Why a Conspiracy took Place
Guest
1: Connolly got shot with a separate hit
2: Two shots one on top of the other - almost at the same time
3: An imposter of Oswald in Mexico City and elsewhere. If Oswald were a =
lone nut seeking attention, then why would someone impersonate a guy who =
was a nobody? The only answer is, they knew he was going to be a =
somebody. I wonder why the guy in the photo was never identified? I am =
sure SOMEONE out there knew who he was. He is the proof of a =
conspiracy.
4: The case was "cinched" up a little too soon.
5: Jack Ruby is stalking...
6: Oswald's life is still a mystery - except for thing that point to =
reasons why he allegedly did it.
7: No motive.
8: Walker intelligence/reconnaissance photos only show a house, but no =
people. If you are alone, why do you need photos to plan it out? Why =
did he miss at a stationary target and at closer range, but hit JFK - =
non- stationary at a much great distance with precision?
9: The government was involved with Oswald. That alone shows that he =
was not simply a "lone nut."
10: His Russian assignment is still very suspicious. What was he over =
there for?
Grizzlie Antagonist
news:3oqdnSgqPpC6NvDV...@comcast.com...
>
>
> 1: Connolly got shot with a separate hit
No, he wasn't.
> 2: Two shots one on top of the other - almost at the same time
Didn't happen.
> 3: An imposter of Oswald in Mexico City and elsewhere.
Elvis at the supermarket. Urban legend.
> 4: The case was "cinched" up a little too soon.
When was it cinched up? How long did it take? How long should it have
taken? Where is it written down?
> 5: Jack Ruby is stalking...
Utterly and completely incorrect. And if he was, what would that prove?
> 6: Oswald's life is still a mystery - except for thing that point to =
> reasons why he allegedly did it.
Untrue.
> 7: No motive.
Politics; personality; psychology.
> 8: Walker intelligence/reconnaissance photos only show a house, but no =
> people. If you are alone, why do you need photos to plan it out?
Oh, come on.
And a conspiracy against Walker wouldn't even come close to proving a
conspiracy against JFK.
> Why =
> did he miss at a stationary target and at closer range, but hit JFK - =
> non- stationary at a much great distance with precision?
Happenstance. Same reason that a journeyman outfielder like Jimmy Qualls,
who hit .223 in 1969, once got a base hit in the ninth inning to spoil a
perfect game being thrown by Hall of Fame pitcher Tom Seaver that year.
> 9: The government was involved with Oswald. That alone shows that he =
> was not simply a "lone nut."
Sara Jane Moore was an FBI informant. Is that proof of government
complicity in the assassination attempt against Gerald Ford?
> 10: His Russian assignment is still very suspicious. What was he over =
> there for?
No Russian assignment. He defected for ideological reasons.
thali...@hotmail.com
Yes the conspiracy appears obvious doesn't it? There is also a lot
more that could be added to your list. However, you cannot make people
who stubbornly stick their heads in the sand see that the obvious is
so obviously, well.... obvious. Good luck in trying, many great
people have gone before you but you never know your luck in the big
city.
Anthony Marsh
It is not clear what you are getting at. Either asking questions or
making fun of assumptions.
> 1: Connolly got shot with a separate hit
Connally was not hit by the head shot. Is that what you mean? Or are you
agreeing with the FBI's conclusion and the WC's working assumption that
Connally was hit by a different bullet than hit Kennedy's back?
> 2: Two shots one on top of the other - almost at the same time
How close do they have to be to mean there were two different rifles
which shot Kennedy and Connally.
> 3: An imposter of Oswald in Mexico City and elsewhere. If Oswald were a =
> lone nut seeking attention, then why would someone impersonate a guy who =
> was a nobody? The only answer is, they knew he was going to be a =
> somebody. I wonder why the guy in the photo was never identified? I am =
> sure SOMEONE out there knew who he was. He is the proof of a =
> conspiracy.
CIA would impersonate someone who had defected to Russia and who was the
only member of that chapter of the FPCC.
> 4: The case was "cinched" up a little too soon.
Yeah, they immediately thought it was a conspiracy.
> 5: Jack Ruby is stalking...
> 6: Oswald's life is still a mystery - except for thing that point to =
> reasons why he allegedly did it.
No motive is needed for murder.
> 7: No motive.
> 8: Walker intelligence/reconnaissance photos only show a house, but no =
> people. If you are alone, why do you need photos to plan it out? Why =
> did he miss at a stationary target and at closer range, but hit JFK - =
> non- stationary at a much great distance with precision?
Oswald planned it out carefully and wrote a detailed note to Marina.
> 9: The government was involved with Oswald. That alone shows that he =
> was not simply a "lone nut."
They use lone nut to mean it was a single shooter who was crazy. That
way there is no political motive.
> 10: His Russian assignment is still very suspicious. What was he over =
> there for?
I believe it was a dry run to see how the KGB would check him out.
Bud
> 1: Connolly got shot with a separate hit
Wrong.
> 2: Two shots one on top of the other - almost at the same time
Wrong.
> 3: An imposter of Oswald in Mexico City and elsewhere.
Wrong.
> If Oswald were a =
> lone nut seeking attention, then why would someone impersonate a guy who =
> was a nobody?
What do CT gain by impersonating idiots?
> The only answer is, they knew he was going to be a =
> somebody.
"they" know everything.
> I wonder why the guy in the photo was never identified?
It was Oswald. Mexican food makes him bloat.
> I am =
> sure SOMEONE out there knew who he was. He is the proof of a =
> conspiracy.
Still more proof. And if a photo of Oz was produced, that would be
still more proof of a conspiracy (and you`d think if "they" could whip
up a photo of Oz holding the murder weapon, "they" could also create
one showing him leaving an embassy).
> 4: The case was "cinched" up a little too soon.
Never too early to be right.
> 5: Jack Ruby is stalking...
Ruby wanted Oz dead.
> 6: Oswald's life is still a mystery -
The information is there. The problem lies with some of the folks
looking at that information.
>except for thing that point to =
> reasons why he allegedly did it.
So, you admit the reasons he did it are there.
> 7: No motive.
Political.
> 8: Walker intelligence/reconnaissance photos only show a house, but no =
> people. If you are alone, why do you need photos to plan it out?
Appealed to Oz`s mentality.
> Why =
> did he miss at a stationary target and at closer range,
Oz`s bullet deflected off the window sash.
> but hit JFK - =
> non- stationary at a much great distance with precision?
No window sash.
> 9: The government was involved with Oswald. That alone shows that he =
> was not simply a "lone nut."
<snicker> The government is involved with everyone.
> 10: His Russian assignment is still very suspicious.
When you start at "wrong", it makes it tough to get to "right".
> What was he over =
> there for?
Why did he say?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 4, 1:02 am, "Guest" <llco...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 1: Connolly got shot with a separate hit
>
> Wrong.
>
>> 2: Two shots one on top of the other - almost at the same time
>
> Wrong.
>
>> 3: An imposter of Oswald in Mexico City and elsewhere.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> If Oswald were a =
>> lone nut seeking attention, then why would someone impersonate a guy who =
>> was a nobody?
>
> What do CT gain by impersonating idiots?
>
>> The only answer is, they knew he was going to be a =
>> somebody.
>
> "they" know everything.
>
>> I wonder why the guy in the photo was never identified?
>
> It was Oswald. Mexican food makes him bloat.
>
>> I am =
>> sure SOMEONE out there knew who he was. He is the proof of a =
>> conspiracy.
>
> Still more proof. And if a photo of Oz was produced, that would be
> still more proof of a conspiracy (and you`d think if "they" could whip
> up a photo of Oz holding the murder weapon, "they" could also create
> one showing him leaving an embassy).
>
Do you know anything about statistics? Can you explain how the CIA could
photograph every person before and every person after Oswald, but
miraculously the camera did not work ONLY for Oswald. And all 24 cameras
failed to operate, ONLY for Oswald?
>> 4: The case was "cinched" up a little too soon.
>
> Never too early to be right.
>
So, you agree with the original conclusion that it was a conspiracy?
>> 5: Jack Ruby is stalking...
>
> Ruby wanted Oz dead.
Friday night.
Guest
news:KoidnSuAKIHyefDV...@comcast.com...
> Guest wrote:
>
> It is not clear what you are getting at. Either asking questions or making
> fun of assumptions.
>
>> 1: Connolly got shot with a separate hit
>
> Connally was not hit by the head shot. Is that what you mean? Or are you
> agreeing with the FBI's conclusion and the WC's working assumption that
> Connally was hit by a different bullet than hit Kennedy's back?
No single bullet to JFK and Connally. The Z film clearly shows it as
Connally made VERY clear MANY times. A man hears a shot, but knows he is
not shot AND then is shot and reacts to that shot. If they were hit by
the same bullet, then Connally would have reacted and he would have
felt/known that he had been hit when he heard the shot. I don't even
think that a person would hear a shot and then get hit. You hear a shot
that you did not get hit by, and you may not hear a shot that hit you.
>
>> 2: Two shots one on top of the other - almost at the same time
>
> How close do they have to be to mean there were two different rifles which
> shot Kennedy and Connally.
>
They cannot be THAT close. That alone shows at least another shoot.
Oswald's rifle could not do that by any means. I don't even think that a
robot could do it!
>> 3: An imposter of Oswald in Mexico City and elsewhere. If Oswald were a
>> =
>> lone nut seeking attention, then why would someone impersonate a guy who
>> =
>> was a nobody? The only answer is, they knew he was going to be a =
>> somebody. I wonder why the guy in the photo was never identified? I am
>> =
>> sure SOMEONE out there knew who he was. He is the proof of a =
>> conspiracy.
>
> CIA would impersonate someone who had defected to Russia and who was the
> only member of that chapter of the FPCC.
For what aim?
>
>> 4: The case was "cinched" up a little too soon.
>
> Yeah, they immediately thought it was a conspiracy.
I think you are correct...
>
>> 5: Jack Ruby is stalking...
>> 6: Oswald's life is still a mystery - except for thing that point to =
>> reasons why he allegedly did it.
>
> No motive is needed for murder.
A motive IS needed for murder. Even crazy people will kill because the
"demons" told them to, which is a motive. There is no motive, clue or
hint as to why Oswald would kill JFK. Not saying that he was not in on
it, but there is no motive.
>
>> 7: No motive.
>> 8: Walker intelligence/reconnaissance photos only show a house, but no =
>> people. If you are alone, why do you need photos to plan it out? Why =
>> did he miss at a stationary target and at closer range, but hit JFK - =
>> non- stationary at a much great distance with precision?
>
> Oswald planned it out carefully and wrote a detailed note to Marina.
If he would take the time to carefully plan out the hit of a lower status
guy like Walker and MISS with a clear shot, then where are his carefully
laid out plans for a presidential murder? Where are his reon photos?
Where is his map to get away? Where are his notes to smuggle the gun into
the building? How come he did not mention any of this to anyone? Where
is his note on this?
If he goes to all of that trouble for Walker, then JFK is worth even more
trouble. Not one picture. Not one brainstorm - nothing! Again, I
believe the Walker shooting was staged and was a setup. Why in the hell
do you need to take pictures of the guy's house? If you are at the house,
you know what to do from there. There is nothing in those pics to
indicate that they were taken by Oswald. We should see at least half this
planning for JFK.
Oswald's wife, who he met and married so quickly, is no person I could
trust. She arrived on the scene too fast and too mysteriously. I am sure
that all wil be revealed when more of the principles die.
>
>> 9: The government was involved with Oswald. That alone shows that he =
>> was not simply a "lone nut."
>
> They use lone nut to mean it was a single shooter who was crazy. That way
> there is no political motive.
>
>> 10: His Russian assignment is still very suspicious. What was he over =
>> there for?
>
>
> I believe it was a dry run to see how the KGB would check him out.
>
Right. Just like the Mexico City thing.
I would also add:
11: Hoover and Johnson out of their own mouths said "...there is more to
this thing that what is on the surface." If it was only Oswald, then why
say that? Johnson later said that he thought it was a conspiracy! Do we
need more? No. All we need are the details. I believe once Ted Kennedy,
Castro and Maybe George Bush I dies, we may learn yet more. These people
involved clearly have justice on their side as they will be dead when the
whole truth comes out, and by then it will be history...
WhiskyJoe
>> Why did he miss at a
>> stationary target and
>> at closer range, but
>> at a much great distance with precision?
> Happenstance. ...
Happenstance is always a possible explanation. However, there is an
even better explanation.
First of all, the first shot, at frame 154, was not at a stationary
target. The limousine was moving at about 15 mph. After the shooting
started, the limousine slowed due to driver confusion, probably concerned
about possible shots from the front. At frame 154, the speed was around 15
mph, at frame 222 it was 12 mph and at frame 312 it was 9 mph.
So part of the reason for the first shot missing was that the limousine
was moving at it's fastest. Remember, all the ranges at Dealey Plaza were
under 100 yards. The only real difficulty was that the target was moving,
not stationary.
Also, the angle for the frame 154 shot was not good. Ideally, one would
want to fire down the axis of travel. This will result in shooting at a
target that for all practical purposes is stationary.
For the three shots, I list three numbers:
* horizontal angle Oswald is off the axis of travel, in degrees
* vertical angle Oswald is off the axis of travel, in degrees
* total angle Oswald is off the axis of travel, in degrees
frame 154: 24 27 --> 35
frame 222: 10 18 --> 20
frame 312: 4 13 --> 14
As time went on, the angle got better and better for Oswald, 35
degrees, 20 degrees and finally 14 degrees off the axis of travel.
Taking into account the speed and the angles, the continuous
adjustment Oswald would have to make for the three shots, in degrees
per second is:
frame 154: 5.6
frame 222: 1.8
frame 312: 0.7
The angular speed at frame 154 was eight times greater than that at
frame 312. Oswald likely had serious trouble keeping Kennedy lined up
in the sights at frame 154. No wonder the first shot missed.
Grizzlie Antagonist
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:65906382-050d-4f21...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Why do you think that the first shot came at 154?
aeffects
disgrace to the last remnants of that great Lone Nut circle jerk...
Carry on son!
aeffects
yeuhd
> reasons why he allegedly did it.
Oswald's short life is extremely well researched. We know literally
where he was and what he was doing there for every week of his life.
From the time he returned to America in June 1962 to the assassination
in November 1963, we have a nearly complete day-by-day chronology of
Oswald. We have interviews with numerous people who knew him at each
stage of his life. We have books about him by his wife (through a
writer), his brother, and one of the few friends he had as an adult,
George de Mohrenschildt. And we have a great amount of writing by
Oswald about himself and his political views.
> 10: His Russian assignment is still very suspicious. What was he over =
> there for?
Read Oswald's interview with reporter Aline Mosby in Moscow:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0366a.htm
Read's Oswald's letter to his brother:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0420a.htm
Read his "Historic Diary":
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0232b.htm
Read his own question-and-answer list written on his voyage back to
America:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0230b.htm
yeuhd
> > No motive is needed for murder.
>
> A motive IS needed for murder. Even crazy people will kill because the
> "demons" told them to, which is a motive. There is no motive, clue or
> hint as to why Oswald would kill JFK. Not saying that he was not in on
> it, but there is no motive.
No. Legally speaking, "motive" is not one of the necessary elements to
prove a murder. The elements are:
1. Actus reus (conduct by the defendant — that Oswald fired a gun at
president)
2. Corpus delecti (proof of a death — easy)
3. Mens rea (a culpable state of mind — that Oswald intended to kill
the president; not the same thing as *why* he intended)
4. Proximate cause (a causal link between the defendant's act and the
death — that Oswald's shots killed the president)
But if motive is your interest, see the chapter "Lee Harvey Oswald:
Background and Possible Motives" in the WC Report:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0200a.htm
See also the chapter on "Motive" (p. 935-950) in Vincent Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History".
> If he would take the time to carefully plan out the hit of a lower status
> guy like Walker and MISS with a clear shot, then where are his carefully
> laid out plans for a presidential murder? Where are his reon photos?
> Where is his map to get away? Where are his notes to smuggle the gun into
> the building? How come he did not mention any of this to anyone? Where
> is his note on this?
Oswald planned and carried out the attempted assassination of General
Walker on his own time. There was no timeframe in which it had to be
accomplished. The shooting of JFK was a relatively sudden crime of
opportunity. That the president's motorcade would be going by Oswald's
building was not announced until November 19, three days before the
assassination. Oswald's haphazard behavior after the shooting also
shows little or no planning.
> Johnson later said that he thought it was a conspiracy!
Johnson privately thought that Oswald had done Castro's bidding. In a
sense, he had.
Bud
Odds and chance and such? Enough to know you are going to misuse
them.
>Can you explain how the CIA could
> photograph every person before and every person after Oswald, but
> miraculously the camera did not work ONLY for Oswald.
How do you know others didn`t get by unphotographed? And photos
need to be developed, leaving human error to rear it`s head.
> And all 24 cameras
> failed to operate, ONLY for Oswald?
You are saying all 24 cameras photographed this person the CIA did
produce a photo of?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=138306
And is it your contention that Oswald could not get into the
embassy without the CIA being able to produce a photo of him doing so?
This is just another case of CT pretending that not having
something is just as good as actually having something.
> >> 4: The case was "cinched" up a little too soon.
>
> > Never too early to be right.
>
> So, you agree with the original conclusion that it was a conspiracy?
Can you show that Captain Fritz ever thought it was a conspiracy?
> >> 5: Jack Ruby is stalking...
>
> > Ruby wanted Oz dead.
>
> Friday night.
He probably would have liked to see him dead then. He just didn`t
try to kill him then.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 4, 1:02 am, "Guest" <llco...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 6: Oswald's life is still a mystery - except for thing that point to =
>> reasons why he allegedly did it.
>
> Oswald's short life is extremely well researched. We know literally
> where he was and what he was doing there for every week of his life.
More nonsense.
Then tell us where Oswald bought his WCC ammo and the clip. And prove it.
> From the time he returned to America in June 1962 to the assassination
> in November 1963, we have a nearly complete day-by-day chronology of
> Oswald. We have interviews with numerous people who knew him at each
> stage of his life. We have books about him by his wife (through a
You mean people who killed themselves or were killed before they could
testify?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 5, 1:34 am, "Guest" <llco...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> No motive is needed for murder.
>> A motive IS needed for murder. Even crazy people will kill because the
>> "demons" told them to, which is a motive. There is no motive, clue or
>> hint as to why Oswald would kill JFK. Not saying that he was not in on
>> it, but there is no motive.
>
> No. Legally speaking, "motive" is not one of the necessary elements to
> prove a murder. The elements are:
> 1. Actus reus (conduct by the defendant — that Oswald fired a gun at
> president)
Not proven.
> 2. Corpus delecti (proof of a death — easy)
A little more complicated when they illegally steal the body from the
coroner and steal the brain.
> 3. Mens rea (a culpable state of mind — that Oswald intended to kill
> the president; not the same thing as *why* he intended)
Jeez, stand in line and take a number. Millions wanted to kill the
President.
> 4. Proximate cause (a causal link between the defendant's act and the
> death — that Oswald's shots killed the president)
>
> But if motive is your interest, see the chapter "Lee Harvey Oswald:
> Background and Possible Motives" in the WC Report:
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0200a.htm
>
> See also the chapter on "Motive" (p. 935-950) in Vincent Bugliosi's
> "Reclaiming History".
>
>> If he would take the time to carefully plan out the hit of a lower status
>> guy like Walker and MISS with a clear shot, then where are his carefully
>> laid out plans for a presidential murder? Where are his reon photos?
>> Where is his map to get away? Where are his notes to smuggle the gun into
>> the building? How come he did not mention any of this to anyone? Where
>> is his note on this?
>
> Oswald planned and carried out the attempted assassination of General
> Walker on his own time. There was no timeframe in which it had to be
> accomplished. The shooting of JFK was a relatively sudden crime of
> opportunity. That the president's motorcade would be going by Oswald's
> building was not announced until November 19, three days before the
> assassination. Oswald's haphazard behavior after the shooting also
> shows little or no planning.
>
>> Johnson later said that he thought it was a conspiracy!
>
> Johnson privately thought that Oswald had done Castro's bidding. In a
> sense, he had.
>
More than that. Johnson believed Hoover who told him that Oswald had
been paid by Castro to shoot JFK.
Guest
news:6eb89697-3060-47a9...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 5, 1:34 am, "Guest" <llco...@aol.com> wrote:
> > No motive is needed for murder.
>
> A motive IS needed for murder. Even crazy people will kill because the
> "demons" told them to, which is a motive. There is no motive, clue or
> hint as to why Oswald would kill JFK. Not saying that he was not in on
> it, but there is no motive.
No. Legally speaking, "motive" is not one of the necessary elements to
prove a murder. The elements are:
1. Actus reus (conduct by the defendant — that Oswald fired a gun at
president)
2. Corpus delecti (proof of a death — easy)
3. Mens rea (a culpable state of mind — that Oswald intended to kill
the president; not the same thing as *why* he intended)
4. Proximate cause (a causal link between the defendant's act and the
death — that Oswald's shots killed the president)
But if motive is your interest, see the chapter "Lee Harvey Oswald:
Background and Possible Motives" in the WC Report:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0200a.htm
See also the chapter on "Motive" (p. 935-950) in Vincent Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History".
You cannot get into legalities since Oswald was killed to avoid that. There
is ALWAYS a motive to kill or to commit any crime. When you are dealing
with poitical assasination, there had BETTER be a motive for the accused!
Oswald was checked out a by a cop and cleared, so the man was in the clear
and was not acting strangly.
> If he would take the time to carefully plan out the hit of a lower status
> guy like Walker and MISS with a clear shot, then where are his carefully
> laid out plans for a presidential murder? Where are his reon photos?
> Where is his map to get away? Where are his notes to smuggle the gun into
> the building? How come he did not mention any of this to anyone? Where
> is his note on this?
Oswald planned and carried out the attempted assassination of General
Walker on his own time. There was no timeframe in which it had to be
accomplished.
How do you know this? Walker had to at least be at home - which gives a
timeframe.
The shooting of JFK was a relatively sudden crime of
opportunity. That the president's motorcade would be going by Oswald's
building was not announced until November 19, three days before the
assassination. Oswald's haphazard behavior after the shooting also
shows little or no planning.
Well, getting a carbine into his place of employment, setting up boxes to
supress gunfire, hoping that he could hit a moving target form a great
distance without practice and hitting the target are no plans? Not to
mention that he or someone else had to me up with JD Tippit who had to be
dealt with as well. Looking at Tippits movements, you cannot tell me that
this guy was not clearly looing and expecting someone for him to pick up.
His death was a case on someone wanting to make sure that he was dead.
yeuhd
> > 2. Corpus delecti (proof of a death — easy)
>
> A little more complicated when they illegally steal the body from the
> coroner and steal the brain.
The chain of possession of the brain and other physical specimens has been
established from 22 November 1963 to 26 April 1965, when they were
transferred to the National Archives and eventually to Robert Kennedy's
custody. For most of that 17-month period, from December 1963 onward, they
were kept in the possession of the Secret Service at the Executive Office
Building, under the control of Admiral George Burkley, the president's
personal physician. More from the HSCA:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0017a.htm
The brain and the other physical specimens belonged to Jacqueline Kennedy.
After the completion of the Warren Commission investigation, she could
dispose of them as she wished. She was under no legal obligation to keep
them available indefinitely.
yeuhd
> You cannot get into legalities since Oswald was killed to avoid that. There
> is ALWAYS a motive to kill or to commit any crime.
No, sometimes there is not. And Oswald's death did not change the legal
standards of proving whether he was guilty of murder. It didn't depend
then on establishing motive, and it doesn't depend on it now.
> When you are dealing
> with poitical assasination, there had BETTER be a motive for the accused!
Why?
> Oswald was checked out a by a cop and cleared, so the man was in the clear
> and was not acting strangly.
Cleared of the assassination? Or cleared of "not acting strangely in the
ten seconds I saw him"? In my opinion, Oswald did act strangely. If a
police officer came into your place of work and walked up with a gun
pointed at you, wouldn't you ask him or your boss standing behind him what
was going on? If moments later a fellow employee told you that the
President of the United States had just been shot outside, would you just
mutter and walk away? Would you talk to none of your fellow employees, ask
no one about what happened, and just walk out the building and go home?
WhiskyJoe
> Why do you think that the
> first shot came at 154?
First, a reason for thinking
that there was no shot at
Z154 nor Z160:
While one can say that a few
people seen in the Zapruder
film may be reacting to a shot
then, clearly, the vast
majority are not.
On the other hand, the vast
majority of the people seen
in the Zapruder film don't
seem to react at all to the
shots, even after Kennedy and
Connally are clearly wounded,
until after the fatal head
shot. The classic example
is World War II decorated
combat veteran Charles Brehm,
seen clapping as he disappears
from the Zapruder film by about
Z295. Only after the fatal head
shot at Z312, do the majority
of the people seen in the
Zapruder film realize that
shots have been fired and
start to react.
Also, the firing angle for
the first shot was steep,
about 30 degrees below the
horizon, as opposed to
21 and 16 degrees for
the other two shots.
It's possible Oswald had to
stand somewhat for this first
shot, and the muzzle of the
rifle may have been inside
the room, muffling the shot,
particularly for witnesses
behind the presidential
limousine, like the Secret
Service Agents in the follow
up car. Many witnesses report
the first shot being the least
loud. This is consistent with
the rifle muzzle not sticking
outside the window.
******************************
Now, my reasons for thinking
the first shot was at 154:
From Larry Sturdivan's book
"The JFK Myths".
The reasons he list are:
1. A large Zapruder camera
jiggle at frames 158 and 159.
The large jiggles at frames
227 and 318 occur about five
or six frames after Z222 and
Z312, so jiggles at Z158 and
Z159 correspond to a shot at
Z154, or perhaps Z152 or Z153.
This camera jiggle is the most
accurate way of pinpointing a
possible shot in the
early Z150's.
2. Rosemary Willis starts to
stop and stare at a fixed
point in space. She starts to
slow down by Z165. Granted,
she doesn't come to a complete
stop until Z190, but even a
little girl can't stop on a
dime. And years later, when
first asked about this, she
said she was reacting to the
sound of a shot.
3. Both President Kennedy and
Governor Connally turn sharply
to their right, starting
around Z158-Z162.
And reasons not listed by
Mr. Sturdivan:
4. Even Mrs. Kennedy does a
sharp head turn to the right.
Her head turn is a good deal
later than the two men.
It doesn't start until Z169.
But since she was already
sharply turned to the left,
she may have thought a bit
to decide whether she should
continue turning to her left,
which would be awkward to
check out a sound behind
and to her right, or turn 180
degrees to her right, which
is what she did.
5. The limousine was traveling
it's fastest at the time of
the first shot, Z154, about
15 MPH. Afterwards, it started
to slow down, due to driver
confusion. He may have feared
the shots may have been coming
from ahead. By Z222, he was
going 12 MPH, by Z312, 9 MPH.
Based on a map by Don Roberdeau
which can be seen at:
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
it is clear that the limousine
has started to slow down by the
Z160's, or at least the Z170's
at the latest.
******************************
Now, granted, the evidence
for at shot around Z312 is
the strongest, for around
Z222 is quite strong,
while the evidence for a
shot around Z154 is the
weakest of the three.
But this makes sense.
A shot that misses will
leave the least evidence.
All in all, I think a lot of
little things were happening
right after Z154, all
consistent with reactions
from a shot. It could be a
coincidence, but I think
there probably was a shot
around Z154.
And not for a shot at Z160.
The Zapruder camera jiggle
and JFK's head turn start
way too early for that.
Anthony Marsh
> "yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6eb89697-3060-47a9...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 5, 1:34 am, "Guest" <llco...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > No motive is needed for murder.
>>
>> A motive IS needed for murder. Even crazy people will kill because the
>> "demons" told them to, which is a motive. There is no motive, clue or
>> hint as to why Oswald would kill JFK. Not saying that he was not in on
>> it, but there is no motive.
>
> No. Legally speaking, "motive" is not one of the necessary elements to
> prove a murder. The elements are:
You two are talking about two different things. He is saying that motive
is necessary for the act to be murder. He is correct. If it is
accidental it is not murder. He is equating intent with motive.
You are saying that it is not necessary in most courts to prove motive
to obtain a murder conviction. You are correct.
Anthony Marsh
Prove it.
>> Can you explain how the CIA could
>> photograph every person before and every person after Oswald, but
>> miraculously the camera did not work ONLY for Oswald.
>
> How do you know others didn`t get by unphotographed? And photos
> need to be developed, leaving human error to rear it`s head.
>
Oswald is the only one they said they did not photograph. They
photographed every other visitor.
>> And all 24 cameras
>> failed to operate, ONLY for Oswald?
>
> You are saying all 24 cameras photographed this person the CIA did
> produce a photo of?
>
No. The 24 cameras were how many were available at all the possible
locations and none could work to take even one picture of Oswald in
Mexico?
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=138306
>
> And is it your contention that Oswald could not get into the
> embassy without the CIA being able to produce a photo of him doing so?
>
Never.
> This is just another case of CT pretending that not having
> something is just as good as actually having something.
>
>>>> 4: The case was "cinched" up a little too soon.
>>> Never too early to be right.
>> So, you agree with the original conclusion that it was a conspiracy?
>
> Can you show that Captain Fritz ever thought it was a conspiracy?
>
The Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald with murdering the
President as part of an "International Communist Conspiracy." I did not
single out Fritz.
>>>> 5: Jack Ruby is stalking...
>>> Ruby wanted Oz dead.
>> Friday night.
>
> He probably would have liked to see him dead then. He just didn`t
> try to kill him then.
Yes, he did.
yeuhd
> On the other hand, the vast
> majority of the people seen
> in the Zapruder film don't
> seem to react at all to the
> shots, even after Kennedy and
> Connally are clearly wounded,
> until after the fatal head
> shot. The classic example
> is World War II decorated
> combat veteran Charles Brehm,
> seen clapping as he disappears
> from the Zapruder film by about
> Z295. Only after the fatal head
> shot at Z312, do the majority
> of the people seen in the
> Zapruder film realize that
> shots have been fired and
> start to react.
Rosemary Willis is the *only* bystander in the Zapruder film who
appears to react to any shot before Z312. People continue to smile,
wave, and applaud right up to that moment.
P.S. I have to ask: why the narrow column?
yeuhd
> The Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald with murdering the
> President as part of an "International Communist Conspiracy."
The Dallas County District Attorney's office was never planning any
such charge. When Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade was
called at home at 10:30 p.m. of November 22 and asked by the Texas
attorney general about the "international communist conspiracy" rumor,
Wade told him, "I don't know where the rumor got started, but even if
we could prove he was part of a conspiracy, I wouldn't allege it
because there's no such charge in Texas." A few minutes later, Wade
got a similarly worried call from Dallas-based U.S. Attorney Barefoot
Sanders.
From Wade's WC testimony:
Senator COOPER. As I understand it then, one of the reasons that no
warrant of indictment was rendered upon, touching upon an
international conspiracy is that there is just no such crime in Texas
as an international conspiracy?
Mr. WADE. There was no such crime. If it was any such crime it would
be a Federal rather than a State offense. If there is such crime as
being a part of an international conspiracy it would deal with treason
rather than murder, I would think.
But there is no such thing as being a part of any organization that
makes that it is a crime to commit murder. This was a straight murder
charge. If we would have had four or five co-conspirators who
conspired with him, planned the thing and could prove it we would
have. That would have been a conspiracy to, conspiracy to commit
murder.
Senator COOPER. But conspiracy is not essential to the crime, to
describe the person accused as belonging to any organization?
Mr. WADE. No, sir; it is not necessary and it is entirely what they
call surplusage.
Unknown to Wade, the rumor was started about a half hour earlier by
Assistant D.A. Bill Alexander.
Vincent Bugliosi interviewed Bill Alexander in 2000. "Reclaiming
History", p. 169-170:
No sooner than [Captain] Fritz and Alexander get back to City Hall
from dinner than the telephone rings in the Homicide and Robbery
office of Dallas police headquarters and Alexander takes the call.
It's Joe Goulden, a former reporter for the Dallas Morning News who is
now on the city desk at the Philadelphia Inquirer.
"What's going on down there? We're not getting anything straight. It's
all garbled. Is Oswald going to be charged with killing the
president?" the reporter asks.
"Yeah, we're getting ready to file on the Communist son of a bitch,"
Alexander tells him. When Goulden asks Alexander why he called Oswald
a Communist, Alexander tells him about all the Communist literature
and correspondence they found at Oswald's Beckley address. "We have
the killer," Alexander says, "but we're not sure what his connections
are."
Goulden wants to know exactly when the charges will be filed against
Oswald. "As soon as I can draw up the complaint," Alexander replies.
Goulden says his editor won't print the part about Oswald being a
Communist for fear of a libel suit. The only way he'd print that is if
he could say it was part of the formal charge.
Alexander, who would later allow that "I let my mouth overload my
ass," says sarcastically, "Well, how about if I charge him with being
part of an international Communist conspiracy? Could you run with
that?"
He knew he couldn't draw up a complaint like that, but Alexander was
itching to show Oswald for what he was, a damn Communist. Goulden was
more than eager to oblige.
"You got it!" the reporter says.
Guest
On Jul 5, 10:45 pm, "Guest" <llco...@aol.com> wrote:
> You cannot get into legalities since Oswald was killed to avoid that.
> There
> is ALWAYS a motive to kill or to commit any crime.
No, sometimes there is not. And Oswald's death did not change the legal
standards of proving whether he was guilty of murder. It didn't depend
then on establishing motive, and it doesn't depend on it now.
All of the times yes.
> When you are dealing
> with poitical assasination, there had BETTER be a motive for the accused!
Why?
You don't kill politically without a motive. The motive could be money,
sex, or political views. No evidence and anything.
> Oswald was checked out a by a cop and cleared, so the man was in the clear
> and was not acting strangly.
Cleared of the assassination? Or cleared of "not acting strangely in the
ten seconds I saw him"? In my opinion, Oswald did act strangely. If a
police officer came into your place of work and walked up with a gun
pointed at you, wouldn't you ask him or your boss standing behind him what
was going on? If moments later a fellow employee told you that the
President of the United States had just been shot outside, would you just
mutter and walk away? Would you talk to none of your fellow employees, ask
no one about what happened, and just walk out the building and go home?
In all fairness, on 9-11, I encountered many people who reacted as you
described. Many people simply did not give a damn. Many people have the
mindset that if it does not affect them directly - they don't give a damn.
Some people like Oswald and myself, stay absolutley calm no matter the
situation. I cannot speak for Oswald, but for myself, I do it because there
is no need to act hysterical and it is what it is, so remaining calm allows
you to think clearly.
Anthony Marsh
Like all too many people you are injecting YOUR sense of what people
would do. You'd exonerate the mother who says her children are missing
even though she just killed them, because she is crying hysterically.
Yet you'd suspect the father who is not acting hysterical when he asks
for the public's help to find his kidnapped daughter.
> In all fairness, on 9-11, I encountered many people who reacted as you
> described. Many people simply did not give a damn. Many people have
Wouldn't you even be slightly suspicious of people who cheered and held
a party to celebrate.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 6, 11:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald with murdering the
>> President as part of an "International Communist Conspiracy."
>
> The Dallas County District Attorney's office was never planning any
> such charge. When Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade was
> called at home at 10:30 p.m. of November 22 and asked by the Texas
> attorney general about the "international communist conspiracy" rumor,
> Wade told him, "I don't know where the rumor got started, but even if
> we could prove he was part of a conspiracy, I wouldn't allege it
> because there's no such charge in Texas." A few minutes later, Wade
> got a similarly worried call from Dallas-based U.S. Attorney Barefoot
> Sanders.
>
Again, why the cover-up?
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. A long time ago I pointed out that the Muchmore film shows that
the three men on the grassy knoll started to react much earlier than
could be possible for a reaction to hearing the shot at Z-313. And if
you consider the SS agents as well, various films and photos show that
they had reacted very early. In the Altgens photo you can see that 3 of
the SS agents on the running boards had turned their heads back towards
the TSBD. And Hickey is turned around looking back towards the TSBD.
Other films show that Clint Hill had already started running up to the
limo before the head shot. The Zapruder film shows that Greer had turned
around to look to see what had happened. And the limo slowed down just
before the head shot. And of course we can see that all the passengers
in the limo had reacted to the shots before the head shot.
You might even be able to infer that other spectators had reacted
earlier by stopping, or dropping to the ground by the time we see them
later in the Zapruder film. That does not prove exactly when they heard
which shot, just that they had started to react before the head shot.
Then we have some inference from photographs taken such as a shot
causing Willis to snap his picture at Z-202.
WhiskyJoe
> Rosemary Willis is the *only*
> bystander in the Zapruder film
> who appears to react to any
> shot before Z312. People
> continue to smile, wave,
> and applaud right up to that
> moment.
As far as I know, this is correct. We do see reactions from the
presidential limousine occupants, and the standing secret service
agents, at least after the Z222 shot, no one in the crowd seems to
clearly react, except for Rosemary Willis. And her reaction is not
strong, but since she said she slowed down and stopped after the first
shot, I think her post Z165 actions are consistent with a reaction to
a shot.
This is something that is not apparent from the eyewitness testimony.
Typically, they say something, "I heard a shot and I saw the President
get wounded. He put his hands on this throat. Then, a little later, I
heard another shot that struck his head." They make it sound like they
recognized the sounds as gunfire at the time and they recognize that
the President was wounded. I think the reality is they heard the
shots, they dismissed the sounds as motorcycle backfires or
firecrackers, in any case, not a sound that is important enough to
make them look away from their one and only chance to see the
President and the First Lady up close. Only after the fatal head shot
do they realize shots have been fired, people have been wounded or
killed, and they start to react, like by lying down on the ground.
Certainly, if there are any pre Z312 reactions of the eyewitnesses to
gunfire, their reactions are a lot more subtle than their post Z312
reactions, at least as seen in the Zapruder film.
> P.S. I have to ask: why the narrow column?
Sometimes, when I post to different websites, the text is chopped up
if I don't make the lines shorter. I'll try the longer lines and see
how it goes.
Bud
You did that for me.
> >> Can you explain how the CIA could
> >> photograph every person before and every person after Oswald, but
> >> miraculously the camera did not work ONLY for Oswald.
>
> > How do you know others didn`t get by unphotographed? And photos
> > need to be developed, leaving human error to rear it`s head.
>
> Oswald is the only one they said they did not photograph. They
> photographed every other visitor.
What do you base this on? Was there an independent source watching
the embassy who confirmed this?
> >> And all 24 cameras
> >> failed to operate, ONLY for Oswald?
>
> > You are saying all 24 cameras photographed this person the CIA did
> > produce a photo of?
>
> No. The 24 cameras were how many were available at all the possible
> locations and none could work to take even one picture of Oswald in
> Mexico?
>
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
>
> > And is it your contention that Oswald could not get into the
> > embassy without the CIA being able to produce a photo of him doing so?
>
> Never.
Ah, you feel the CIA is infallible. It seems to me the CIA watches
hundreds of embassies, and sees thousands enter them, and most of the
information gathered is probably unimportant, useless, and probably never
even looked at. If this were the case, a certain laxness would tend to
creep in. But I`m sure your confidence that a bureacracy can perform
mundane tasks flawlessly is well founded.
> > This is just another case of CT pretending that not having
> > something is just as good as actually having something.
>
> >>>> 4: The case was "cinched" up a little too soon.
> >>> Never too early to be right.
> >> So, you agree with the original conclusion that it was a conspiracy?
>
> > Can you show that Captain Fritz ever thought it was a conspiracy?
>
> The Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald with murdering the
> President as part of an "International Communist Conspiracy." I did not
> single out Fritz.
I did. He was running the investigation.
Anthony Marsh
Not specious libel.
>>>> Can you explain how the CIA could
>>>> photograph every person before and every person after Oswald, but
>>>> miraculously the camera did not work ONLY for Oswald.
>>> How do you know others didn`t get by unphotographed? And photos
>>> need to be developed, leaving human error to rear it`s head.
>> Oswald is the only one they said they did not photograph. They
>> photographed every other visitor.
>
> What do you base this on? Was there an independent source watching
> the embassy who confirmed this?
>
No one said that. The CIA said it.
>>>> And all 24 cameras
>>>> failed to operate, ONLY for Oswald?
>>> You are saying all 24 cameras photographed this person the CIA did
>>> produce a photo of?
>> No. The 24 cameras were how many were available at all the possible
>> locations and none could work to take even one picture of Oswald in
>> Mexico?
>>
>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
>>> And is it your contention that Oswald could not get into the
>>> embassy without the CIA being able to produce a photo of him doing so?
>> Never.
>
> Ah, you feel the CIA is infallible. It seems to me the CIA watches
Not what I said. I know that there are ways to get into any embassy
unseen. But they would not apply to some innocent tourist.
> hundreds of embassies, and sees thousands enter them, and most of the
> information gathered is probably unimportant, useless, and probably never
> even looked at. If this were the case, a certain laxness would tend to
> creep in. But I`m sure your confidence that a bureacracy can perform
> mundane tasks flawlessly is well founded.
There is no laxness. There is deliberate cover-up.
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
Vincent Bugliosi writes (RH, pg. 1051) that "[i]t turns out that the
photographic surveillance of the Cuban and Russian embassies (and
their respective consulates) was nowhere as seamless as might be
wished. David [Atlee] Phillips told me that although his office in
Mexico City had the capacity to photograph the consulate and embassy
round-the-clock, seven days a week, the reality is that this was not
done. Because the equipment malfunctioned from time to time—the
repairs obviously took time—and because personnel were sometimes
needed more elsewhere, the surveillance was not 'constant and
uninterrupted.'"
Bugliosi writes that the ARRB "found that a Robot Star camera and a
K-100 camera had been installed by the CIA on September 27, 1963, to
record any entrance to the Cuban consulate." The CIA says this was the
first time cameras were installed there. "The K-1oo camera broke down
after one day's operation, and the Robot Star, which was to be tested
for eight days, 'broke down after four days of operation,' meaning
it was only operational from September 27 to September 30, and 'there
is no record of actual photographic takes or test results from the
camera.'[...]
"As far as the Soviet embassy was concerned, the ARRB learned that
LIMITED, the code name for the CIA's photographic surveillance
operation located in a first-floor apartment directly across the
street from the main Soviet embassy gate, and oeprating from 9:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m. each day, was the source of the photographs of the
unidentified 'mystery' man (see later text) supplied to the Warren
Commission, and lived up to its title by not even being operational on
September 28-30 and October 5-6. The ARRB found that even on the days
of operation, there were many cases where 'the log entries
documenting observed activities at the site do not correlate with the
recorded hours of operation. This suggests that the target site was
not being monitored for the entire duration of the surveillance
shift.'"
As VB stresses in a footnote, "It should also be borne in mind that
the operators ofthe surveillance cameras were not CIA agents, for whom
a certain degree ofcompetence could be expected. It should also be
borne in mind that the operators ofthe surveillance cameras were not
CIA agents, for whom a certain degree ofcompetence could be expected.
They were contract employees. 'It is extremely difficult to get people
to do this kind ofwork at all,' said John Scelso (pseudonym for John
Whitten), head ofthe CIA’s clandestine operations for the Western
Hemisphere at the time ofthe assassination. 'It is deadening, boring'
work, he added, “and to get people who are [security] clearable to do
it is very, very difficult.'"
Here's the rest of the footnote (pg. 601 of the Endnotes), typos and
all:
When asked to make a “wild guess”as to how many people entering the
Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City were picked up by the
cameras, Scelso said “at least half ofthe people, or even
more,”meaning that a very high percentage weren’t picked up. Even so,
with the number oftimes we know Oswald visited one or the other
embassy in Mexico City, the percentages would seem to dictate that a
photo ofhim would be secured on at least one occasion, yet none were.
In this regard, Scelso noted that “many people entering and leaving
these installations deliberately conceal their faces,”and he felt that
Oswald, being a defector, would be the type of person who might do so.
When HSCA counsel asked Scelso how Oswald or anyone else could do this
without knowing where the cameras were, he replied that Oswald would
be “perfectly capable ofapproaching the Cuban or Soviet embassy [so]
that his face could not be photographed. In other words, ifthis is the
Soviet embassy [pointing] and our vantage point is over here, he can
walk under the window and [then] walk [with his back to the camera]
straight across the street. You can figure where [the camera] is. It
can only be in a certain number of places.” When HSCA counsel asked
Scelso, “Are you certain that the Mexico City station never obtained
any photograph ofOswald?”he replied that as far as he knew, it had
not, adding, “The thought that they might have gotten it, that the
Agency or the station might have suppressed it deliberately to cover
up their omission to send it to Headquarters, or something like that,
is to me inconceivable.”(HSCA Record 180-10131-10330, May 16, 1978, pp.
93–97) Is there any evidence that Oswald tried to avoid being
photographed at the embassies in Mexico City? Very definitely, yes.
Colonel Oleg Nechiporenko, the KGB consular official at the Russian
embassy who had contact with Oswald, writes in his book, “When I led
Oswald out ofthe reception area into the courtyard and showed him the
way to the gate, he pulled his head down and raised the collar of his
jacket to conceal his face and thus attempt to avoid being clearly
photographed” (Nechiporenko, Passport to Assassination, pp.80–81). It
should be further noted that, as Mexico City desk CIA veteran
Charlotte Bustos put it, “I don’t know whether you can say [Oswald]
managed to avoid being photographed . . . What you might have had were
shots that were blurred or backs ofheads or something you could not
identify”(HSCA Record 180-10110-10026, May 19, 1978, pp.64–65).
yeuhd
> > Rosemary Willis is the *only* bystander in the Zapruder film who
> > appears to react to any shot before Z312. People continue to smile,
> > wave, and applaud right up to that moment.
>
Re-read what I wrote: "in the Zapruder film…"
yeuhd
> Wouldn't you even be slightly suspicious of people who cheered and held
> a party to celebrate.
Aren't you "injecting YOUR sense of what people would do"?
Anthony Marsh
More Sophistry. Atlee is a liar, maybe one of the conspirators. Maybe
Oswald's control officer and the one who sent an impersonator.
They had plenty of back-up cameras and personnel. This was a top priority.
And just because they did not need to take photos after hours he gets
away with calling that not constant and uninterrupted.
> Bugliosi writes that the ARRB "found that a Robot Star camera and a
> K-100 camera had been installed by the CIA on September 27, 1963, to
> record any entrance to the Cuban consulate." The CIA says this was the
> first time cameras were installed there. "The K-1oo camera broke down
> after one day's operation, and the Robot Star, which was to be tested
> for eight days, 'broke down after four days of operation,' meaning
> it was only operational from September 27 to September 30, and 'there
> is no record of actual photographic takes or test results from the
> camera.'[...]
>
Which covers the timeframe of Oswald's visits to the Cuban and Soviet
embassies. I could see one failure at one moment on one day, but not
several on several days at different locations.
> "As far as the Soviet embassy was concerned, the ARRB learned that
> LIMITED, the code name for the CIA's photographic surveillance
> operation located in a first-floor apartment directly across the
> street from the main Soviet embassy gate, and oeprating from 9:00
> a.m. to 2:00 p.m. each day, was the source of the photographs of the
> unidentified 'mystery' man (see later text) supplied to the Warren
> Commission, and lived up to its title by not even being operational on
> September 28-30 and October 5-6. The ARRB found that even on the days
> of operation, there were many cases where 'the log entries
> documenting observed activities at the site do not correlate with the
> recorded hours of operation. This suggests that the target site was
> not being monitored for the entire duration of the surveillance
> shift.'"
>
If one camera failed they had back-ups. While they were testing new
equipment they still had the old equipment available.
> As VB stresses in a footnote, "It should also be borne in mind that
> the operators ofthe surveillance cameras were not CIA agents, for whom
> a certain degree ofcompetence could be expected. It should also be
> borne in mind that the operators ofthe surveillance cameras were not
> CIA agents, for whom a certain degree ofcompetence could be expected.
> They were contract employees. 'It is extremely difficult to get people
> to do this kind ofwork at all,' said John Scelso (pseudonym for John
> Whitten), head ofthe CIA’s clandestine operations for the Western
> Hemisphere at the time ofthe assassination. 'It is deadening, boring'
> work, he added, “and to get people who are [security] clearable to do
> it is very, very difficult.'"
>
Mexican police. And they certainly did take thousands of photos.
> Here's the rest of the footnote (pg. 601 of the Endnotes), typos and
> all:
> When asked to make a “wild guess”as to how many people entering the
> Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City were picked up by the
> cameras, Scelso said “at least half ofthe people, or even
> more,”meaning that a very high percentage weren’t picked up. Even so,
> with the number oftimes we know Oswald visited one or the other
> embassy in Mexico City, the percentages would seem to dictate that a
> photo ofhim would be secured on at least one occasion, yet none were.
And there you have it folks. And admission of cover-up.
> In this regard, Scelso noted that “many people entering and leaving
> these installations deliberately conceal their faces,”and he felt that
> Oswald, being a defector, would be the type of person who might do so.
OK, fine. Show us the photos of people hiding their faces.
> When HSCA counsel asked Scelso how Oswald or anyone else could do this
> without knowing where the cameras were, he replied that Oswald would
> be “perfectly capable ofapproaching the Cuban or Soviet embassy [so]
Then show us the photos of people hiding their faces.
> that his face could not be photographed. In other words, ifthis is the
> Soviet embassy [pointing] and our vantage point is over here, he can
> walk under the window and [then] walk [with his back to the camera]
> straight across the street. You can figure where [the camera] is. It
> can only be in a certain number of places.” When HSCA counsel asked
The Cubans and Soviets knew EXACTLY where the cameras were because they
had photographed the locations and had the surveillance under
counter-surveillance.
> Scelso, “Are you certain that the Mexico City station never obtained
> any photograph ofOswald?”he replied that as far as he knew, it had
> not, adding, “The thought that they might have gotten it, that the
> Agency or the station might have suppressed it deliberately to cover
> up their omission to send it to Headquarters, or something like that,
> is to me inconceivable.”(HSCA Record 180-10131-10330, May 16, 1978, pp.
> 93–97) Is there any evidence that Oswald tried to avoid being
> photographed at the embassies in Mexico City? Very definitely, yes.
> Colonel Oleg Nechiporenko, the KGB consular official at the Russian
> embassy who had contact with Oswald, writes in his book, “When I led
> Oswald out ofthe reception area into the courtyard and showed him the
> way to the gate, he pulled his head down and raised the collar of his
> jacket to conceal his face and thus attempt to avoid being clearly
Then show us that photograph.
> photographed” (Nechiporenko, Passport to Assassination, pp.80–81). It
> should be further noted that, as Mexico City desk CIA veteran
> Charlotte Bustos put it, “I don’t know whether you can say [Oswald]
> managed to avoid being photographed . . . What you might have had were
> shots that were blurred or backs ofheads or something you could not
> identify”(HSCA Record 180-10110-10026, May 19, 1978, pp.64–65).
>
Then show us those photographs.
Anthony Marsh
No.
Bud
No apology necessary.
> >>>> Can you explain how the CIA could
> >>>> photograph every person before and every person after Oswald, but
> >>>> miraculously the camera did not work ONLY for Oswald.
> >>> How do you know others didn`t get by unphotographed? And photos
> >>> need to be developed, leaving human error to rear it`s head.
> >> Oswald is the only one they said they did not photograph. They
> >> photographed every other visitor.
>
> > What do you base this on? Was there an independent source watching
> > the embassy who confirmed this?
>
> No one said that. The CIA said it.
You are saying the CIA is no one?
> >>>> And all 24 cameras
> >>>> failed to operate, ONLY for Oswald?
> >>> You are saying all 24 cameras photographed this person the CIA did
> >>> produce a photo of?
> >> No. The 24 cameras were how many were available at all the possible
> >> locations and none could work to take even one picture of Oswald in
> >> Mexico?
>
> >>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
> >>> And is it your contention that Oswald could not get into the
> >>> embassy without the CIA being able to produce a photo of him doing so?
> >> Never.
>
> > Ah, you feel the CIA is infallible. It seems to me the CIA watches
>
> Not what I said. I know that there are ways to get into any embassy
> unseen. But they would not apply to some innocent tourist.
The point is, you are portraying Oz going inside the embassy
without the CIA having a picture to document that entry as an
impossibility. You do this, because it is your only approach. You
can`t show a conspiracy, so you are only left with saying it could be
nothing else.
> > hundreds of embassies, and sees thousands enter them, and most of the
> > information gathered is probably unimportant, useless, and probably never
> > even looked at. If this were the case, a certain laxness would tend to
> > creep in. But I`m sure your confidence that a bureacracy can perform
> > mundane tasks flawlessly is well founded.
>
> There is no laxness. There is deliberate cover-up.
Establishing things is meaningful. Saying them is not.
Anthony Marsh
My answer was to your question about an independent source watching the
embassy saying something. I said it was not one person. I said it was the
CIA's assertion.
>>>>>> And all 24 cameras
>>>>>> failed to operate, ONLY for Oswald?
>>>>> You are saying all 24 cameras photographed this person the CIA did
>>>>> produce a photo of?
>>>> No. The 24 cameras were how many were available at all the possible
>>>> locations and none could work to take even one picture of Oswald in
>>>> Mexico?
>>>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
>>>>> And is it your contention that Oswald could not get into the
>>>>> embassy without the CIA being able to produce a photo of him doing so?
>>>> Never.
>>> Ah, you feel the CIA is infallible. It seems to me the CIA watches
>> Not what I said. I know that there are ways to get into any embassy
>> unseen. But they would not apply to some innocent tourist.
>
> The point is, you are portraying Oz going inside the embassy
> without the CIA having a picture to document that entry as an
> impossibility. You do this, because it is your only approach. You
> can`t show a conspiracy, so you are only left with saying it could be
> nothing else.
>
Entry or exit. Two opportunities separated by several minutes. And several
visits. Multiple opportunities. I did not say conspiracy. I say cover-up.
Bud
Are you saying Oswald never went into this embassy?
Anthony Marsh
No. That's the point. I am saying that Oswald went into the embassies. A
few times. I am only talking about the CIA cover-up. They did not want it
to come out that they had been keeping tabs on Oswald, but did not inform
the FBI or SS.
Bud
How would watching and photographing the people that go in and out of
embassies be considered "keeping tabs" on a specific person?
Bud
The CIA asserted Oz went into the embassy, and then covered-up
photographs that would have backed up that assertion?
Anthony Marsh
More than that. Having a 201 file on Oswald, bugging his conversations,
opening his mail, following him around. Is it your imagination that the
CIA had a 201 file on every person in the world back in 1963?
Anthony Marsh
Ia that YOUR theory?
Bud
Doesn`t explain your contention that the reason CIA didn`t produce a
photo of Oz entering the embassiess was for the purpose of cover- up.
Bud
No, its a silly one, so I thought it must be yours.
Anthony Marsh
Cover-up of their incompetence. If it ever came out that the CIA had
foreknowledge of the Kennedy assassination and did not notify the SS they
would be out of business. Hence their lie about the tape.
Bud
You are saying that the CIA asserted Oswald entered the embassy, but
didn`t want to produce the photographic evidence that backed up that
assertion?
yeuhd
> > Doesn`t explain your contention that the reason CIA didn`t produce a
> > photo of Oz entering the embassiess was for the purpose of cover- up.
>
> Cover-up of their incompetence. If it ever came out that the CIA had
> foreknowledge of the Kennedy assassination and did not notify the SS they
> would be out of business. Hence their lie about the tape.
How would that Oswald's visit to the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico
City, seeking passage to Cuba, indicate foreknowledge of the assassination
of JFK? This was September 1963. Even Oswald probably hadn't thought of
it.
Anthony Marsh
I didn't say it was the visits that would indicate foreknowledge.
Two possibilities. One, that during one of those visits Oswald started
yelling that he was going to shoot the President, which was picked up by
the CIA's bugging operation. Two, that Oswald is seen and photographed
meeting with the KGB's head of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere
and the CIA had neglected to inform the FBI and SS of that fact.
Anthony Marsh
That someone at CIA HQs wanted that information suppressed, just like
the tape.
yeuhd
> I didn't say it was the visits that would indicate foreknowledge.
> Two possibilities. One, that during one of those visits Oswald started
> yelling that he was going to shoot the President, which was picked up by
> the CIA's bugging operation. Two, that Oswald is seen and photographed
> meeting with the KGB's head of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere
> and the CIA had neglected to inform the FBI and SS of that fact.
But those are two things of which there is no evidence. You just made
those up.
Bud
Why do you keep throwing out that strawman about "the tape". The issue
we were discussing was the embassy surveillance. I`m looking for you to
make some sense out of your contention that although the CIA had photos
backing up their assertion that Oz entered the emabassy, for some reason
you`ve yet to reveal, they suppressed them.
Bud
> yeuhd wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 7:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Doesn`t explain your contention that the reason CIA didn`t produce a
> >>> photo of Oz entering the embassiess was for the purpose of cover- up.
> >> Cover-up of their incompetence. If it ever came out that the CIA had
> >> foreknowledge of the Kennedy assassination and did not notify the SS they
> >> would be out of business. Hence their lie about the tape.
>
> > How would that Oswald's visit to the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico
> > City, seeking passage to Cuba, indicate foreknowledge of the assassination
> > of JFK? This was September 1963. Even Oswald probably hadn't thought of
> > it.
>
> I didn't say it was the visits that would indicate foreknowledge.
Sure you did. We were discussing the visits. You expressed the idea
that the CIA suppressed the photos to "cover-up" their "incompetence". You
went right on to say it was an effort to hide the CIA`s foreknowledge, so
what else could you be referring to but the embassy surveillance photos of
Oz`s trip?
> Two possibilities. One, that during one of those visits Oswald started
> yelling that he was going to shoot the President, which was picked up by
> the CIA's bugging operation. Two, that Oswald is seen and photographed
> meeting with the KGB's head of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere
> and the CIA had neglected to inform the FBI and SS of that fact.
Three, Marsh is imagining CIA activity he can`t support again.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 20, 11:38 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> yeuhd wrote:
>>> On Jul 17, 7:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Doesn`t explain your contention that the reason CIA didn`t produce a
>>>>> photo of Oz entering the embassiess was for the purpose of cover- up.
>>>> Cover-up of their incompetence. If it ever came out that the CIA had
>>>> foreknowledge of the Kennedy assassination and did not notify the SS they
>>>> would be out of business. Hence their lie about the tape.
>>> How would that Oswald's visit to the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico
>>> City, seeking passage to Cuba, indicate foreknowledge of the assassination
>>> of JFK? This was September 1963. Even Oswald probably hadn't thought of
>>> it.
>> I didn't say it was the visits that would indicate foreknowledge.
>
> Sure you did. We were discussing the visits. You expressed the idea
> that the CIA suppressed the photos to "cover-up" their "incompetence". You
> went right on to say it was an effort to hide the CIA`s foreknowledge, so
> what else could you be referring to but the embassy surveillance photos of
> Oz`s trip?
>
I didn't specify what the incompetence was. The orders came from HQs.
I said that one possibility is that the CIA had foreknowledge, but of what?
>> Two possibilities. One, that during one of those visits Oswald started
>> yelling that he was going to shoot the President, which was picked up by
>> the CIA's bugging operation. Two, that Oswald is seen and photographed
>> meeting with the KGB's head of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere
>> and the CIA had neglected to inform the FBI and SS of that fact.
>
> Three, Marsh is imagining CIA activity he can`t support again.
>
I said it was one possibility. The CIA did allege that Oswald met with
the head of the KGB's assassination squad.
Anthony Marsh
These two possibilities did not come from me. They came from the CIA.
Anthony Marsh
The tape is just another example of the CIA trying to cover-up something
about Oswald's visit to Mexico. The tape was supposed to be proof, and yet
they suppresses that.
Bud
> > you`ve yet to reveal, they suppressed them.
>
> The tape is just another example of the CIA trying to cover-up something
> about Oswald's visit to Mexico. The tape was supposed to be proof, and yet
> they suppresses that.
Why do you continue to pummel that poor strawman, what did he ever do
to you? Focus now, here it comes again..."Why did the CIA repress the
photos of Oswald doing what the CIA said he did (enter the embassy)?
Anthony Marsh
The tape is a parallel example to show the pattern of cover-up.
Bud
Ah, ok, you see it parallel to the issue we were discussing, thats
great. But, about the issue we were actually discussing, I raised a
question numerous times, and you seem to keep side-stepping it. I`m
gonna ask you about it again, so try to keep your thoughts focused on
what I`m going to ask, and not let yourself be distracted by any other
random thoughts about parallel examples or parallel universes, or
birds singing outside your window, ok? Here is the question, once
more, slightly rephrased, but the gist remaining the same as the
numerous other times I`ve asked it...
"Why did the suppress the photos of Oz entering the embassy when it
was the CIA`s contention that Oz entered the embassy?"
> ...
>
> read more »
Anthony Marsh
First, deal with the fact that they did. The second I tell you my
opinion of why they did (as I have numerous times) you will demand
absolute proof that that is exactly what happened, all documented,
notarized, signed confessions, recorded interviews. All I can tell you
is a few possible reasons. One is that it would show Oswald at a time
and place that they did not supposedly know he was there. Another
possibility is that it would show Oswald with the head of the KGB's
assassination squad. Another possibility is that it would show Oswald
knowing exactly where the camera was. Another possibility is that it
would show another person near him who was a CIA asset.
Bud
Ok, then all you had to say was that in was possible that there were
things shown in the photos that the CIA didn`t want to get out. But,
amongst the various approaches to my questions, you said the reason was
"To cover-up their incompetence". If part of their job is to abtain
surveillance of people entering the embassies, then them NOT producing a
photo Oz entering the embassy is actual incompetence, not the covering up
of incompetence.
Anthony Marsh
No, and they could count on you to defend them from that charge.
Bud
They could also count on your assertions not making sense. You say the
CIA got pictures of Oz entering the embassy. It is their responsibility
to photograph people entering the embassy. The asserted Oz entered the
embassy. They failed to back up their assertion that Oz entered the
embassy with the photos you say they took of Oz entering the embassy. You
say they did not produce the photos of Oz entering the embassy to cover-up
their incompetence. Them not producing the photos is incompetence in
itself. You say the CIA suppressed evidence that would backed up their
assertion that Oz entered the embassy. You use twisted logic because you
have yourself convinced you can figure out how they think and why they do
things. You`ve shown no such ability.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of embassies, and sees thousands enter them, and most of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information gathered is probably unimportant, useless,
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
No, first you must establish that they did as fact.
> The second I tell you my
> opinion of why they did (as I have numerous times) you will demand
> absolute proof that that is exactly what happened, all documented,
> notarized, signed confessions, recorded interviews.
WHAAAH, you`re going to ask me to support my ideas!
>All I can tell you
> is a few possible reasons. One is that it would show Oswald at a time
> and place that they did not supposedly know he was there.
What do you mean "place"? We are talking about one place, the
embassy. What do you mean "time", we are talking about a specific
timeframe, when Oz was in Mexico City.
>Another
> possibility is that it would show Oswald with the head of the KGB's
> assassination squad.
Did you see the photo they did produce? I think the CIA can find
someone who can operate scissors.
> Another possibility is that it would show Oswald
> knowing exactly where the camera was.
What, like sticking his tongue out at them? How could you determine
he didn`t notice the cameras the first time he went in?
> Another possibility is that it
> would show another person near him who was a CIA asset.
Again, photos can be cropped.
> >> read more �
> >
> >
Anthony Marsh
Not one place. Any one of three places.
Time frame to match when they thought Oswald was in Mexico and when they
thought he was at one of the embassies.
>
>> Another
>> possibility is that it would show Oswald with the head of the KGB's
>> assassination squad.
>
> Did you see the photo they did produce? I think the CIA can find
> someone who can operate scissors.
Did I see which photo? They produced several. I've had them on my web
site for a long time. You really think that the CIA can find someone who
can properly cover up things?
>
>> Another possibility is that it would show Oswald
>> knowing exactly where the camera was.
>
> What, like sticking his tongue out at them? How could you determine
> he didn`t notice the cameras the first time he went in?
>
I said nothing about what he would have done or when he might have know
about the surveillance camera.
>> Another possibility is that it
>> would show another person near him who was a CIA asset.
>
> Again, photos can be cropped.
Yeah, they are. Some are not.
Anthony Marsh
No, I did not. As usual you misrepresent what I have said. I asked what
the odds are that they did not.
> to photograph people entering the embassy. The asserted Oz entered the
> embassy. They failed to back up their assertion that Oz entered the
> embassy with the photos you say they took of Oz entering the embassy. You
Did I say that they DID take photos of Oswald? No.
> say they did not produce the photos of Oz entering the embassy to cover-up
> their incompetence. Them not producing the photos is incompetence in
No, you would excuse them.
> itself. You say the CIA suppressed evidence that would backed up their
> assertion that Oz entered the embassy. You use twisted logic because you
They had plenty of evidence that someone calling himself Oswald entered
the embassies, plural, not singular.
> have yourself convinced you can figure out how they think and why they do
> things. You`ve shown no such ability.
>
I know how they think and how they do things. I've been studying this
for 40 some years.
Bud
When was Oswald there that the CIA supposedly didn`t know he was
there?
> >> Another
> >> possibility is that it would show Oswald with the head of the KGB's
> >> assassination squad.
>
> > Did you see the photo they did produce? I think the CIA can find
> > someone who can operate scissors.
>
> Did I see which photo? They produced several.
All cropped, right? Why wouldn`t the CIA just crop out whoever it was
they didn`t want seen with Oswald, that way they could still produce the
photos of Oswald entering th embassy, backing up their assertion that he
did?
> I've had them on my web
> site for a long time. You really think that the CIA can find someone who
> can properly cover up things?
>
>
>
> >> Another possibility is that it would show Oswald
> >> knowing exactly where the camera was.
>
> > What, like sticking his tongue out at them? How could you determine
> > he didn`t notice the cameras the first time he went in?
>
> I said nothing about what he would have done or when he might have know
> about the surveillance camera.
Only that the surveillance photo might show that Oz knew where the
cameras were. How?
> >> Another possibility is that it
> >> would show another person near him who was a CIA asset.
>
> > Again, photos can be cropped.
>
> Yeah, they are. Some are not.
The CIA could crop out anyone they don`t ant seen with Oswald, so
Oz being with people the CIA doesn`t want Oz seen with is not a good
reason for suppressing the photos.
Anthony Marsh
We don't know if he was or when it might have been. Could be when the
impostor was there. Kinda hard to have the real Oswald there at exactly
the same time as the mystery man and have dozens of photos of the
mystery man, but none of the real Oswald. But of course you would make
up excuses for them.
>>>> Another
>>>> possibility is that it would show Oswald with the head of the KGB's
>>>> assassination squad.
>>> Did you see the photo they did produce? I think the CIA can find
>>> someone who can operate scissors.
>> Did I see which photo? They produced several.
>
> All cropped, right? Why wouldn`t the CIA just crop out whoever it was
> they didn`t want seen with Oswald, that way they could still produce the
> photos of Oswald entering th embassy, backing up their assertion that he
> did?
>
All cropped? You haven't even seen them, have you? They cropped out some
parts to give them to the Warren Commission.
>> I've had them on my web
>> site for a long time. You really think that the CIA can find someone who
>> can properly cover up things?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Another possibility is that it would show Oswald
>>>> knowing exactly where the camera was.
>>> What, like sticking his tongue out at them? How could you determine
>>> he didn`t notice the cameras the first time he went in?
>> I said nothing about what he would have done or when he might have know
>> about the surveillance camera.
>
> Only that the surveillance photo might show that Oz knew where the
> cameras were. How?
>
How does the FBI know that some Mafia don knows where the camera is,
especially when it was one of their own who told him exactly where it was?
>>>> Another possibility is that it
>>>> would show another person near him who was a CIA asset.
>>> Again, photos can be cropped.
>> Yeah, they are. Some are not.
>
> The CIA could crop out anyone they don`t ant seen with Oswald, so
> Oz being with people the CIA doesn`t want Oz seen with is not a good
> reason for suppressing the photos.
>
Get this through your head. The CIA did not crop the original photos.
They cropped only copies they gave to the Warren Commission.