JFK discussion here!

[pillockandtwat]

You look at Oswalds life and it just makes no sense unless he's an operative of some kind. His weird circuitous defection and the way he just waltzes back into the country even though he's a traitor. And for a communist, nobody has every explained why he had no comrades. He much preferred hanging out around right wing and government intelligence characters like De Mohrenschildt and Ferrie, the kind of people who hated everything Oswald overtly claimed to believe.

Oh I agree with that entirely. The thing is, you look at people's lives, anybody's and quite frequently they don't make sense. I didn't know about a possible Angleton connection, but Oswald as a counter-intelligence agent makes a tremendous amount of sense. Of course with Angleton you get mirrors within mirrors.

Purely hypothetically, would Angleton or his officers engage in a mock-assassination set-up to uncover the Soviet mole they believed sat on top of the CIA? Would they engage in a scenario as realistic as possible, with participants who believed it was real, even if it put the President's life in danger? It's a logical trade-off on intelligence terms. The Vice President can always step in to replace JFK, but there's no way you're getting the CIA back until you've exposed the mole. Mind you, this is all complete conjecture, and it doesn't sit very well at all with the mafia angle.

[biggytitbo]

...but according to this Usenet post, first published on McAdams' site.

That memo just shows that they had some meetings about the fact that someone they had had contact with was likely (they thought) to get convicted of conspiring to kill the President. Surely that's a natural thing to do, whether or not they wished to affect the investigation?

Thats a pretty unrealistically benign spin on it, both on the CIAs intentions and their relationship with Shaw. It overlooks that the CIA were connecting Shaws lawyers with people who had stolen Garrisons documents - such as William Gurvich, that they were in contact with Ed Wegman, one of Shaws lawyers and that he was furnishing them documents. They were also in contact with people like Walter Sheridan who made it his mission to 'destroy' Garrison via his programs for NBC. Another CIA lawyer - Herbert Miller was also feeding them intelligence from Garrisons office. Of course, most importantly it totally overlooks the CIAs long complicity in the case and their involvement with Oswald.

[jutl]

Thats a pretty unrealistically benign spin on it, both on the CIAs intentions and their relationship with Shaw. It overlooks that the CIA were connecting Shaws lawyers with people who had stolen Garrisons documents - such as William Gurvich, that they were in contact with Ed Wegman, one of Shaws lawyers and that he was furnishing them documents. They were also in contact with people like Walter Sheridan who made it his mission to 'destroy' Garrison via his programs for NBC. Another CIA lawyer - Herbert Miller was also feeding them intelligence from Garrisons office. Of course, most importantly it totally overlooks the CIAs long complicity in the case and their involvement with Oswald.

None of that is in that memo, though. The memo itself is not evidence for what you are saying at all.

[biggytitbo]

It is evidence for what I'm saying.


You might not think its very good evidence, but it is evidence. I think its good evidence, especially when used in the wider context.

[jutl]

It is evidence for what I'm saying.

You might not think its very good evidence, but it is evidence. I think its good evidence, especially when used in the wider context.

The events it describes would have happened whether Garrison was interfered with by the CIA or not, so it has no value in demonstrating that he was. The context may be rich with meaningful evidence, but this memo is not made in itself any less pointless by it.

[biggytitbo]

The events it describes would have happened whether Garrison was interfered with by the CIA or not, so it has no value in demonstrating that he was. The context may be rich with meaningful evidence, but this memo is not made in itself any less pointless by it.

You'd have to demonstrate that it was standard practise for the CIA to set up special groups surrounding trials of someone they were only innocently involved with years before before you could claim it would have happened regardless. That doesn't seem to be based on anything.

[jutl]

You'd have to demonstrate that it was standard practise for the CIA to set up special groups surrounding trials of someone they were only innocently involved with years before before you could claim it would have happened regardless. That doesn't seem to be based on anything.

You don't think that the CIA would check to see if any of its former contacts were touched with Garrison's investigation? You don't think that when one of them is being prosecuted for conspiracy to kill the President that they might have a meeting about it? I think you have to try very, very hard to see anything at all unexpected or sinister in that series of events.

[biggytitbo]

Could I lazily ask people for some book recommendations about the JFK assassination? Biggytitbo in particular? Cheers.

Some good ones - Anthony Summers Conspiracy, John Newman's Oswald and the CIA, the JFK Assassination debates  (this is a good one if you're on the fence), Breach of Trust is best for the WC, Last Investigation is best for the HSCA. Despite the anecdotal stuff, I think JFK and the Unspeakable is the best for the whys and the bigger picture. Presumed Guilty by Howard Rothman is quite is good one too, with some good bits about Oswalds supposed escape from the 6th floor that dont appear anywhere else.

Bad Ones - Case Closed and Reclaiming History are tendentious lawyers cases designed to close off all debate and redeem the original now thoroughly debunked Warren Commission report. They're mutually contradictory in several key areas too, notably the SBT.

Of them all, Newman's book, whilst really hard going, is probably the best because it backs everything it argues with documents and facts that are very hard to refute. Its the one the LN crowd don't like to address because its so well documented and backed up.

[pillockandtwat]

Thanks for that. I wanted some recs because I'm sure there must be a lot of dreadful books out there to avoid.

[Cerys]

Lone Nuts don't get impersonated.

Are copycat crimes just coincidental, then?

[pillockandtwat]

Are copycat crimes just coincidental, then?

I think Biggy is referring to the multiple Oswalds that were seen in Mexico and Texas prior to the assassination, in the Soviet Embassy and car dealerships and elsewhere, spouting off in favour of communism. Possibly.

I never understood why that would have constituted remotely good tradecraft. It would seem to increase the risk of exposure rather than paint a convincing picture of the assassin. It may just be eyewitness confusion in the aftermath of the event. Possibly the car dealer just wanted publicity for his business, who knows.

[Cerys]

I think Biggy is referring to the multiple Oswalds that were seen in Mexico and Texas prior to the assassination, in the Soviet Embassy and car dealerships and elsewhere, spouting off in favour of communism. Possibly.

Thankyou muchly :)

Meanwhile -

It is evidence for what I'm saying.


You might not think its very good evidence, but it is evidence. I think its good evidence, especially when used in the wider context.

You can call anything you like evidence. I could glue a dog turd to a kettle and call it evidence for Jesus if I like it doesn't make it legitimate.

Tum-te-tum-te-tum....

[biggytitbo]

Are copycat crimes just coincidental, then?

They don't get copycattted before the thing they were famous for.


We know for a fact, from the CIA and FBI, that someone was impersonating Oswald at the Russian embassy in Mexico City, and that the CIA strenuously did everything they could to cover that fact up.

[biggytitbo]

Thankyou muchly :)

Meanwhile -

Tum-te-tum-te-tum....

Yeah, I was saying that evidence is just a thing used to support an argument. It's not good, bad, might or wrong in itself.


Therefore Jutl is wrong to argue the memo is not evidence. What he's saying is he doesn't think it's very good evidence, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to argue.

[MojoJojo]

To be tedious, Jutl didn't argue it wasn't evidence, just that it wasn't evidence for what you were saying. There is a big gap between "the CIA thought a former contact being convinced of conspiracy to assassinate was something that needed to discussing" and "the CIA orchestrated a smear campaign against Garrison"?

[biggytitbo]

There was a smear campaign against Garrrison. Thst memo is evidence that the CIA were prime culprits, especially when used with what else we know about the network of characters connecting the CIA, Shaw's lawyers, NBC and people who had worked in Garrisons office.

[MojoJojo]

Make a case - you currently have presented one piece of evidence and lots of "we know that"s

OK - that's unfair to suggest you should present all the evidence in a forum thread- and I will try and actually read some of the book you have suggested. I don't want to sound like a wikipedia "editor", but you have made a huge number of assertions with only one bit of evidence presented so far. I really don't know enough about it to contest your points, but a few more bits of evidence would really help me respect what you're saying.

Even simple shit like saying "elements within the CIA" rather than "the CIA" would make this stuff a lot more credible. Semantics, yes, but seeing big organisations as single entities (and therefore conflating actions of people who happen to work for same organisation but have no other connection) is a lot of the problem. A confusion of personal actions and policy. A certain twitterer is applying the same logic to C&B now.

(I'm feeling guilt because I inadvertently started all this again with this post http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=34925.msg1842254#msg1842254 which was just supposed to be a joke.

I also think Steven was just having a laugh.)

[pillockandtwat]

Anthony Summers co-authored The File on The Tsar with Tom Mangold. Has anyone read it? Somebody told me it was pretty wrong.

Tom Mangold also co-authored the book Plague Wars with Jeff Goldberg, which I can tell you is also pretty wrong, so maybe File on the Tsar is more Mangold than Summers.

Looking for downloads of those books now Biggy.

[biggytitbo]

Make a case - you currently have presented one piece of evidence and lots of "we know that"s

OK - that's unfair to suggest you should present all the evidence in a forum thread- and I will try and actually read some of the book you have suggested. I don't want to sound like a wikipedia "editor", but you have made a huge number of assertions with only one bit of evidence presented so far. I really don't know enough about it to contest your points, but a few more bits of evidence would really help me respect what you're saying.

Even simple shit like saying "elements within the CIA" rather than "the CIA" would make this stuff a lot more credible. Semantics, yes, but seeing big organisations as single entities (and therefore conflating actions of people who happen to work for same organisation but have no other connection) is a lot of the problem. A confusion of personal actions and policy. A certain twitterer is applying the same logic to C&B now.

(I'm feeling guilt because I inadvertently started all this again with this post http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=34925.msg1842254#msg1842254 which was just supposed to be a joke.

I also think Steven was just having a laugh.)

It really should be taken as read that CIA means elements of the CIA since for all intents and purposes there is no such thing as the CIA, it's so fragmented and compartmentalised, rather than some monolithic homogenous entity. I have already argued the possibility thst Oswald was been run by 1 part of the CIA against another and that's something Newman expands upon in his book quite convincingly.


Im not really that big on the Garrison stuff myself, I was just responding to other posters. Most of the points I'm making come from ARRB releases and other relatively recent discovers, you are of course free to go google them if you're interested.


My main thing is the impossibility of the SBT which I'm happy to discuss in detail if you wish.

[biggytitbo]

Anthony Summers co-authored The File on The Tsar with Tom Mangold. Has anyone read it? Somebody told me it was pretty wrong.

Tom Mangold also co-authored the book Plague Wars with Jeff Goldberg, which I can tell you is also pretty wrong, so maybe File on the Tsar is more Mangold than Summers.

Looking for downloads of those books now Biggy.

I don't like Tom Mangold, especially the way he inserted himself into the David Kelly affair.

[dallasman]

Thanks for that. I wanted some recs because I'm sure there must be a lot of dreadful books out there to avoid.

Just so it's clear: Biggytitbo wants you to ignore what are probably the two best anti-conspiracy books out there, as well as the best online resource for CT-debunking information, because he doesn't like what they have to say.
The question is, do you "want to believe", or do you want to know what actually happened? A lot of people have more or less dedicated their lives to proving there was a conspiracy, and they have all failed, instead moving on to the question of "why there was a conspiracy (because there definitely was, even if we can't prove it)".

In the interest of "teaching the controversy", may I suggest you read as many of Biggy's recommendations as you want, and then one of the "bad" ones for balance. Posner is especially good on Oswald's life and character, while Bugliosi is exceptionally comprehensive; his is probably the definitive JFK book.

The basic facts remain:

* Oswald shot JFK. He later shot officer Tippit, and tried to shoot his arresting officer.
* there is absolutely no evidence that anyone else was involved in the planning or execution of these crimes.
* there is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald was employed or recruited by any intelligence agency.

There are thousands of little details to get lost in, and intriguing sidetracks to explore, for conspiracist and LN-proponent alike, but these three basic facts have never been challenged by credible evidence. Biggytitbo of course regards them as laughable, because he is a believer. I used to be one too, back in the day. Funnily enough, it was Jim Garrison's "On The Trail Of The Assassins" and "Heritage Of Stone" that started to turn me around. Since this thread has been largely Garrison-centered, I'll recommend the work of Dave Reitzes. A good place to start could be his dismantling of Oliver Stone's JFK:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

For an overview of Garrison's "case", this is very good:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm

(You'll notice it's from that "bad" site, but it deals directly with a lot of Biggytitbo's claims, without mentioning the Thorburn Position)

[pillockandtwat]

Cheers (the rather appropriately named) Dallasman, I'm happy to take a gander at all recs. I don't care what the books conclude, just as long as they're not shit. I mean ideally they'll be good or something near it.

I saw an excellent tv doc, can't remember who by, about seven years ago, which painted an entirely convincing portrait of Oswald as a lone assassin without ever having to attach him to any US intelligence cell.

You are quite right about how lives can get lost in all this. Never a truer word. I've always thought it was a particularly unfortunate error of Aaronovitch and also lately of Oliver Kamm to conflate conspiracy theory with anti-Semitism. The birth of conspiracy theory (I'd argue) did not occur with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That has nothing to do with conspiracy theory, which was born on Dealey Plaza, in the simmering heat of a long Cold War. It all started with JFK.

I don't sit on any side of the fence. I don't need to feel the need to bolster or debunk anything. I used to. Now I think I've matured. I don't "want to believe", but it does seem to me that there are aspects of the assassination and its aftermath - perhaps entirely tangential aspects - that show a glimpse of the Deep State.

I would take some umbrage with your third and final basic fact, though.

There is no evidence anywhere that anyone has ever been an agent of an intelligence agency. It's not something that appears on your tax return.  Only in absolutely extreme circumstances - like the Churchill Matrix trail - has an intelligence officer ever said who an agent actually was. It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that Oswald had a handler of sorts, and that he met him every couple of months. The impossibility of evidence doesn't always stem from a deliberately positioned paranoia or delusion. Sometimes it's just a reflection of the world we live in. There may be "absolutely no evidence" (perhaps there is, Biggy will doubtless explain if so), but does that mean you don't think he had any contact with US intelligence? Would you be surprised if he had?

When something like this happens - the assassination of a President, or the slamming of hijacked planes into the World Trade Centre - there will inevitably be some details that we are not allowed to know. Would they fundamentally change our understanding of that event if we did know them? Perhaps not. But that is where conspiracy theory is born - the withheld, the classified, the controlled, the obfuscated, the smeared and the denied. It has nothing to do with race or religion.

Ironically, I think if you ignore the LN/CT binary, you can actually learn more. What is being hidden may not reveal anything further about the assassination, but it might shed light on Cold War politics, counter-intelligence, psyops, propaganda, Cuba, Operation Mongoose, the Mafia, you know, whatever. It is intriguing, is it not? And sadly, dangerously, it is probably also endless. So yeah.

What are we really looking for when we question these things? JFK? Bobby? 9/11? 7/7? David Kelly? Are the same synapses firing in our brain when we think of these disparate events? Do they all stir the same emotions?

We are all played. We pay our intelligence and security services to lie to us. But what is the game? There does not need to be a difference between cock-up and conspiracy. Perhaps they are even symbiotically entwined.

[biggytitbo]

* Oswald shot JFK.

How come there was no gunshot residue on his cheek despite the test shooters using Oswalds rifle having abundant gunshot residue on their faces every time?
How come the vast majority of ear witnesses describe the last 2 shots bunched on top of each other, (will post them after this response.) This rapid firing would have been extremely difficult for Oswald to achieve with his rifle.
The fact the FBI fingerprint experts tested that rifle for prints and couldn't find any, yet one palm printed matched to Oswald then mysteriously appears days later. Then there's CE399, which we now know was not involved in the assassination at all and magically appears in FBI evidence with absolutely no provenance at all. Every single aspect of the evidence against Oswald falls apart with the most cursory critical examination.

He later shot officer Tippit,

How did he do that when Bowleys watch said 1:10 and the fact Markham witnessed the event on her way to catch her regular 1:12  bus pushes the time too early for Oswald to have got there in time?
How come the bullets don't match the shells and cannot be reconciled even if you allege a missing shot?
Also, the bullets could never be matched to Oswald's gun and some witnesses described seeing more than 1 man at the scene.
Most importantly of all, even if Oswald killed Tippit it has no baring on a conspiracy to kill JFK.

and  tried to shoot his arresting officer.

Really? that's a LN factoid, the FBI tested Oswalds gun and were unable to find any evidence at all of any kind of misfire.  Of course in a melee of tangled limbs it's impossible to say what happened, but the pysical evidence says this simply did not happen.

* there is absolutely no evidence that anyone else was involved in the planning or execution of these crimes.

There's a fuck load of evidence Oswald wasn't a lone nut though, which by definition means there were others involved.

* there is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald was employed or recruited by any intelligence agency.

Apart from him mysteriously becoming fluent in russian, his bogus discharge from the marines, his weird circuitous defection, the fact that he traitorously offered the soviets military secrets but that was fine and he got an inexplicably easy return back to the usa, the fact he acts exactly like an intelligence operative for almost his entire adult life, the fact that he actively works to smear the FPCC in New Orleans, the fact that he was a communist with no comrades, he hung out exclusively with right wingers and intelligence operatives, the fact he had a rare and expensive minox spy camera, the fact that CIA agent Otto Otepkaa career was destroyed after he started to investigate whether Oswald was a fake defector, the fact that despite a us marine defecting to the ussr at the height of the cold war setting the entire US state apparatus flashing like a christmas tree, The CIA didn't open a 201 file on him for over a year, the fact that he was one of only 200 people on the CIAs top secret mail interception  programme even though he still didn't have a 201 file, the fact that when his 201 file finally turned up it was in the wrong place in the CIA - in one of the top secret nooks run by James Angleton.

I could go on, there's enough stuff to fill a book, which is why there are many, Oswald and the CIA, Spy Saga, Harvey and Lee (minus the double stuff) to name 3.

[biggytitbo]

As promised, here is the overhelming list of witnesses that all same the same very specific thing - the last 2 shots bunched together, which completely discredits the already ludicrous official shooting sequence and SBT and casts grave doubt on the idea there was just 1 gunman. And his is just the list of people who state it explicitly, as big a list imply he same.

Motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood:
The last two were closer than the first. In other words, it was the first, and then a pause, and then the other two were real close.

Railway superintendent Lee Bowers:
I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together.

Dallas Major Earle Cabot:
There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession.

Congressman Ralph Yarborough:
By my estimate - to me there seemed to be a longer time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots.

Secret service agent William Lawson
I heard two more sharp reports, the second two were closer together than the first. There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two.

Secret service agent Will Greer:
The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other.

Deputy Sherrif Roger Craig:
Mr. BELIN. And what about between the second and third?
Mr. CRAIG. Not more than 2 seconds. It was, they were real rapid.

District clerk James crawford:
The second shot followed some seconds, a little time elapsed after the first one, and followed very quickly by the third one.

Reporter Mary Woodward:
And then I heard the second one, and this time I knew what had happened, because I saw the president's motion, and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one.

Ladybird Johnson
suddenly there was a sharp loud report; a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession

Billy Lovelady
After he had passed and was about 50 yards in front of us I heard three shots. There was a slight pause after the first shot then the next two was right close together.

Secret Service agent Rufus Youngblood
There seemed to be a longer span of time between the first and the second shot than there was between the second and third shot

Secret Service agent Tim McIntyre
The Presidential vehicle was approximately 200 feet from the underpass when the first shot was fired, followed in quick succession by two more.

Special Agent John Ready
He thought the first shot was a firecracker thrown from behind them. He said that the second and third shots were closer in time than the first and second shots.

Secret Service Agent George Hickey
At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound from the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them

Press Secratery Malcolm Kilduff
After the first shot he recalls that Merriman Smith of the United Press International asked, "What was that?" and that he replied, "It sounded to me like a firecracker." The second shot, according to Kilduff, came at least five seconds after the first. The third, which killed Kennedy, followed after a shorter interval

Special Agent Forrest V. Sorrel
There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.

Reporter Thomas Atkins
At first I thought it was a firecracker going off and I thought that whoever threw that thing at the motorcade is going to be in a heck of a lot of trouble with the Secret Service. Then when I heard the second shot, I realized it was gunfire. The third shot came very quickly after that, in less than two seconds, I'm sure. In thinking about it later, I got the distinct impression that it was almost like a little kid playing cowboys and Indians, the sounds came so close together. That is, between the second and third shots. It was bang...bang, bang. Like kids playing. That's exactly how I remember it.

Press Photographer Clint Grant
we had just turned onto Houston Street when we heard one shot—pause—two shots in rapid succession. I thought it was someone playing a prank—maybe a kid's cherry bomb.

Press photographer Robert Jackson
"he advised the car in which he was riding was proceeding north on Houston Street...and the presidential car had already turned left on Elm Street...when he heard three loud reports which sounded like shots from a gun.* He stated that there was a "pause" after the first shot, followed by the second and third shots in rapid succession

Postal superintendent John Martin
the shot came over my head, and I looked around to see who was throwing a firecracker. Then a few seconds later there were two more shots...One shot then a space of time, then two more rapidly

District clerk Mary Mitchell
as the Presidential car passed the curb in front of the Texas School Book Depository, (TSBD), she and her companion heard a loud report or explosion, then, after four or five seconds, there were two more rapid explosions

TSBD employee Pearl Springer
After the presidential party passed her* and turned the corner going west on Elm Street, she heard what she thought was a shot...She recalled that after the first shot, there was a pause, then two more shots were fired close together

TSBD employee Danny Arce
The President's automobile had passed and was a short way down Elm Street towards the underpass when I heard something like a gunshot and then a second and third shot close together

TSBD employee Joe Molina
...the first shot was fired then there was an interval between the first and second longer than the second and third.

TSBD Wesley Frazier
Just right after they made the turn there was several motorcycle policeman leading the motorcade and right after they turned, after the car made the turn, it sounded like the motorcycles were backfiring...Shortly after there were two more in rapid succession.

Dr. Samuel Paternostro
He said he estimated several seconds, possibly four or five more, elapsed between the first report and the second and third reports.* He said he observed President John F. Kennedy when he appeared to grab his head and thought at the time he is "well-trained;" then, when the other reports followed in quick succession, he realized that the President had been shot

Deputy Sherrif Jack Faulkner
I'll never forget the sequence: there was a pause between number one and number two, then number two and three were rapid

Deputy Sherrif Luke Mooney
we heard this shot ring out. At that time, I didn't realize it was a shot...there was a short lapse between these shots. I can still hear them very distinctly—between the first and second shot. The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse between the first and second shot. Why, I don't know

Police officer Seymour Weitzman
Three distinct shots...First one, then the second two seemed to be simultaneously

Public welfare field worker Ruth Smith
She was on the second floor balcony of the old red courthouse...she heard what she felt was a shot. She stated there was a pause then two more shots fairly close together

Court Clerk Rose Clarke
She noted that the second and third shots seemed closer together than the first and second shots

Court clerk Lillian Mooneyham
Following the first shot, there was a slight pause and then two more shots were discharged, the second and third shots sounding closer together

Arnold Rowland
Then approximately 5 seconds, 5 or 6 seconds, the second report was heard, 2 seconds the third report

Barbara Rowland
as they turned the corner we heard a shot, and I didn't recognize it as being a shot, I just heard a sound, and I thought it might be a firecracker. And the people started laughing at first, and then we heard two more shots...the second and third were closer than the first and second

[dallasman]

[litany of predictable CT factoids and myths]

I've heard all of those before, and they've all been debunked, over and over. You just choose to ignore that, because you choose to believe that there was a conspiracy.

Anyone curious about this is encouraged to look into each and every one of them from a non-CT perspective (basically, the sources Biggytit singled out as "bad") and decide for themselves what sounds more reasonable. Best place to start if you want to check some of those claims right now:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[dallasman]

As promised, here is the overhelming list of witnesses that all same the same very specific thing - the last 2 shots bunched together

Almost none of them say "bunched together"; they say they were in rapid succession, which nobody disputes (it's confirmed by the Z film). The notion that this blows the lone shooter scenario out of the water is completely unfounded. If they had been so close together that they couldn't possibly have been fired by the same gun, you'd think a bigger deal would have been made of this at the time.

[dallasman]

I don't "want to believe", but it does seem to me that there are aspects of the assassination and its aftermath - perhaps entirely tangential aspects - that show a glimpse of the Deep State.
......
What is being hidden may not reveal anything further about the assassination, but it might shed light on Cold War politics, counter-intelligence, psyops, propaganda, Cuba, Operation Mongoose, the Mafia, you know, whatever. It is intriguing, is it not?

Yes and yes. A "deep" study of the assassination and its aftermath can be an illuminating journey into the workings of Cold War-era US intelligence. I think that's part of the fascination for many JFK researchers, even if they have abandoned any notion of CIA/SS/FBI involvement in the assassination ("rogue" or otherwise). For me personally, any remaining fascination is mostly with the CT aspect, the way it has evolved and why it refuses to die. I won't deny I still find the theoretical possibility of a conspiracy attractive, because it's such a fantastic story. I still think "JFK" is a great movie, for instance. But after studying the case on and off for fifteen years, I'm pretty firmly down on one side of the fence, as you can probably tell.

There may be "absolutely no evidence" (perhaps there is, Biggy will doubtless explain if so), but does that mean you don't think he had any contact with US intelligence? Would you be surprised if he had?

"Contact" is somewhat ambiguous in this context. If it turned out he was collaborating with the CIA in any capacity, then that would surprise me, yes. But the idea that intelligence agencies would have an interest in his activities and keeping an eye on him is pretty uncontroversial, seeing as he was a returned defector, a conspicuous Marxist and Castro supporter who tried to "infiltrate" an Anti-Castro group (that apparently did have some ties to the CIA, iirc). It's also not that surprising that some will take those aspects of LHO's life and run with them, but going by what those who actually knew him (wife, family, co-workers, former friends and associates) have said, he really was a "lone nut" from an early age and, only became more so as time went on.

[pillockandtwat]

Ever occur to you Dallas that you might still "want to believe"? I mean whatever you were looking for before, whatever you hoped the story would give you, that you might have clung to as conspiracy theorist, you still crave? I'm just speculating. It seems strange, but also I grant you at the same time entirely natural, to flip from conspiracy theory to conspiracy denial. Both of them are ardent positions, aren't they?

I mean I'm relatively happy, from the very small amount of reading I've done, with Oswald as the lone gunman. But only on the balance of probabilities. I don't need to believe in a lone nut theory, and I don't need to believe in a conspiracy. I'm also happy and interested with what Biggytitbo has raised, I can't see any intellectual dishonesty on his part, although you're more familiar with the case than I.

I can see Sirhan Sirhan as a lone nut. I can see John Hinckley Junior as a lone nut. I can see (slightly different kettle of fish) Mark Chapman as a lone nut. They exist and they're out there.

Lee Harvey Oswald? He's a complicated figure, isn't he?

I've shot competitively, though it was many years ago, so I'm not wholly unfamiliar with rifles. 8.3 seconds. Moving target. 81 metres. Immense human pressure. And he has a scope, not iron sights, which enhances the accuracy but makes tracking more difficult. What's more, he's crouching at a windowsill, he hasn't even rigged up a platform to lie prone on. The rifle doesn't even have a sling, which you can wrap round your wrist and to give you a bit more stability.

Oswald had never killed anyone before and he gets three shots in the President of the United States while on his lunch break. It is, if nothing else, a very impressive feat of marksmanship. I mean it's verging on the cusp of the impossible. Especially if he didn't have a gun bag. If that rifle was transported a brown paper package it only takes the slightest knock to put the scope out. And I mean he never owned a gun bag, nor a gun locker, that rifle lived in blankets.

Apparently he attempts to shoot Edwin Walker with the same rifle that April, and he fucks that up from 30m while on the same elevation as the target. And the Warren Commission reckon Oswald wanted to kill Walker because the general was anti-Kennedy. According to police records, neighbours see two men leave the scene, incidentally. 

I understand there were a load of shooters who performed tests with the same rifle afterwards and their results that were almost as good as Oswald's, albeit on a set of stationary targets in a range. Is almost good enough? It isn't, is it? Not for JFK, not for this. I mean you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder about it, because it's so extraordinary. It's spooky stuff.

[biggytitbo]

Dallas, odd that I'm trying to deal with specifics and all you can manage is 'nah debunked'. You need to generally wave stuff away because when you drill down into each specific aspect of the assassination the LN case falls apart.

So lets deal with some specifics. The shooting sequence.

Can you explain how the LN shooting sequence works when Kennedy is hit by the first shot, as the overwhelming body of evidence suggests? The HSCA concluded he first begins to react to a hit at approx z190, and this can be seen in the Zapruder film as he reacts just before he goes behind the sign. A WC panel aslo agreed that he showed signs of a hit as early as 199. We have other photographic confirmation of this, notably Willis 5, which matches approx Z202. Phil Willis took this photo accidently as a reflex action to hearing the first shot. Since we can be sure the last 2 shots were bunched together[nb]Your dismissal of this is ludicrous by the way, the testimony is overwhelming and as clear as day, the last 2 shots were bunched together, even Dulles admitted that at the WC[/nb] and z313 is one of them, the first shot must be the one that hits Kennedy in the back.

This disproves every single LN version of the shooting ever, specifically the contradictory ones promoted by your poster boys Posner and Bulgiosi.

Not that their babblings really need debunking, they're already too ludicrous for words.

They actually posit the first shot missed early and somehow hit Tague[nb]They offer no evidence for this, they just need to it to be true for their theory[/nb], who was stood an entire City block away from its trajectory. To show how ludicrous this is, the red dot is where they Bug and Pos say the first shot 'missed' and the blue dot is where Tague was stood.




This is absurd enough, but Tague himself is quite clear he wasn't hit by the first shot.

So lets deal with specifics Dallas, not vague dismissals.

[biggytitbo]

Apparently he attempts to shoot Edwin Walker with the same rifle that April, and he fucks that up from 30m while on the same elevation as the target. And the Warren Commission reckon Oswald wanted to kill Walker because the general was anti-Kennedy. According to police records, neighbours see two men leave the scene, incidentally. 

True and its also worth pointing out that police records record a different bullet type to the one's in Oswalds rifle. Walker actually held the mangled bullet in his hand, and he was so annoyed later on hearing that people were saying it was a 6,5m caracano round from Oswalds rifle that he wrote an angry letter to the HSCA. Walker himself suspected it was an ex-member of staff with a grievance.