lost. Tracy Riddle claimed the FBI was responsible for planting
the print on the weapon. You claim Drain, an FBI agent, said the Dallas cops
could have done it. Clearly, you guys are talking about two different things,
unless Drain worked with the cops to plant the print, and then 'fessed up.
Somehow I don't think that explanation makes any sense. So who planted the
print, if one was printed? The FBI, or the Dallas cops? Drain claims it could
have been done, but that's clearly to cover his own ass. If Day is correct, and
he pointed out the print to Drain as he claims, (Drain disputes this), then
Drain screwed up the evidence big-time by mishandling the weapon in
transporting it. He's not about to admit to that. So what else would he say?
Moreover, nobody (FBI or DPD) had any reason to plant the palmprint. The
fingerprints on the trigger guard of the rifle were photographed by Day of the
DPD on the afternoon of the assassination, and nobody disputes their existence.
Photos of these fingerprints were published in the Warren Commission volumes.
And in FDE, Scalise ID'ed the fingerprints as definitely Oswald's. So Oswald's
fingerprints were on the weapon all along. So there was no reason to plant his
palmprint. So it wasn't planted.
JZ
JoeZircon
Hey, what I know about rifles could fit in a thimble, with room left over for
Godzilla's [REDACTED].
I just gave myself a quick lesson, courtesy of the internet. Isn't technology
wonderful? And you are correct, the M-1 is not a bolt-action weapon. So my
comparison of the tests fails in that regard.
However, it appears your only dispute is with the time of the shootings in
Oswald's training & testing and the actual asassination being not comparable,
because the weapons were different. The distance was longer in LHO's training
and the tests, and both used a sitting position (as far as we can tell -- the
box in the sniper's nest was situated for a sitting person, and bore Oswald's
palm print as if he sat there). The accuracy favored the LHO tests as well: 9
of 10 bulls-eyes, with one near miss.
So, based on on this evidence, do you deem Oswald a mediocre shot?
John Ritchson
pl...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Mr. Riddle,
>
> Regarding Oswald's shooting scores while in Marine basic training: How
> many scored rounds did he shoot at targets 75-100 yards downrange, using
> a telescopic sight, with the rifle on a rest?
Greetings, Pardon my interjection into this thread, but I have some
input that is relevent to this dialog.
Soldiers in basic training are trained to fire from a number of
different positions, standing, sitting, prone, and from a fox-hole, at
man-sized stationary targets, out to a range of 500 yards using military
open sights. This is pretty much normal SOP for basic trainees. I doubt
if LHO got any experience at all with a scoped rifle. Normally, only
trainees that show exceptional weapon proficency are selected for
special training during their advanced individual training that comes
after basic training.
> Perhaps some people are comparing apples and oranges on this LHO
> marksmanship question?
>
> Further, is there any explicit evidence that says he DID NOT practice
> with a telescopic-sight equipped rifle at anytime between his return
> from Russia and 11/22/63? Practice makes perfect, as they say. What
> scores did SGT Ritchson get his first day at the range in basic
> training? He seems to be an avid shooter today - can he tell us from
> his observations as an Army NCO or as a civilian whether practice can
> improve the performance of an initially-poor shooter? Not all poor
> shooters, but some?
I was somewhat of a "Ringer" in this regards, having been an avid
big-game hunter as well as a NRA sanctioned match-shooter prior to
my entrance into the military.However, in regards to LHO, there is
ample anacdotal evidence that LHO suffered from shooter's flinch which
is basically a form of recoil anticipation, whereby the shooter has a
tendency to jerk the trigger instead of squeezing it throwing the
rifle off of its aimpoint.This usually results in the shooter completely
missing the target, earning him the so-called "Maggie's Drawers" as the
"Jar-Heads" like to call it.(See my dejanews article >>the Shooter<<)
There is absolutely no evidence that LHO did any real shooting at all
after his discharge from the USMC.I tend to think that he was basically
afraid of the weapon.Being unable to hit a Jackrabbit at close range
with a shotgun more than examplifies that fact.He damn sure never
aquired any known range proficency on any shooting range where he would
become a known quantity and no one has ever suggested that he was ever
known to go out into the countryside and shoot by himself.
> CTers, open your minds and do some objective reasoning, not just
> "reasoning" which is a recital of inconsistencies in other people's
> research or reporting or reasoning about the acts of still other people.
>
> Please read this statement: LHO shot poorly during one 6 week period in
> his life with one particular weapon so by definition he is a poor shot
> for the rest of his life with ALL weapons. Now please try to explain to
> me the valid deductive or inductive logical proof supporting such a
> statement, a statement/assertion which is always part of the argument
> used to "prove" LHO could NOT have solely made the shots that occured on
> 11/22/63.
>
> Get real.
> planr
Shooters that exhibit shooter's flinch, recoil anticipation and a
fear of the weapon itself will usually carry this tendency to one
degree or another forever.While through extensive individual training,
it is possible to moderate this tendency, military trainers will usually
not have the time nor are they inclined to make such an effort,electing
instead to either washout the problem soldier or arrange to qualify
for him and then assign him to a non-combatant MOS, such as a RADAR
operator, cook, clerk-typist or some-such.
--
With Regard,
John Ritchson(SSGT. 499th TC USATC HG US Army Class of 69)
(GunSmith/Ballistician,Black Eagle Gun Works)
(Survivor, SE Asian Games, 11BRAVO7,Tet 1970)
************************************************************
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that
heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but
"That's Funny..." Isaac Asimov
************************************************************
Howard J. Rogers
Tracy Riddle wrote in message <01bd8586$0e71e8e0$3584d4cc@triddle>...
>
>
>Howard J. Rogers <howa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
><6k38ct$al...@o2robox01.optus.net.au>...
>>
>> And this renowned bad shooter was set up by the conspiracy to be the
>> fallguy? You don't think that, to make their case just a little bit
>safe,
>> they might actually have framed someone who could plausibly have done the
>> shots the WC scenario requires him to have made? Instead they pick a
>> totally hopeless shot, according to you and your sources.
>
>Oswald wasn't "renowned" at the time for being a bad shot; there weren't
>headline stories about it in the paper, Howard. The conspirators knew that
>Oswald had been in the Marines, and they assumed he had been trained to
>shoot well.
>
>Tracy
>
Well, I have to say that this is a bit of a cop-out, Tracy. The
conspirators select a patsy, go to great lengths to set him up, even greater
lengths to cover up the identities of the true assassins, but can't be
bothered to check out whether their fall guy is *actually* a good shot or a
lousy one?
They just assume on this crucial point?
I find this extremely hard to believe.
Regards
HJR
Howard J. Rogers
ritchie linton wrote in message <356667...@idirect.com>...
>Howard J. Rogers wrote:
[Snip].
>>
>> You see the problem?
>>
>> Regards
>> HJR
>>************************
>
>************************
>I certainly do, which is why I raised the question in the first place. Good
points you
>make. So lets look again.
>
>Oswald was not a great shot. The rifle they planted was not a great rifle.
They planted
>a single bullet. Those are the parts of the frame at its simplest. So from
this I deduce
>that the intended plan involved as simple easy single shot, in a way which
would have
>been believed.
>
>See, implicit in your point is the fact that the actual shooting turned out
to be
>complex- several rapid difficult shots. That it happened that way does not
mean that it
>was planned that way. According to the evidenc of the frame, it was planned
to be
>simple. So I say obviously something went wrong with the plan, so that the
evidence
>planted no longer apperas to fit. As you say, Oswald now appears the most
unconvincing
>patsy imaginable. Because they left a mediocre shot with a single bullet
and a poor
>weapon, yet it turned out that there were multiple shots. Thats the
problem. Nothing
>fits and people do not believe.
>
>The fact that it happened on Elm Street with multiple shots does not mean
it was
>planned that way.Not according to the evidence of the frame, at least.
>
I like this idea much more than the one that says the conspirators simply
assumed Oswald was a good shot (with apologies to Tracy).
But I'm now confused!
If Oswald was a patsy, does that mean he didn't do any shooting at all.
If he didn't do any shooting at all, then how were they ever to shoot JFK on
Houston? Where would the *real* assassin have been placed to make such a
shot possible, and seem to plausibly come from the TSBD?
If there was a conspirator on the GK, on the other hand (perfect for an Elm
Street shot), again Oswald becomes a lousy patsy, because you now have a
patsy at the rear, with a frontal shot.
And if he wasn't a patsy? Maybe he didn't shoot the "easy" Houston Street
shot because (fill in speculation as necessary....but for starters, there
was a lot going on on the fifth and sixth floors just before the shot -maybe
he could set himself up in time, waiting for the area to clear?)
Regards
HJR
jerrymac
JoeZircon wrote in message
<199805240506...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Zirc,
Tracy did not say Drain claimed the FBI put the palmprint on the rifle. You
asked:
==>>What evidence exists that this happened - beyond that it was *possible*
to put the palm print on the rifle this way?
Tracy replied:
==>>The person who said it was "possible" was FBI agent Vincent Drain, who
was
involved in the transportation of the Carcano to the FBI lab. He's hardly
some wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
You then asked:
==>>Please advise where Drain said it was possible the FBI planted the palm
print, or put it on the rifle later. Either I'm misunderstanding your point,
or you're not being precise.
Where did Tracy say Drain accused the FBI of planting it??? Tracy was only
stating that Drain said it was possible to do it. I was only trying to
clarifying it for you, and to provide you with the source of the quote.
NEXT POINT
In accusing Drain of covering his ass, you zipped by Latona's testimony that
he found no evidence of the palmprint, or even any indication that area had
be tested for prints. Nor did you comment on Rankin's memo to the FBI
expressing doubt about the authenticity of the palmprint. Or Day's refusal
to sign a statement. Did you check out CE 3145???
Finally, your argument that there was no need to fudge the palmprint because
they had the partial fingerprints on the triggerguard is ludicrous. You are
aware that neither Day or Latona were able to match those prints to LHO (or
anyone else for that matter). It doesn't matter that someone might have
done so three decades later -- at the time of the assassination, neither DPD
nor the FBI had anything to put that rifle in LHO's hands until the
palmprint mysteriously appeared 11/26/63.
jerrymac
jerrymac
John Ritchson wrote in message <6k8g42$8...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Hey Sarge and planr,
What we do know (according to legend) is that the MC was rolled up in a
blanket in the Paine's garage from the time LHO left the Big Easy until the
day of the assassination. So if he did do any practice shooting, it wasn't
with the alleged murder weapon.
jerrymac
jerrymac
Howard J. Rogers wrote in message
<6k8i21$l3c$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>
>
>Well, I have to say that this is a bit of a cop-out, Tracy. The
>conspirators select a patsy, go to great lengths to set him up, even
greater
>lengths to cover up the identities of the true assassins, but can't be
>bothered to check out whether their fall guy is *actually* a good shot or a
>lousy one?
>
>They just assume on this crucial point?
>
>I find this extremely hard to believe.
>
>Regards
>HJR
>
Harold,
Assuming you are old enough to remember that weekend, think back on how LHO
was originally described. A Marine marksman. He won a sharpshooter's medal
in the Marines. That sounded pretty impressive at the time, definitely
enough to make it more than plausible. However, once you start examining
the record closer, the words "marksman" and "sharpshooter" just don't have
the same emotional impact as they originally had. Now, throw in the fact
that he hadn't fired a rifle since he left the Marines in 1959 (except for
maybe 1 shot xa, xa, xa), and you just gotta start scratchin' your head.
Here's my point -- on the surface, LHO had enough credentials to do the
deed. If he was set up, the plotters had no idea that people would be
micro-analyzing every little detail (like his range scores) for the next 35
years. What would have been more important is the patsy's background. And
LHO's defection to Russia, Marxist background, and pro-Castro activities
made him a perfect candidate. A Commie killed our President -- String him
up!!! Instant hate appeal, plus it might even instigate an invasion of
Cuba.
Now let's have some fun. Let's suppose that LHO wasn't a real Commie, but
some sort of an intelligence operative with a Commie cover. FBI, CIA,
ONI -- you pick the Agency. All of a sudden, your boy's accused of
assassinating the President. Do you a) Go on TV and tell the country
there must be some mistake, that he works for us OR b) Cover your
ass??? The answer is B -- Disavow any knowledge of him, and move to shut
down any real investigation that might disclose your secret. And there's
your perfect patsy. The people will believe (and WANT to believe) a Commie
did it, and Washington will just sweep everything under the rug. What did
Oswald say, "I'm waiting for someone to come forward..." Two days later,
someone did come forward, but it wasn't quite the help he was expecting.
Wasn't that fun, HJR???
jerrymac
dcwi...@pacbell.net
2) WERE NORMAN & JARMAN THERE AT 12:30? (con.t)
Witness reportage on all fronts is in conflict with that appears in the
Dillard photos.... In his 11/23 FBI statement, Williams says that he,
Norman, & Jarman "were looking out windows on the south side of the
building approx. at the MIDDLE of the building & saw the car of Pres.
Kennedy come north on Houston St. & then make a turn...." In his 3/19
statement, he reiterates, "We were at the windows which are located at
about the CENTER of the building on the south side." And nowhere--in
statements or testimony--do any of the 3 mention that they at any time
changed windows before the assassination. But Brennan, too, testifies
that he saw NORMAN & Jarman "ONE WINDOW OVER below the man that fired the
gun." (v3 p152) Norman is in the wrong window in Dillard's Yashica photo.
3) WERE NORMAN & JARMAN THERE AT 12:25?
Roy Truly testifies that TSBD employee Charles Givens "wasn't there [at
the TSBD] at the time of the shooting" because he, Truly, saw Givens,
Norman, & Jarman "there on the corner & starting across the street," away
from the TSBD, "a little while before the shooting." (v7 pp385-6) If
Givens was not there "at the time of the shooting," then neither were
Norman & Jarman....
4) WERE NORMAN & JARMAN THERE AT 12:35?
Howard Brennan vouched for Norman & Jarman's presence in front of the
TSBD, at about 12:35. (Brennan: v3 p146/Norman SS statement) But--as I
have noted elsewhere--Brennan was most probably on the knoll or in the
railroad yard at 12:35 reporting to Officer Haygood, whose witness
was--like Brennan--"sitting" at the time of the shooting & saw a man & a
gun in a TSBD window. And no DPD officer came forward to validate the
WR's claim that "Norman & Jarman ran out of the front entrance of the
building, where they saw Brennan... talking to a police officer, & they
then reported their own experience."
Nor did SS Agent Forrest Sorrels come forward, altho Brennan said that it
was Sorrels who stopped Norman & Jarman in front of the TSBD. In fact, if
Sorrels HAD encountered the two he would have had them make statements
that day. (v7 p349) Norman & Jarman weren't in front of the TSBD at
12:35....
Finally, the stunning conclusion of the passage from Williams' testimony:
McCloy: "When you came downstairs, do you remember seeing a man named
Brennan, & did a man named Brennan identify you downstairs?"
W: "No, sir. I don't remember that."
M: "No one that you know... no one said, 'This is the man I have seen on
the 5th floor window'?"
W: "No, sir." (v3 p183)
"THE MAN".... McCloy seems to be quoting from a Brennan or Williams
statement, another statement which Williams must summarily reject. But
Williams WAS in the TSBD at 12:30--he is in the James Powell slide of the
south facade of the TSBD, made about the same time as Dillard's Leica (the
figures in the 3rd & 4th-floor windows match. [Trask p449/TKOAP
p185])--and Norman & Jarman are NOT in the picture. Pretty clearly,
Williams WAS the man whom Brennan saw at the 5th-floor window. And it was
WILLIAMS whom Brennan encountered on the steps of the TSBD, probably
between 12:45 & 1:00. At 12:35, Norman & Jarman were apparently at Record
& Elm with Givens....
Norman & Jarman did not report to ANY authorities on 11/22. Why? Because
they had nothing to report. Even when Jarman does make a statement, the
following day, he has nothing to report re the period just before & after
the shooting. Norman & Jarman were not at the TSBD at 12:25 or 12:30 or
12:35 or 1:00. Like Benavides, Norman & Jarman were witnesses to nothing.
The only 5th-floor "witness" was Williams, the employee who began working
at Elm & Houston about the same time as Lee Harvey Oswald.
Donald Willis
------------------
Spam free Usenet news http://www.newsguy.com
Bill Hamley
JoeZircon wrote:
>
> In article <3567167E...@home.com>, Bill Hamley <bha...@home.com> writes:
>
> >JoeZircon wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <01bd85fb$7b28d140$Loca...@NS1.together.net>, "Jean Davison"
> >> <dav...@together.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article
> >> ><01bd85e7$e4e51580$3684d4cc@triddle>...
> >> >> Jean Davison <dav...@together.net> wrote in article
> >> >> <01bd8590$84e002a0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
> >> >>
[...]
Its an apples and oranges issue with me. Your comparing his ability to fire
a semi-automatic weapon at a stationary target at a time when has been firing
that weapon on a nearly daily basis for an extended period of time to being
able to pick up a bolt action rifle and with little or no practice hit a moving
target. Add the problems that the FBI found when testing the M-C and its sights,
the problems that their marksman had when firing the M-C. When looking at all
the issues I don't think one can be compared to the other.
> So, based on on this evidence, do you deem Oswald a mediocre shot?
Yes, I do consider Oswald a mediocre shot... he only qualified as Sharpshooter.
I consider myself a good shot but not a great shot. I was highly upset that I
only
qualified as Sharpshooter and not Expert.
Bill
Tracy Riddle
Bill Hamley <bha...@home.com> wrote in article
<35682139...@home.com>...
> Its an apples and oranges issue with me. Your comparing his ability to
fire
> a semi-automatic weapon at a stationary target at a time when has been
firing
> that weapon on a nearly daily basis for an extended period of time to
being
> able to pick up a bolt action rifle and with little or no practice hit a
moving
> target. Add the problems that the FBI found when testing the M-C and its
sights,
> the problems that their marksman had when firing the M-C. When looking at
all
> the issues I don't think one can be compared to the other.
A good point. Why, if Oswald was the assassin, didn't he do as fellow
Marine Charles Whitman did when he shot all those people from that tower?
Get himself a semi-automatic rifle. LHO could have fired numerous shots at
JFK during 6-8 seconds. He also could have used it to take out a whole
bunch of cops and bystanders, and REALLY made a name for himself.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
> conspirators select a patsy, go to great lengths to set him up, even
greater
> lengths to cover up the identities of the true assassins, but can't be
> bothered to check out whether their fall guy is *actually* a good shot or
a
> lousy one?
>
> They just assume on this crucial point?
>
> I find this extremely hard to believe.
>
Well, now you know how we CTs feel about many crucial elements of this
case.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
jerrymac <jerr...@mci2000.com> wrote in article
<6k8m6l$a...@news3.newsguy.com>...
Well said, jerrymac.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
JoeZircon <joez...@aol.com> wrote in article
> Moreover, nobody (FBI or DPD) had any reason to plant the palmprint. The
> fingerprints on the trigger guard of the rifle were photographed by Day
of the
> DPD on the afternoon of the assassination, and nobody disputes their
existence.
Those were traces of fingerprints near the trigger, but they were too
incomplete to be of use. Notice that the DPD said nothing about finding any
prints on the rifle at all until after Oswald was killed. In fact, at one
point, Curry told the press "If we could put his prints on the rifle" that
would go a long way toward proving he was the gunman.
Tracy
Tracy Riddle
JoeZircon <joez...@aol.com> wrote in article
> Where's the citation for that pointing the rifle over the fence? Do you
have
> anything further on that? Enquiring minds want to know.
The report was mentioned in Davis' MAFIA KINGFISH (p175). It wasn't quoted
in full. You may be on to something with your connection to Caster's
bringing two rifles into the TSBD. I've always found it rather odd that
Caster brought a Mauser into the building, and a Mauser was first reported
as the rifle found after the assassination.
Tracy
Thpa2d
Here are some of the entry's in question from LHO's 201 file:
26 OCT 1956
2ndTrngBn, MCRIN, San Diego, Calif
Reason/Primary Duty: JOINED RECRUIT TRAINING
This is the date LHO signed in for MC Boot Camp, most training
cycles start on a Monday, however troops arrive prior to the
start of the training. Actual training started on the 29th IMO.
17 JAN 1957
U.S. MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT, SAN DIEGO 40, CALIFORNIA
Examined this date in accordance with Article 15-50, MMD 1949
and found to be physically qualified for transfer.
CAMP SAN ONOFRE [Rest illegible]
This medical exam was conducted at the end of the Boot Camp training cycle
to insure LHO was medically fit for the next stage of training.
What can anyone add about: CAMP SAN ONOFRE?
Why did LHO recieve 85 days of training, that would normally take
56 days (8 weeks of Boot) prior to being sent to CAMP SAN ONOFRE
for the next stage of intial MC training?
What could be the nature of the extra 29 days of training?
***Note***No leave was taken and there were three Training Holidays during
this period, Thanksgiving, Xmas, and New Year.
Was the MC Boot Camp 11-12 weeks long in 1956?
Last point for now:
JAN 20 1957
"A" Co, 1stBn, 2dInfTrngRegt, MCB, CamPen, Calif.
Reason: Id Primary Duty: DUINS ICT Trn
The abbr "DUINS ICT Trn" is not covered in AR 310-50, I do not have the same
Reg used by the MC, is it possible that anyone would care to translate these
abbreviations? Your opinion is fine with me.
Thanks for any insight you can provide......
jko
Bill Hamley
> fire
> > a semi-automatic weapon at a stationary target at a time when has been
> firing
> > that weapon on a nearly daily basis for an extended period of time to
> being
> > able to pick up a bolt action rifle and with little or no practice hit a
> moving
> > target. Add the problems that the FBI found when testing the M-C and its
> sights,
> > the problems that their marksman had when firing the M-C. When looking at
> all
> > the issues I don't think one can be compared to the other.
>
> Marine Charles Whitman did when he shot all those people from that tower?
> Get himself a semi-automatic rifle. LHO could have fired numerous shots at
> JFK during 6-8 seconds. He also could have used it to take out a whole
> bunch of cops and bystanders, and REALLY made a name for himself.
>
afford. I have always found it interesting that Oswald's experience in the
Marines is pushed to give him credibility but the differences in the two areas
are never brought to light.
Bill
Barb Junkkarinen
Thpa2d wrote:
> Here are some of the entry's in question from LHO's 201 file:
>
> 26 OCT 1956
> 2ndTrngBn, MCRIN, San Diego, Calif
> Reason/Primary Duty: JOINED RECRUIT TRAINING
>
> This is the date LHO signed in for MC Boot Camp, most training
> cycles start on a Monday, however troops arrive prior to the
> start of the training. Actual training started on the 29th IMO.
>
> 17 JAN 1957
> U.S. MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT, SAN DIEGO 40, CALIFORNIA
> Examined this date in accordance with Article 15-50, MMD 1949
> and found to be physically qualified for transfer.
> CAMP SAN ONOFRE [Rest illegible]
>
> This medical exam was conducted at the end of the Boot Camp training cycle
> to insure LHO was medically fit for the next stage of training.
>
> What can anyone add about: CAMP SAN ONOFRE?
San Onofre is an area at the northernmost edge of Camp Pendleton....which is all
just north of Oceanside in Southern California. Some regions of the base (Camp
Pendleton) have different names...Camp San Onofre, Camp Del Mar, etc....but as
far as I know, it's all part of Camp Pendleton. There's a nuclear power plant at
San Onofre and a great surfing beach.<g>
Barb :-)
Jean Davison
> ><01bd85e7$e4e51580$3684d4cc@triddle>...
> >> Jean Davison <dav...@together.net> wrote in article
> >> <01bd8590$84e002a0$Loca...@NS1.together.net>...
> >>
>
>
> >> > The rifle was dropped between two rows of
> >> > boxes right next to the stairwell "with another box or so pulled
> >> > over the top," according to Boone, the man who found it. [III, 293]
> >>
> >> The rifle was very carefully hidden. That's why it took the cops so long
> >> to
> >> find it. It was *not* just dropped into place (as the stand-in for Oswald
> >> did in the WC's reenactment).
> >
> > Respectfully I say: you are wrong about this. I suggest you
> >look at the police photos in FDE. All he had to do was pause
> >in the aisle near the stairway, lean over a single, low row of
> >boxes, put the rifle behind them and shove one or two boxes
> >over the top. The photos show this, and it's what Boone
> >described. Boone found it when he walked around
> >to the end of the row and shined his light into the crevice
> >between the two rows. It was well hidden, but it could've
> >been done in a few seconds.
> >
>
>
> the boxes and shove the top boxes over, it had to take more time than the
> poor-excuse of a recreation done for the WC. Witness Howlitt's statement:
>
> STATE OF TEXAS,
> County of Dallas, ss:
>
> I, John Joe Howlett, being duly sworn say:
> 1. I am an agent in the Dallas office of the United States Secret Service.
> 2. On March 20, 1964, counsel to the President's Commission on the
> Assassination of President Kennedy timed me as I walked from the southeast
> corner of the sixth floor to the second floor lunchroom by the stairway in
> the Texas School Book Depository Building.
> 3. During this test, I carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the
> sixth floor northerly along the east aisle to the northeast corner, then
> westerly along the north wall past the elevators to the northwest corner.
> There I placed the rifle on the floor. I then entered the stairwell, walked
> down the stairway to the second floor landing, and then into the lunchroom.
> 4. After the second test which was run at a fast walk," I was not
> short-winded.
> Signed this 11th day of August 1964, at Dallas, Tex.
> (S)John Joe Howlett,
> JOHN JOE HOWLETT.
>
>
> He placed the rifle on the floor!!! No pausing at boxes, no leaning over,
> no shifting them around -- NO NOTHING. Wow, that must have taken 1/4 of a
> second!!!
Well, Jerry, are you saying that Howlett didn't pause
when he "placed" the rifle on the floor? Just threw it down
on the fly? The word "placed" suggests to me that he
paused long enough to lean over and *place* the rifle
on the floor... and I think that's what Oswald probably
did, too. The row in question was two book boxes
high. Once the rifle was on the floor, all he had to
do was to give the top boxes (one or two of them)
a shove. How long could that take? Jean
Thpa2d
In article <35684DEE...@ix.netcom.com>, Barb Junkkarinen
<bar...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>San Onofre is an area at the northernmost edge of Camp Pendleton....which is
>all just north of Oceanside in Southern California. Some regions of the base
>(Camp Pendleton) have different names...Camp San Onofre, Camp Del Mar,
etc....but as far as I know, it's all part of Camp Pendleton. There's a nuclear
power >plant at San Onofre and a great surfing beach.<g>
>
>Barb :-)
>
>
Thanks Barb for the info, I was at Ft Ord, Calif in the mid 60's but never went
further south then Monteray. Do you know the type of training that was
conducted at San Onofre, Light Inf, Advanced Inf, etc?
How about the extra days in the training schedule any comments?
jko
e...@opus.co.tt
"Howard J. Rogers" <howa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote in message <01bd8586$0e71e8e0$3584d4cc@triddle>...
> >
> >
> >>
> >> And this renowned bad shooter was set up by the conspiracy to be the
> >> fallguy? You don't think that, to make their case just a little bit
> >safe,
> >> they might actually have framed someone who could plausibly have done the
> >> shots the WC scenario requires him to have made? Instead they pick a
> >> totally hopeless shot, according to you and your sources.
> >
> >Oswald wasn't "renowned" at the time for being a bad shot; there weren't
> >headline stories about it in the paper, Howard. The conspirators knew that
> >Oswald had been in the Marines, and they assumed he had been trained to
> >shoot well.
> >
> >Tracy
> >
>
> conspirators select a patsy, go to great lengths to set him up, even greater
> lengths to cover up the identities of the true assassins, but can't be
> bothered to check out whether their fall guy is *actually* a good shot or a
> lousy one?
>
> They just assume on this crucial point?
>
> I find this extremely hard to believe.
>
> HJR
It worked didn't it? Decades later when important files are requested as
evidence, they're missing.
You seem to be saying that the conspirators seemed sloppy - but it worked! So
I wouldn't say it was sloppy. One thing they couldn't predetermine was some
guy who happened to be standing front row in the grassy knoll area with of all
things a movie camera, plus the botched first shots precipitated the backup
shooter on the grassy knoll to take the final shot, making the coverup more
difficult - but - this is the nineteen nineties and we still don't know what
happened. So it worked!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jean Davison
Bill Hamley <bha...@home.com> wrote in article <3568395F...@home.com>...
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >
> > Bill Hamley <bha...@home.com> wrote in article
> > <35682139...@home.com>...
> >
> > Marine Charles Whitman did when he shot all those people from that tower?
> > Get himself a semi-automatic rifle. LHO could have fired numerous shots at
> > JFK during 6-8 seconds. He also could have used it to take out a whole
> > bunch of cops and bystanders, and REALLY made a name for himself.
> >
> Thanks, Tracy. I'm sure that we'll be told that the M-C was all that he could
> afford. I have always found it interesting that Oswald's experience in the
> Marines is pushed to give him credibility but the differences in the two areas
> are never brought to light.
Guys, keep in mind that Oswald didn't buy the M-C to assassinate
JFK. He ordered it in March, when he had a different target in mind--
Gen. Walker. In that attempt, he fired one shot. Jean
Bill Hamley
Hi Jean,
Another interesting event, why did he only fire once? What's another couple
seconds time to do it right?
The main reason that I jumped in here anyway was merely to point out that
comparing his military experience and the events attributed to him that are
somewhat different in nature and may lead us to dubious results. Rifles whose
operation are very different, moving vs. stationary targets and a live target
rather than a paper target. Do you agree?
Bill
Barb Junkkarinen
Thpa2d wrote:
Sorry, I'm not much help on anything but location. I know they did amphibious
landing training there...it's right on the beach. Other than that...I dunno. Still
know some people who worked on the base or were stationed at Pendleton years
ago...I may be able to find out some more info through my relatives who still live
down there. Will try and remember to ask. Pendleton is a huge base with lots of
rough terrain....I think they did it all there one place or the tuther.
Barb :-)
ritchie linton
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Right. As I say, something went wrong. If the frame had worked there would be little
confusion. We were supposed to believe that Oswald did it.
>
> If Oswald was a patsy, does that mean he didn't do any shooting at all.&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Right again.Oswald was innocent. Unless you accept the WC reconstruction that gets him
to the window with the rifle to do some shooting.Which I don't.
>
> If he didn't do any shooting at all, then how were they ever to shoot JFK on
> Houston? Where would the *real* assassin have been placed to make such a
> shot possible, and seem to plausibly come from the TSBD?&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
This as they say, is the million dollar question.Ask it again.remember that if on
Houston Street it would have appeared front to back, consistent with the planted snipers
nest at that point, something you comment upon indirectly next:
>
> If there was a conspirator on the GK, on the other hand (perfect for an Elm
> Street shot), again Oswald becomes a lousy patsy, because you now have a
> patsy at the rear, with a frontal shot.&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Right. So if you were planning to frame a guy apparently to the rear, would you plan to
do this? Would you plant a slow inaccurate rifle on a mediocre shot to the rear if you
planned a frame that involved multiple rapid shots from in front?( as most CT suggets).
>
> And if he wasn't a patsy? Maybe he didn't shoot the "easy" Houston Street
> shot because (fill in speculation as necessary....but for starters, there
> was a lot going on on the fifth and sixth floors just before the shot -maybe
> he could set himself up in time, waiting for the area to clear?)
>
> Regards
> HJR&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&
Or,as we said at the outset, he did not shoot at all. Then, the question becomes based
on the known frame up evidence, where could the gun have been that would accomodate both
the actual plan(that went wrong) and what actually turned out to have happened? There is
no real reason for the asumption that what one sees in the Zfilm was the actually
planned event, just because it turned out that way.
Remember, they framed a LONE gunman with a single bullet. One presumes that the frame
had been planned to cover the event-ergo, a lone gunman did the actual shooting. Thats
why they framed one in the first place. So where could a lone gun have been that would
accomplish what we know actually happened?
Ritchie
jack white
There were several parking lots in the vicinity of the TSBD, not just one.
Bowers said cars drove in and out of the area freely. Little can be
made of the knoll parking lot, except that the police failed to search
all the cars there. The obvious place to ditch a rifle would be in a car
trunk, but the cars were not searched.
Jack
JoeZircon wrote:
>
> In article <01bd86a4$2211eac0$5784d4cc@triddle>, "Tracy Riddle"
> <tri...@tfb.com> writes:
>
> >
> >JoeZircon <joez...@aol.com> wrote in article
> ><199805231752...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >> In article <01bd83ed$2c79a7a0$2484d4cc@triddle>, "Tracy Riddle"
> >> <tri...@tfb.com> writes:
> >>
> >> <snip other stuff>
> >>
> >> >11/20/1963 Two Dallas police officers on routine patrol entered Dealey
> >> >Plaza and noticed several men standing behind the wooden fence on the
> >> >grassy knoll. The men were engaged in what appeared to be "mock target
> >> >practice," according to the officers, aiming rifles over the fence into
> >the
> >> >plaza. By the time the officers got behind the fence, the men were gone,
> >> >having left in a nearby parked car. The policemen didn't report the
> >> >incident until after the assassination; the FBI issued a report about it
> >> >11/26, but it was suppressed until it was released via the FOIA in 1978.
> >> >
> >> <snip other stuff>
> >>
> >> On the 20th, as Lee Harvey Oswald told his police interrogators, a co-worker
> in
> >> the Depository brought in a couple of rifles to show around. Oswald's
> >story was subsequently confirmed by FBI investigation. The last we hear about
> these
> >two particular rifles, is they were taken out to the owner's *car*. This
> >sounds a lot like your story, minus the suspicious parts.
> >>
> >
> >That's a good theory, except that the parking lot behind the picket fence
> >belonged to the Sheriff's Department, not the TSBD. Also, it doesn't
> >explain why these men were aiming rifles over the fence.
>
> And yours is a good story, minus any evidence. Here's the evidence:
>
> The TSBD employees were known to park there. For example, Josephine Salinas, on
> 11/26/63 advised the FBI (CD205):
>
> QUOTE ON
>
> JOSEPHINE SALINAS, 13740 Birchlawn, advised she. FRANCES HERNANDEZ, and
> HENRIETTA VARGAS, all employees of McKell Sportwear Company, Second Floor, 501
> Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, while on their way home about 5:10 p.m. on November
> 19th, 1963, and after reaching the parking lot near the Texas School Book
> Depository, observed two men with an automobile, about a 1956 Buick, color
> light blue. The older of the two men handed a rifle to the younger man, who
> then walked from the Buick toward a compact white car, but she did not know the
> make of it. She stated the younger man might have been LEE HARVEY OSWALD, but
> she is not able to say definitely it was OSWALD. She said she has no other
> information.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> Vargas and Hernandez gave similar, but not identical stories in that same
> Commission document. They placed the date as the 19th or the 21st. Close
> enough to your date.
>
> Of course, Warren Caster, 7W387-388, testified that he, on 11/20/63, brought
> two rifles to the TSBD at about noon. He testified further that at the end of
> the day, he carried them out, put them in his car, and took them home. Roy
> Truly, 7W381-382, and Bill Shelley, gave similar, but not identical statements.
> The men's statements of Castor's actions conforms with the statements of the
> women who saw the men in the parking lot, cited above, and with the actions
> cited by the police officers you mention. So, clearly (well, clearly to me, it
> may not be that way to everybody), all these people were describing the same
> incident, in pretty much the same way. With one glaring exception:
>
> Where's the citation for that pointing the rifle over the fence? Do you have
> anything further on that? Enquiring minds want to know.
>
> JZ
jerrymac
Howard J. Rogers wrote in message <6kaaoq$qu...@o2robox01.optus.net.au>...
>
>jerrymac wrote in message <6k8m6l$a...@news3.newsguy.com>...
>[Snip]
>>
>>Harold,
>
>
>Close, but not quite.
Oh, my God!!! Sorry about that. That's what you get when you write posts
at 1:33 AM!!!
>
>
>>
>>Assuming you are old enough to remember that weekend, think back on how
LHO
>>was originally described. A Marine marksman. He won a sharpshooter's
>medal
>>in the Marines. That sounded pretty impressive at the time, definitely
>>enough to make it more than plausible. However, once you start examining
>>the record closer, the words "marksman" and "sharpshooter" just don't have
>>the same emotional impact as they originally had. Now, throw in the fact
>>that he hadn't fired a rifle since he left the Marines in 1959 (except for
>>maybe 1 shot xa, xa, xa), and you just gotta start scratchin' your head.
>>
>>Here's my point -- on the surface, LHO had enough credentials to do the
>>deed. If he was set up, the plotters had no idea that people would be
>>micro-analyzing every little detail (like his range scores) for the next
35
>>years. What would have been more important is the patsy's background.
And
>>LHO's defection to Russia, Marxist background, and pro-Castro activities
>>made him a perfect candidate. A Commie killed our President -- String him
>>up!!! Instant hate appeal, plus it might even instigate an invasion of
>>Cuba.
>>
>
>I'm afraid I don't buy this, not because what you write doesn't make sense.
>It does. But there are many on this group, for example, who believe in the
>existence of multiple Oswalds, each carefully "manufactured" to achieve
>various nefarious purposes. There are others who believe in a massive
>coverup. And so on: the general point being that a lot of CTers here
>believe in a careful, thoughtful, powerful conspiracy.
>
>And no way would such a conspiracy skimp on something like this. IMHO, of
>course.
>
>
>>Now let's have some fun. Let's suppose that LHO wasn't a real Commie, but
>>some sort of an intelligence operative with a Commie cover. FBI, CIA,
>>ONI -- you pick the Agency. All of a sudden, your boy's accused of
>>assassinating the President. Do you a) Go on TV and tell the country
>>there must be some mistake, that he works for us OR b) Cover your
>>ass??? The answer is B -- Disavow any knowledge of him, and move to
>shut
>>down any real investigation that might disclose your secret. And there's
>>your perfect patsy. The people will believe (and WANT to believe) a
Commie
>>did it, and Washington will just sweep everything under the rug. What did
>>Oswald say, "I'm waiting for someone to come forward..." Two days later,
>>someone did come forward, but it wasn't quite the help he was expecting.
>>
>>Wasn't that fun, HJR???
>>
>
>Well, this is better. We don't have a conspiracy at all here, do we? We
>have inept public organisations covering up the event after the fact.
>That's a very different beast from the conspiracy theories that usually get
>discussed here. And, again IMHO, this makes a lot of sense.
>
>I have no problem believing that the FBI covered its own ass. Deplorable
>though that might be, their doing so doesn't exactly exhonerate Oswald,
now,
>does it?
>
>Regards
>HJR
>
>
Howard,
The FBI did engage in a cover-up, no doubt about it. Forcing DPD to
suppress the existence of LHO's Minox camera, the destroyed note from LHO to
the FBI, the deletion of Hosty's name and info from LHO's address book are
undeniable examples of their role in the cover-up. Add to that Drain's
conflicting reports about the paper sack matching the TSBD paper and the
warning that JFK would be assassinated Nov. 22 or 23 in Dallas that was
removed from the FBI files. It could have simply been a matter of CYA, or
something much more sinister.
At any rate, I really wasn't trying to exonerate Oswald in the previous
post; I was just offering some possible reasons why he might have been
picked to take the fall. We'll leave LHO's innocence or guilt for another
time.
jerrymac
Howard J. Rogers
JoeZircon
In article <01bd871d$86da59a0$3a84d4cc@triddle>, "Tracy Riddle"
<tri...@tfb.com> writes:
>Bill Hamley <bha...@home.com> wrote in article
><35682139...@home.com>...
>
>> Its an apples and oranges issue with me. Your comparing his ability to
>fire
>> a semi-automatic weapon at a stationary target at a time when has been
>firing
>> that weapon on a nearly daily basis for an extended period of time to
>being
>> able to pick up a bolt action rifle and with little or no practice hit a
>moving
>> target. Add the problems that the FBI found when testing the M-C and its
>sights,
>> the problems that their marksman had when firing the M-C. When looking at
>all
>> the issues I don't think one can be compared to the other.
>
>A good point. Why, if Oswald was the assassin, didn't he do as fellow
>Marine Charles Whitman did when he shot all those people from that tower?
>Get himself a semi-automatic rifle. LHO could have fired numerous shots at
>JFK during 6-8 seconds. He also could have used it to take out a whole
>bunch of cops and bystanders, and REALLY made a name for himself.
Whitman and Oswald both qualified as marksmen, did they not? There was about a
two-point difference between their qualifying scores, as I recall. Was Whitman
framed? Or did Oswald have the same shooting capability as Whitman? Those are
your choices, as I see it...
And you're missing the point about Whitman. He didn't just spray the area with
shots. In most cases, he used one shot to take down each target. He shot one
pregnant women through the fetus. One shot. He shot a kid on a bike. One shot.
He shot three students walking across the plaza. One shot each. Each shot was
at least 3 times the Oswald distance. Either Whitman was framed or Oswald had
the same capability. Your choice.
JZ
JZ
JoeZircon
In article <01bd8720$949c0cc0$3a84d4cc@triddle>, "Tracy Riddle"
<tri...@tfb.com> writes:
>JoeZircon <joez...@aol.com> wrote in article
>
>> Where's the citation for that pointing the rifle over the fence? Do you
>have
>> anything further on that? Enquiring minds want to know.
>
>The report was mentioned in Davis' MAFIA KINGFISH (p175). It wasn't quoted
>in full. You may be on to something with your connection to Caster's
>bringing two rifles into the TSBD. I've always found it rather odd that
>Caster brought a Mauser into the building, and a Mauser was first reported
>as the rifle found after the assassination.
Unfortunately, Davis doesn't offer a citation for this specific episode. Does
anybody have any further info? At this point its all hearsay. Let's see if we
can track it down. In reading that page, I noticed Davis claims the cops
supposed saw the rifles in the morning, and Caster said he brought the rifles
in about noon, and left with them at the end of the day. Of course, 11:00 is
still morning, and it's still about noon, too. So the discrepancy may be
meaningless (but if anybody wants to cling to a ray of hope for a grassy knoll
gunman, there it is).
Tracy, you appear to be accepting the innocence of the rifles in parking lot on
11/20/63 at this time, but appear to be concluding instead that there was or
may have been something suspicious about Caster bringing rifles to work. Does
that sum up your current thinking on this subject?
If so, is there anything suspicious about it, especially since Caster showed
them around (hardly the actions of a guy involved in a conspiracy, right). On
the other hand, what if somebody brought a weapon in on the morning of the
22nd, concealed in a paper bag, and shells traceable to that weapon were found
at the window where numerous witnesses saw a rifle or a man with a rifle?
Anything suspicious there, or do you give this second guy a free pass and go
after Caster?
JZ
JoeZircon
Don't these balance out somewhat (or more than somewhat) because of the
distances involved? Oswald trained at 200 and 500 yards in the marines. His
shots in the assassination were from 45 - 88 yards. That's over 10 times as
close as his training for the shortest shot, and about 6 times as close for the
longest shot.\
Moreover, stationary versus moving: the training must be transferable somewaht
(or more than somewhat), because the U.S. has been pretty much undefeated in
combat (ok, one political loss in Vietnam), and this is the same training all
soldiers get. Right? They all train on stationary targets. But in combat, the
enemy has a nasty habit of trying to duck when bullets whiz by their head (ask
Harris, if you don't believe me). But soldiers learn to shot at moving targets
by training on stationary ones, right?
Your objections would apply to Whitman as well. He received the same , or
similar, training as Oswald. His scores in the marines were similar to Oswald's
(within a couple of points). He trained on stationary targets. Then, at the
Texas Tower, he had to hit moving targets. He used both an automatic and a
bolt action, as I recall. According to your objections, Whitman couldn't have
done it either. Was he framed?
> Add the problems that the FBI found when testing the M-C and its sights,
>the problems that their marksman had when firing the M-C. When looking at all
>the issues I don't think one can be compared to the other.
What problem with the sights? You mean the problem with the scope?? The
problem with the scope could have occurred anytime after the shooting. Further,
there is no evidence one way or the other whether Oswald used the scope or the
sights. I suspect he used the scope for the first shot and when that missed,
used the sights for the remaining two.
>
>> So, based on on this evidence, do you deem Oswald a mediocre shot?
>
>Yes, I do consider Oswald a mediocre shot... he only qualified as
Sharpshooter.
>I consider myself a good shot but not a great shot. I was highly upset that I
only
>qualified as Sharpshooter and not Expert.
>
Let me ask you, since you trained at 200 and 500 yards, and scored as well as
Oswald on his first test (sharpshooter), do you think you could hit a target
moving directly away from you at 11mph between 45 - 88 yards away? Say twice
in three shots? Do you think you could do that?
And remember that Whitman qualified with only a few points higher than Oswald -
both were marksmen. Are you telling me Whitman was only a mediocre shot? He
was shooting moving targets at 400 - 500 yards away. Couldn't you do that too?
Couldn't Oswald?
JZ
Tracy Riddle
JoeZircon <joez...@aol.com> wrote in article
> >A good point. Why, if Oswald was the assassin, didn't he do as fellow
I'm not familiar with Whitman's Marine records, but he wasn't using any
obsolete rifle with a sticky bolt-action during the shooting. Whitman was
also a gun nut who was quite proficient with his weapons (and had many of
them). Oswald, on the other hand, seems to have had no real interest in
guns - no rifle magazines or books, no spare ammo or cleaning equipment
were found in his belongings. There is no solid evidence that he ever did
any target practicing with a rifle after leaving the Marines. Also - on a
different subject - Whitman's violent acts were triggered by a severe brain
tumor; Oswald's brain was shown to be normal when examination during the
autopsy.
Tracy
Jean Davison
Bill Hamley <bha...@home.com> wrote in article <35689EDA...@home.com>...
> > > > Marine Charles Whitman did when he shot all those people from that tower?
> > > > Get himself a semi-automatic rifle. LHO could have fired numerous shots
at
> > > > JFK during 6-8 seconds. He also could have used it to take out a whole
> > > > bunch of cops and bystanders, and REALLY made a name for himself.
> > > >
could
> > > afford. I have always found it interesting that Oswald's experience in the
> > > Marines is pushed to give him credibility but the differences in the two
areas
> > > are never brought to light.
> >
> > Guys, keep in mind that Oswald didn't buy the M-C to assassinate
> > JFK. He ordered it in March, when he had a different target in mind--
> > Gen. Walker. In that attempt, he fired one shot. Jean
>
> Hi Jean,
>
> Another interesting event, why did he only fire once? What's another couple
> seconds time to do it right?
Edwin A. didn't sit around as a target.<g> Oswald didn't
know he'd missed him until he heard it on the radio, according
to Marina.
> The main reason that I jumped in here anyway was merely to point out that
> comparing his military experience and the events attributed to him that are
> somewhat different in nature and may lead us to dubious results. Rifles whose
> operation are very different, moving vs. stationary targets and a live target
> rather than a paper target. Do you agree?
The targets weren't the same, but I think it's relevant that
he'd been taught how to shoot. Jean
JoeZircon
Circular reasoning. You can't prove the conspiracy, so you assume it's
existence. Then, when you can't find evidence of the conspiracy, you say that's
because it was a good one - and it worked!
Sorry, you don't prove the existence of a conspiracy by assuming it's
existence.
JZ
Daeron
Thomas E. Braun wrote:
>
> Daeron wrote:
> > Indeed, it is quite believable and more. How so? Because Hoover kept
> > extensive dossiers on virtually everyone in government (certainly in the
> > upper echelons) not just MLK, or RFK, JFK. He therefore had more than
> > adequate 'firepower' to blackmail any recalcitrant - or uncooperative
> > official, into doing his bidding. (I.e. assisting ni the WC whitewash).
>
> Oh, come on! It's one thing to suggest that Hoover had the clout to embarrass some
> people into certain levels of cooperation; it's quite another thing to suggest that
> this clout extended to covering up a presidential assassination.
The fact remains that Hoover, along with LBJ, George Brown (of Brown &
Root), John McCloy (future WC member, and with conenctions to
Rockefeller banking, intelligence), H.L. Hunt and others, were at Clint
Murchison's the night before the assassination - for what has been
described as a 'command conference'. To confirm all the primary
conspirators were 'on board' and 'ready to roll'. That these gentlemen
were present at the Murchisons and that thet met in private (away from
the women, behind closed doors) was attested to by Madeleine Brown
(LBJ's former mistress) who was there.
That Madeleine Brown was there, and that indeed this party occurred, was
substantiated by none other than Val Imm, Society coloumnist for the
Dallas Times Herald - who was also there. (Though the story was snatched
from all but the early editions). This was the same party, as Madeline
Brown noted - that LBJ remarked "After tomorrow, that's the last time
those goddamned Kennedys will embarrass me again. (cf. Livingtone, H.E.,
'Killing the Truth, p. 486).
In later years, Imm also verbally confirmed her attendance at the party,
but then married a Parkland doctor - Faoud Bashour, and began denying
she attended it. This was obviously a case of protecting her husband's
interests. Despite her subsequent denials, Jean Barnes, an Editor at the
Dallas Morning News, did confirm Imm attended the party to researcher
Larry Brown.
The occurrence of the party is extremely important, though
disinformationists persist in either trying to deny it, or - trying to
denigrate it was anything other than a social affair. But Brown's words,
repeating LBJ's words, confirm it was not. Arguably, each person
involved had to be there to confirm their role, either in the mechanics,
or the cover-up to follow.
Hoover - as keeper of the files (on just about all important, key
persons in Washington) would have been given the go-ahead to exact
co-operation when needed. Those who might refuse such co-operation, or
threaten to go public with their perceptions, would be sullied with the
dirt tossed out to the media from Hoover's files. Your incapacity to
accept this does not mean it din't occur, or that Hoover was not
involved. Indeed, his appearance at the Murchison party shows beyond any
reasonable doubt, he had to have been involved at some level - and
logically this is the most likely one.
> > Where did the Hoover files come from? As in the case of MLK, via
> > extensive wiretaps. No one was safe, and Hoover did it for a number of
> > adminstrations. Any degree of thoughtful consideration, and awareness of
> > the sort of files he could compile, therefore provides more than ample
> > believability. He also had the motivation to do so, to protect his power
> > base/ position. Power is what it is all about and that's what Hoover
> > wanted. No President, or Administration, would be able to dump him with
> > impunity.
>
> Precisely: power is the name of the game. So why would Hoover - no idiot, no matter
> what else he was - risk *everything* by covering for God knows who that hit JFK?
Because the fact was he was risking vastly more by NOT cooperating!
(See, e.g. the names of others who werwe at the Murchison command
conference). It is no secret that neither he, nor LBJ, had any love
whatsoever lost on JFK. LBJ was about to be dumped by him for the '64
race (as a result of his accumulated scandals) and Hoover never did like
JFK whom he more than once described as a 'nigger lover'. Hoover also
detested JFK's amorous liasionsm, as setting a terrible 'moral example.'
As Mark North also notes (cf. pp 25-26, 'Act of Treason - The Role of J.
Edgar Hoover in the Assassination of President Kennedy'):
"Politically Hoover was thoroughly conservative. Elements of the public
and press with moderate to extreme left viewpoints were 'pinkos'
gadflies, pseudo -intellectuals and liberal eggheads'"
Thus, he fit in perfectly (ideologically) with the other architects,
present at the Murchison place (cf. H.L. Hunt, McCloy, Murchison, Geo.
Brown etc.) Further, from North (ibid.):
"Hoover's need for control of others was absolute. He intentionally
structured the FBI bureaucracy in pyramid shape so as to ensure complete
obedience from all employees. He kep a plaque in his office demanding
absolute loyalty from all who worked for him. Most considered him
unpredictable, adding to their fear and willingness to cooperate.
'Defections' were rare. This bureacratic systemalso guaranteed that all
information of any political value crossed his desk. Ultimate decision
making authority lay exclusively with him, to the extent of overuling
the collective judgment of his eleven assistants."
> Any
> time Hoover wanted JFK out of the way, he just had to release his files before the
> next election, not murder him.
Perhaps so, but *others*, e.g. Hunt, LBJ, other unseen interests (in
banking and intelligence) *did* want him out of the way. See the REAL
FAQ, Part 6, on motives. JFK's policies and planned policies, ranging
from financial dirigisme to withdrawing from the Vietnam War, sealed his
fate. And this fate was not to 'go quietly into that good night' via
besmirching him through files. It was to eliminate him altogether,
thereby serving as a blunt reminder to all others who might challenge
the secret government. It also served to warn JFK's family, not to get
involved or challenge the findings in the aftermath, and not to run for
office again. RFK did not follow that advice, and he paid dearly as a
result.
> > So yes - not to put too fine a point on it, but Hoover had more than
> > ample wherewithal to 'scare' *anyone in a position to do so*, to aid and
> > abet the cover-up/
>
> And conspiracy theorists call the single-bullet theory "unbelievable"!
Indeed, just as we call the political naivete (such as you have
abundantly demonstrated) unbelievable. But then, naivete is a useful
adjunct for burying discomfiting facts. Far better to believe the myth a
lone gunman did it all, rather than the black secret of a brazen,
treasonous coup d'etat.
Enjoy your mythology.
--
"We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis.
Thpa2d
In article <3568B03D...@ix.netcom.com>, Barb Junkkarinen
<bar...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Sorry, I'm not much help on anything but location. I know they did amphibious
>landing training there...it's right on the beach. Other than that...I dunno.
Again thanks........no need to go to any trouble. Most bases that have
several Camps connected, usually have a special type of training outlined
to contain that training into one area so as not to interfer with other types
of training. At Ft. Lee for example we have a complex that contains all
types of pre staged equipment used in fuel operations including 10M
storage tanks and a 6" pipeline system that is fully operational, FSSP's
setups plus every type of tanker used to haul fuel. It is a field enviroment
that
makes training under combat conditions great.
Not much has been published on this Camp in most of the books relating
to Oswald so I was interested if anyone else has looked into it.
62 Roses bushes in bloom this weekend......have a good holiday, mines
been great so far.
jko
Thpa2d
. It also served to warn JFK's family, not to get
>involved or challenge the findings in the aftermath, and not to run for
>office again. RFK did not follow that advice, and he paid dearly as a
>result.
>
If Hoover hated the Kennedy family so much, why did he have such
a close association with Papa Joe. Creating a special bureau during
WWII that was headed by Papa Joe. Joe Kennedy remained with the
FBI until his stroke. He was a special advisor to Eisenhower's 5412
Committee, approving intelligence operations that could become an
embarrassment to the USG if they became known.
If Hoover hated JFK so much, why did he do everything possible to
save JFK from Court Martial in 1941...Guy Banister did the investigation
btw. It was Hoover that recommended the JFK go to the Pacific instead
of a deeper investigation in the AEF scandal.
In the case of RFK you are overlooking the association between Hoover
and the young RFK in the Kefauver Committee, they shared the same
goals, JFK was also connected these goals.
The Hoover/Kennedy connections go back to the mid 20's. Sure JEH
may have felt that the young AG was making too many changes in
the 60's within the JD and that JFK was working towards a balance
of existance with the USSR. But you have no solid evidence that
Hoover planned or accepted to ignore a plot to kill JFK. None what
so ever. All you have is known conflicts in proceedure, but no valid
motive or intent behind those actions that connect Hoover to any
plot to kill JFK, before during or after the act.
jko
Thpa2d
>The fact remains that Hoover, along with LBJ, George Brown (of Brown &
>Root), John McCloy (future WC member, and with conenctions to
>Rockefeller banking, intelligence), H.L. Hunt and others, were at Clint
>Murchison's the night before the assassination - for what has been
>described as a 'command conference'. To confirm all the primary
>conspirators were 'on board' and 'ready to roll'. That these gentlemen
>were present at the Murchisons and that thet met in private (away from
>the women, behind closed doors) was attested to by Madeleine Brown
>(LBJ's former mistress) who was there.
>
Here's another view and party always ignored:
During the 50's LBJ was a frequent guest at Clint's Preston Road home.
LBJ would meet there with a dozen of the state's richest oilmen for coffee.
LBJ would give them a overview of what was happening in Congress that
would effect the oil industry, giving insight as to who in the Senate needed
funds and support to stay in office. Clint then would set up fund raising
efforts to put these Senators in their pockets. When LBJ joined forces
with JFK, these Texas oilmen became disdainful of LBJ, this included
Clint and they cut their ties with LBJ.
In the early days Clint would call LBJ and tell him what he wanted
to see done....LBJ would always reply "I hear you" but after LBJ
became VP Clint would refuse his calls. LBJ wrote to him and
Clint replied "I can't hear you"
On December 25, 1963 LBJ called Clint at Gladoaks, where a large
group of these oilmen had gathered. Warren Tilley Clint's butler went
to Clint to inform him of a call from LBJ, he annouced that the President
was on the phone.
"The President of what?" asked Clint
"The President of the United States, sir," the butler responded
"Tell him I'm asleep"
Clint Murchison was the prime supporter of Eisenhower in the South
and when Nixon ran in 1960, Clint was behind him 100% not JFK/LBJ.
It seems very odd that Murchison would conspire with LBJ to kill JFK to
put LBJ in the White House after the bad feelings beetween the two let
alone even invite him to a party on Nov 21, 1963.
Clint could have put LBJ in the White House instead of Nixon, without
killing anyone in the 1960 race, even as a "yellow dog", but he made no
effort to even support LBJ as VP let alone fight to have him lead the
ticket in 1960.
jko