Lee H. Oswald EXTREMELY UNSTABLE, SLASHED HIS WRIST, that is why he was picked by CIA in the first place to be a patsy. Bugliosi stop it, you made enough money with your books.
Bugliosi's book is full of misrepresentations, distortions, and downright falsehoods. His case is based on these. He can't even prove Oswald was JFK's killer, let alone prove he acted alone.
I think this guy is making the same kind of assumptions that others make in the other direction. What makes sense to him is what he sees. Just like when this doesn't make sense to some they find something else that does. The truth of the matter is that flat out we will NEVER know for sure everything about this case. Just like you will never know if O.J. really did or not. Too many redacted documents...too much hidden....too long has gone by. I can respect Bugliosi but I do not agree.
Vince is Right On, and I recommend his book to everyone who seeks the "Truth" behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is not going to tell many of you what you want to hear, but the truth is what we seek, not some Hollywood Fantasy. The overwhelming "evidence" of Oswald's guilt far outweighs the plausability of any contrived Conspiracy Theory.
Maybe someday Conspiracy Theorists will come across some actual "evidence" (say, like some curtain rods) on which to hang their fantasies. Until that time JFK Conspiracy Theory will remain nothing more than a Parlor Game where everybody makes their own rules.
his book is not even 1 % worth the paper it is printed on, i am pittied to admit.
in it, in the same vain and patronizing manner like in this video he makes the same a-priori-statements from whom he either works his way backwards OR even would not quantify them at all. just like his most outrageous and ridiculous claims at 0:41 "...because there is nothing to leak out".
that is poor circular logic at best, if any at all, and an insult to any audience.
Although the documentary did a fair job of debunking some of the popular conspiracy theories regarding multiple shooters, it ignored all other political and global issues surrounding the Kennedy presidency that may have motivated his assassination. By doing so, the film overlooked one very critical question. A conspiracy is by definition two or more persons involved in planning an illegal act. Even if there was only a single shooter, how would that fact automatically negate a conspiracy?
I just watched a two-hour documentary entitled "JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet", which dedicated itself to debunking the "magic bullet" theory argued by some "conpriracy theorist". They spend a great deal of time examining in minute detail evidence and simulations - both computer-generated and live - of the assassination, all geared toward the proposition that a conspiracy was highly unlikely because the evidence pointed to a single shooter.
Bugliosi didn't just solve the supposed mystery, he exposed the extent of the deliberate dishonesty of the people who've peddled conspiracy nonsense for years.
And yet, Vincent makes no reference to the voluminous evidence of the intrusive bullet hole in the windshield of Kennedy's Continental convertible. Or the fact that the CIA secretly transported the car back to Dearborn, MI. so the damage repaired before any more people caught on to their scheme.
What is your incentive for lying about a 48 y.o. assassination, Mr. Bug ?
I loved your book "Helter Skelter", read it 3 times, otherwise, sir, you suck !!!
@smh6669 that's been to done to death. It was a fragment that hit the inside of the windshield, never penetrated and would have resulted in a face wound if he had been hit from the front and that didn't happen. What is your incentive for making things up?
@ma121887 if facts and logic can't convince you than just state that you have an irrational need to believe in comic book conspiracy theories and leave it at that.
Dealey Plaza was the worst possible place for a conspiracy, the motorcade just passed blocks and blocks of high rise building with hundreds of angles to shoot the president, easy getaway too, you would never be found. Oswald acted alone, dead men tell no tales.
@billyballs68 You are missing very important points CIA -Center for Intelligent Agency - THEY THINK - So they had to pick a guy with some NUT LOOK, if the plot happened in Miami for sure they would find someone over there too.Oswald could not act alone because he would be caught firing 3 or 4 shots from the window of the 6th floor of the TSBD, it would call the attention of the crowd, so CIA spread snipers all around DP probably 5 snipers, each one would fire ONLY ONE SHOT. Got it ?
@Verdelufe Can you supply me with a list of 5-10 actual pieces of evidence that prove that?, not a list of 5-10 questions, that is the standard tactic of CTers, to ask questions, I'll wait for your list of 5-10 actual pieces of evidence. Thanks.
@billyballs68 There is no question here, I was talking about logic, to be analytical, how the CIA brains work to have a Nut Look, and more than 3 shots would call the attention of the crowd. But if you want physical evidence there is only one besides the neck & head shots that the NCT denied for no reason. I found myself this evidence of a sniper nest I made 4 videos at YT " Cowboy's Sniper Nest", "Cowboys-Lee Bowers Witness men in uniforms" "Cowboy's Rifle Flashes" & "Cowboys missed the shot"
@billyballs68 lets see if you can understand this speaking of being "educated"...when there are dozens of coincidences at some point you have to say that is far beyond all probability.
it's like yea dad my room smells like pot but the neighbors smoke all the time and the wind IS blowing this way...i known 3rd time this week...yea i am the only one with your atm pin and 400 hundred is missing so ?
thats not my signature on the receipt there are many forgers in this world dad...urrr right
@billyballs68 you want factual evidence ??? OZ passed a parefin test....he was arrested in the theater at the same time tippet was being shot many blocks away....ss agents Hill AND Kinney The two agents closest to the Limo BOTH reported TWO SHOTS AFTER the Throat shot...see video Clint Hill interview 1 and video SS agent Kinney and Hill JFK...video John Connally Larry King Mrs Connaly says her husband was hit by a shot other then the throat shot...how's that for evidencial FACT
@renduke Can you please tell me where I can view the physical evidence you claim exists?, like proof Oswald was in the theatre while Tippet was being shot?, please tell me where I can see physical evidence. Forensic science has proven you wrong son.
@renduke Oswald left an abundant trail of incriminating evidence. An assassin, intelligent enough in preparing a »plant« that he even did not know the motorcade route in advance, would not be so careless as to carry incriminating documents in his wallet or leave photographs of himself holding the murder rifle where the police could easily find them.
@renduke No record or Oswald's police interview- If I steal a bike off your front lawn the police will visit your house and write a report-Buliosi is trying to go Manson on this- reaching for anything
@renduke I've known that since i was ten- my point is that the alleged murderer of the president didn't have any recorded interviews- now don't yell at me :-)
@MiamiIndianTribe the pres was murdered that is NOT Alleged...Bugliosi is clueless see video jfk detail agents hill and kinney...the two agents closest to the limo BOTH reported two shots AFTER the throat shot.
@Verdelufe Oswald left an abundant trail of incriminating evidence. An assassin, intelligent enough in preparing a »plant« that he even did not know the motorcade route in advance, would not be so careless as to carry incriminating documents in his wallet or leave photographs of himself holding the murder rifle where the police could easily find them.
LOL, Bugliosi is an absolute joke. You want to read a real book about the JFK assassination? Then read "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James W. Douglass. The lone nut theory is nothing but a strawman argument, based on misinformation, falsified witness testimony, and hypothosis. Not only did Oswald not kill anybody, the EVIDENCE shows that he actually tried to STOP the plot. He was a low-level CIA employee, whose job was to infiltrate radical groups. He was set up.
@LongLiveOx A former CIA agent who was questioned by the Warren comission stated it was them on his death bed. Watch Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory"
@LongLiveOx You're forgetting about the piles of evidence that points to Oswald, mountains of evidence. Oh, and the zero amount of credible evidence that says Oswald didn't do it, LOL!!!! I love Kooks like you.
i would also concied that the Ruby thing does NOT have the typical ear marks of a mob hit or convert op...it would be against every mob and covert rule there is to get that close to Oswald and Not take a head shot.
i should also add as i said before the average laymen can not even begin to concieve of the extents that covert ops go to. my text book page 1 comment in a recent post is in fact just the tip of the icebreg....i am inclined to believe there is a rather good chance they had a guy in the sewer drain...concealment from the public...route of escape...for every 300 ft closer to a target the rate of success increases by a factor of triple
@renduke Even the elite screw up. And often. We'd have to believe that these guys would be capable of pulling this off seamlessly, leaving no trail, and this, probably the most scrutinized event in history. Sewer drain? They'd not be able to get Kennedy from that angle
@1239jer i'de have to actually be in that drain to buy that non shootable story...the local does make prefect sense for all the reasons i mentioned.....also when a target is traveling in a straight line at you or away from you, you really don't need much of an angle
@renduke The angle for sure for the head shot wouldn't work, as JFK was leaning over at near the plane of the top of the door. A shot from the drain would be too low an angle to hit - let alone even see - JFK
@1239jer thats speculation i wouldn't really say one way or the other without actually being down there...most sewer drains afford an angle of about 100 feet down range...i'de like to know how many feet the limo was away from that drain...i am more then sure that is a VERY answerable OBJECTIVE question...not to sure i would get an honest answer from you although i may.
the limo driver highly trained in the art of quick escapes takes no evasive action some 4 seconds after the intial shot...in the interium there was a 2nd shot.
do you recall how quickly they reacted in the regan and ford things.... Oswald then gets killed..then after the fear of a USSR plot they march the new pres around the streets of washington like oh well...Jfk's brain disappears....i mean seriously it is very hard 4 a reasonable person 2 look past all of this
jer PLEASE ! i will probaly need 2nd post for this... for such a nobody...he traveled to and from the USSR with amazing ease....he was interviewed on tv in new orleans...a well known pro castro person then shows up to work on the street of a presidential motorcade carrying a suspecious package and goes COMPLETELY unchallenged...the SS is asked to stand down from gaurding the limo YES THERE IS VIDEO of this....to say a person of Oswalds skill could land such shots is questionable at best.
@renduke He didn't travel "with amazing ease." Others made similar journies to the USSR and OSwald's movements back and forth were not beyond the norm. He wasn't instantly allowed to return, for example. The FBI dropped the ball for sure, which is why the threatening note was destroyed and why these sorts of people now are tracked more closely. What many CTs fail to realize is how incompetent many of these agencies are.
@renduke Obviously, the Secret Service was not up to snuff that day in Dallas but nothing in 48 years have come to light to implicate them in the assassination. Oswald reached the level of Sharpshooter (higher than Marksman) in the marines. Makes him at least average for a marine; excellent compared to the average joe. Experts in front of the WC and HSCA testified it was an easy shot. Ballistics showed the bullets that hit Kennedy came from Oswald’s rifle.
This guy thinks he can convict GOD, if he had the chance. He thinks hes hot shit because he convicted Manson. A 5th grader could have convicted Manson!!!
I saw another video with Bugliosi where he points out that in a crime, an innocent person could have, at most, three pieces of evidence pointing to his guilt. He says in his book, he lays out 53 separate pieces of evidence that irresitably points to Osawald's guilt. Only in a fantasy would (or in the feverish minds of conspiracy buffs) could an innocent person have 53 pieces of evidence pointing to his guilt.
@abennett4 Absolutely true. If one watches "JFK", one gets the impression that they framed this guy Oswald, as if there was no evidence against him other than he was a Marxist and worked at the TSBD. The truth is there is so much evidence pointing directly at Oswald as the perpetrator, it's almost ludicrous to say he wasn't involved. Bug's point is that sometimes 1 or 2 pieces of evidence can actually suggest an innocent man is guilty. He lists some 53 however.
@1239jer while that is true there is AT LEAST that big a list indicating that Oswald was a piece of a bigger puzzel.......in a court of law there would all kinds of room for "reasonable" doubt. i think he was certainly involved but did not act alone. it's well establish that ruby had ties to sam giancana anyone who says he didn't is lieing plain and simple..LO traveled to ussr and back way to easily for a schnook..the list is endless..goes unchallenged carrying an odd looking package
@renduke Most of these issues were addressed by the HSCA which was intent on sniffing out a conspiracy. Oswald's known contacts however don't add up to a conspiracy, nor does his lifestyle and his sources of income. Ruby had underworld contacts, but, again, there is no indication that any of these contacts compelled him to shoot Oswald. While the HSCA concluded "conspiracy," their conclusions as to any players was there was no evidence linking many of the oft-cited players to the killing.
@renduke In a court, it'd be a slam-dunk in terms of linking Oswald to the assassination. I don't think many people are aware just how much evidence links Oswald to the murder. There is NO reasonable doubt as to his guilt, though most CTs aren't reasonable. AS for conspiracy, that's harder to rule out, but as I said above, lacking specific evidence linking him means no determination can be made. There have been many claims, but most are dubious.
@1239jer ummmm did you understand what i wrote ? yes it's a slam dunk he was involved.....there is also a mountain of circumstancial evidence that he was part of a bigger picture......if you can look past at least 20 pieces of circumstancial evidence then he acted alone.
@renduke I don't think you'd be able to make a convincing case that Oswald was part of a conspiracy. Once it is established Oswald killed JFK and did it alone, there is nothing compelling to link him to others. For example, we see no sign of an alternate source of income. We see nothing suggesting he got his job outside the efforts of a neighbour. And the onus would be on those making the case. 48 years on, the best is some dubious witness accounts of him talking to a CIA agent, etc.
@1239jer these discussion often go in endless circles..it appears your mind is close and you have reached your inmovable conclusion...."once it is established Oswald did it alone"
@renduke MInd closed? After reading "Six Seconds in Dallas" in 1972 I believed there had to be a conspiracy. That view held for 20+ years until I realized most of these authors deliberately distorted and ignored evidence which implicated Oswald and Oswald alone. If you take a close look at Oswald, you'd realize that a) he was TOTALLY capable of pulling off the assassination and b) he'd be the LAST guy someone would want to use to carry it out.
@1239jer you can't believe that navie.....the last guy they would want to carry it out ? no doubt...but it appears he was groomed as the prefect patsy...and do you really really believe they would not plan for a fall guy ? PLEASE !
THE BOTTOM LINE ? IF you look at history going all the way back to the days of casear when ever a very high profile figure is taken out 1/2 the time it is a conspriacy...that is fact my friend... i will name just a few
@renduke If you have read the biographies of LHO, he'd be the last guy to be involved in this sort of thing knowingly. And I'm sorry, but the evidence so overwhelming points to him as the assassin, there's simply no way this could have NOT been him. His gun. His fingerprints. Fled the scene. Shot and killed a cop. Tried to do the same upon arrest. Left his wife all his money. Told provable lies while interrogated. etc etc etc.
The truly naive are those who believe this could have been set up.
@1239jer the more you talk the more you discredit youself...the last guy to be involved knowingly.....but he did it and did it alone you see the contradiction ? i am done with you
@renduke Only the terminally naive and gullible like yourself buy this nonsense. There is no "contradiction." He is the last guy who would agree to be involved in a conspiracy OR who conspirators would recruit. Was he set up outside of his knowledge? It strains credulity, except for the gullible. "They" couldn't know if he'd, like most of the TSBD employees, would have watched the motorcade from the street, etc etc.
@1239jer You make a very credible case. CT buffs always try to change the subject (Caesar, for god's sake!) or make illogical connections (Ruby was involved with the mob) and present nothing but the flimziest evidence to back it up. When evidence is presented that refutes a conspiracy, they invarably say that the presenter of the evidence is part of the conspiracy. When all else fails, they tell us we're naive or closed-minded when many times,like you and me, we came from a very pro-CT stance.
@1239jer "The truly naive are those who believe this could have been set up"
.
They were planning this before JFK was even president? they sent him to Russia, even though Oswald had the lowest security and the Russians thought him worthless.
He worked for CIA,FBI,KGB and the Dallas Boyscouts, but lived the life of a pauper for cover.
They gave Oswald fake names and created a double in Mexico
They set up rifles, fingerprints, shirt/blanket fibers, lying witnesses!
@ProtectAus you are SO navie....i can't go into particulars but can swear on my fathers soul...i have seen rather high level officals get on tv and spread all kinds of dis information about a covert case that was in the process of going wrong....yes setting up fake names....planting finger prints and or fire arms....creating doubles...lying witnesses...the surpression of the truth...ARE TEXT BOOK PAGE 1 mo for covert ops.
@renduke When I hear suggestions of the level of cover-up supposedly done, I simply ask Have you ever worked for a government agency? They screw up, bungle and generally live by the axiom "if something can go wrong, it will go wrong." But, according the the CTs, suddenly, in Dallas, a near-seamless conspiracy, lacking any physical evidence, no witnesses to other assassins, no witnesses who could link credibly LHO to anyone... Right. The breathless naivete of some here is astonishing.
@1239jer with self proclaimed detective skills that are far above average you should know the answer to that question.....i will throw in one small disclaimer...not for but in literally in concert with.
@renduke So, we have a lot of stuff that goes nowhere. For example, LHO is Mexico. There is a mountain of evidence which says he went - indeed, he even told investigators he went. So, what do CTs do? Find the one witness who wasn't sure it was Oswald, ignore the dozen others, focus on a photo of non-Oswald, even when it makes zero sense to have an OSwald imposter who looks different, etc etc. If this went to court now, a judge would say "you've failed to make the case of conspiracy."
@renduke What connection did Ruby have with Sam Giancana and if Ruby was out to silence Oswald, why did no one silence Ruby? Some conspiracy theorists think if A knows B and B knows C, then A must be inextricably involved with C. It just doesn’t work that way. If Oswald needed to be "silenced", he would have been dead before he was in police custody. "They" knew where he worked, for gods sake!
@abennett4 well if you know your history Ruby was in FEDERAL CUSTODY AND WAS NOT granted his request to be moved to washinton dc where he felt safe and offered to talk about the crime of the century...it is ALSO FACT that Sam Giancanna Was Murdered the night before he was schuduled to appear before congress about his possiable involment in the crime of the century......let me tell you something I have been on the fringes of covert ops...they will do ANYTHING to protect their interests secrets.
@renduke But he also repeatedly told all who would listen that he and he alone carried out the murder and specifically denied that anyone else was involved. Which makes sense as his killing of LHO bore none of the hallmarks of a mob hit. Further, if Oswald had not asked to change his shirt, Ruby, sending a money order around the corner, would not have been there to shot Oswald.
@renduke There have been hunderds of mobsters who have flipped for the government in the last 48 years. Not one has suggested that organized crime had anything to do with the Kennedy assassination. The FBI conducted extensive electronic surveillance of the mob in the early '60s. These recordings revealed no shortage of unhappiness over the Kennedy administration's crackdown on their activities. However, the HSCA, who leaned pro-CT, found no evidence of involvement in the Kennedy assassination.
@renduke Ruby also thought millions of jews were being murdered in the jail cells below him. Again, if he was threatening to "spill the beans" and those involved in the conspiracy were so powerful, he wouldn't have died of natural causes.
It was the one that consisted between authors {Mark Lane, etc.}, book publishers, and movie makers {Oliver Stone, etc.}...with the intent to profit at the expense of naive, ill informed, mentally challenged, aluminum foil hat wearing losers!!!!
You would do yourself a favour by reading a) the Warren Report and b) Buglioisi's book. If you had, you wouldn't be misled by blatant bullshit like this from Parenti "Oswald was an FBI informant or contract agent, with assigned number S-172 or S-179." or "If not paid by security agencies, how did Oswald support himself during his forays into New Orleans and Dallas?" or "In fact, George de Morenschildt got him the [TSBD] job." I could go on and on.
Rob: Well, your approach, unfortunately, mirrors the approach of too many CTs. Your critic spends more time discussing "agendas" rather than facts and evidence. I've gone to the bother of closely analyzing the Parenti material and realize that he in large part repeats stuff from Stone's JFK. Interestingly, Bug addresses ALL the contentions Parenti brings up with the sole exception of the Russian language school claim.
"... But his arrogance is of little use in untangling the hopelessly conflicted facts in this 44-year old national tragedy. His incessantly hurling slurs such as 'deranged conspiracy theorist,' 'crackpot,' 'con man,' 'kook,' and 'huckster' at virtually all critics inevitably carries a whiff of buffoonery and anxious self-promotion about it. And that's particularly the case when he's flat-out wrong on the facts."
"(But) despite Bugliosi's pugnacious pummeling, he hasn't laid a glove on major elements of the case for conspiracy. And, regrettably, it must be said that the most distinguishing characteristic of this book is its demagogic pugnacity. Bugliosi cleaves the world of opinion holders neatly in two - sensible Warren Commission loyalists and conscious evildoers, the 'conspiracy theorists.'"
Continues Aguilar, "Although Warren Commission skeptics might not welcome this gargantuan new salvo, there is no denying that Bugliosi's Herculean effort is an historic and important contribution. It is valuable not only as a reference for the myriad facts in the case and for debunking some of the pro-conspiracy codswallop that has not elsewhere already been debunked. ..."
Within such a worldview, the JFK assassination is merely one of the more blatant examples of their machinations, and Bugliosi is in actuality defending the honor of the unseen financial elite, and in doing so, playing his role as faithful courtier. Throughout my life, I have always been puzzled by the large number of contradictions that permeate modern America history, but with this notion of elite, behind-the-scenes manipulation of state mechanisms, most of these contradictions disappear.
WC critics are far less responsible for the "widespread skepticism" than the leaders whose honor Bug so passionately defends. I believe, to borrow a concept from Chris Hedges, that these leaders are “courtiers” to an unseen financial elite – not the representatives of the common citizenry; further, throughout the twentieth century the unseen elite have been pursuing a goal of global governance that would make the current state inconvenient, if not obsolete.
"These critics, Bugliosi contends, are also responsible for a widespread loss of faith in once-respected institutions. Such widespread skepticism, 'gestating for decades in the nation's marrow,' he writes, 'obviously has to have had a deleterious effect on the way Americans view those who lead them and determine their destiny.'" Although Bugliosi's social scenario is accurate, I would argue that his contempt is misplaced.
Writes Aguilar, "(Bugliosi) ... devotes 900 more pages of text and endnotes to pounding myriad 'conspiracy theorists' whose efforts over the years, Bugliosi claims, have wrought a grave injustice on the Commission and performed a 'flagrant disservice to the American public.'[2]" It is not just that critics have convinced 75 percent of Americans (Bugliosi's figure [3]) to reject the official truth, which he says happens to be the real truth."
I've made it clear that I'm not going to buy and read a 1,602-page book just to spar with you. So I did the next best thing. I found a review of the book by author Gary L. Aguilar, who embodies two distinctly relevant traits: 1) Bugliosi actually consulted with him on numerous ocassions and is even quoted within the book; and 2) he believes that Bugliosi's conclusions are incorrect.
The bottom line is, the HSCA addressed almost all of those unaddressed questions, and despite concluding "conspiracy" found NOTHING to connect Oswald (as they concluded he fired all shots which struck) to any other groups or individuals who in any way assisted or was complicit with him in the murder of the president.
The common error of many is to start with "qui bono" and identify possible culprits, as if "motive" trumps hard forensic evidence. It doesn't. And that hard evidence says "LHO"
If one dispassionately examines the evidence against LHO, one realizes he was so clearly guilty that it is no surprise the Dallas police and the FBI knew they had their man that evening. The WC investigated LHO and found that his associations, his income and his beliefs were all consistent with he being a lone assassin.
It's a fair critique to note the WC didn't follow up on a lot of leads, but they did far more investigating than the critics seem to ever want to acknowledge.
AS for your comments as to how the WC report could have been reported as "truth" in the first place, the basic conclusions found therein have in fact stood the test of time. The Single Bullet Theory, when examined extensively by the HSCA, that firm for the lawyers and by Myers, none of whom assumed as the WC did a TSBD origin, ALL concluded the trajectories worked.
The autopsy? Beside a dispute over the head entry location, the original autopsy was confirmed as accurate and conclusive.
...and, if the "3rd" shot was 313 and the 4th was after, no better. JFK/Conn were then hit at 206, which simply does not match the Zapruder film. Clearly, something is wrong here. And if the dictabelt evidence is worthless, then the HSCA's second gunman conclusion is worthless too. As there is NO OTHER evidence of a conspiracy!
@1239jer A team of 12 physicists and scientists from Harvard, MIT, Bell Labs (my old employer), Lawrence Berkeley Labs and so on, under the aegis of the National Research Council, looked at the infamous Dictabelt in 1982 and determined that the so-called gunshots were sounds recorded “one minute after the assassination.” Also, the 1st shot that hit Kennedy came no later than ZF frame 225 and the head shot clearly at ZF frame 313. At 18.2 frames/sec, that gave Oswald at least 4.8 seconds. Enough!
@abennett4 you really can't be that stupid.....if the 1st shot is at 225 and the 3rd shot at 313 a total of 4.8 seconds that means he has to get off 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with that piece of shit rifle....= IMPOSSIABLE
@renduke You are being illogical. I said "the 1st shot that hit". The 1st shot that hit was was the 2nd shot that was fired (the 1st shot missed). The 2nd shot that hit was the 3rd shot that was fired. Almost everyone (and as this video makes clear) agrees that the 1st (of 3) shot missed. Using simple algebra, 88 frames divided by 18.2 frames/sec, you get 4.835 seconds between the last TWO shots. Please go back and read my original post. I never said anything different.And the rifle wasnt shit!
The 1979 report appears to be an attempt to rectify the inadequate WC Report, which you've made clear, is also what Bugliosi takes great pains to do. But neither do anything to explain how, in such a wealthy and scientifically progressive nation, such an inadequate report pertaining to the assassination of its President can be presented as truth in the first place. Only when considering the possibility of a "deep state" above and beyond the consitutional state does this make any sense at all.
@robmanzanedo What is interesting about the HSCA is that while concluding "conspiracy" it nevertheless dismisses after much investigation much of the main contentions of the conspiracy community. It concluded that the only shots which struck were fired not only from Oswald's rifle, but by Oswald himself. The "conspiracy" conclusion is based almost solely on the acoustic dictabelt information.
Further, some of the leading committee members were determined to expose what they saw as the true perpetrators of the killing - the Mafia. Despite several years to investigate, huge resources, they concluded there was no evidence to link the Mafia and many of the other oft-named groups said to be behind it. (They did not rule out individual Mafia players, however.)
IOW, if the WC can be accused of rushing to judgment, the HSCA can not. Yet, who were the conspiracists?
And, oh yes. The acoustic evidence. Put aside the scientific debate over that for the moment. Instead, ask yourself, with a million videos here at Youtube on the subject, many high-rez copies of the Zapruder film and the availability of the dictabelt recording, why hasn't someone matched up the visual with the audio? Well, guess what, THEY HAVE. And what have they found? The audio "hits" don't match! With the "4th" as 313, JFK/Conn are hit at 191. Nope.
In addition, I found it very interesting that the wording of the listed items under Section C were consistent for items "a" through "d", which all began with the phrase, "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that ...". Only item "e" differed: "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy."
"D. Agencies and Departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties; President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection; a thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted; the investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate; ...
"C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."
@robmanzanedo This HSCA conclusion was based on faulty acoustical evidence. A team of 12 physicists and scientists from Harvard, MIT, Bell Labs (my old employer), Lawrence Berkeley Labs and so on, under the aegis of the National Research Council, looked at the infamous Dictabelt in 1982 and determined that the so-called gunshots were sounds recorded “one minute after the assassination.”. That's why you hardly ever hear about this "evidence" anymore (even from the CT community).
To 1239jer: I have to assume that Bugliosi spoke about the 1979 Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations. As a refresher, the headings of Parts B, C & D of the Findings Section are as follows: "B. Scientific Acoustical Evidence Establishes a High Probability That Two Gunmen Fired at President John F. Kennedy; Other Scientific Evidence does not Preclude the Possibility of Two Gunmen Firing at the President".
Re Parenti: There are so many issues he raises unanswered by the WC which have since been answered. For example, how did Oswald get from London to Heathrow? While the WC said the direct flight was not feasible (as he checked in by 11:59 PM in Hotel Torni, Helsinki) two indirect flights were - via Copenhagen in at 17:05, via Stockholm in at 17:35. Which is likely what Oswald did. Some claim a military escort for that leg. The better question to ask is: What the hell for? What was the rush?
The basic problem here, Rob, is that it has been well-known for more than 40 years that the WC did not investigate as well as they could have on many issues. But most of those issues have since been thoroughly investigated and the basic conclusions the WC made stand the test of time.
Parenti, unfortunately, has an ax to grind in terms of a supposed "agenda" from the WC etc, as illustrated by the quotes I pulled out. But focussing on the WC ignores that these gaps have been filled.
The interesting part is revealed earlier in the report, where the WC didn't mention any security precautions that should have kept LHO from travelling to Russia. Instead, we get this: "This information from the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency thus suggests that ... (t)he prompt issuance of Oswald's visa may have been merely the result of normal procedures, due in part to the fact that the summer rush had ended." And you wonder why the WC Report is questioned?
@robmanzanedo ...further, spies typically are associated with embassy and business contacts, and not high-profile defectors who make the New York Times. If a spy, LHO makes Clouseau look like a mastermind. In the eyes of the Soviets, if a "spy," this guy was the biggest clown they'd ever met. But they weren't going to turn away a high-profile American... but they sent him to the boondocks and kept him under constant surveillance.
@robmanzanedo The bottom line with LHO in Russia and his return is that far from being the movements of some "spy" or "agent," this was a guy who had delusions of grandeur, only to end up in a radio factory in Minsk (and not some "important" position in the Soviet hierarchy), and then in menial jobs back in America. This guy was no spy or agent, he was a clown. The Soviets knew it (and also knew the Americans would never use a guy like this), and anything new we've learned from them confirms it
Another interesting point from the WC Report involves Russia' allowing LHO's wife to travel to the USA: "The (CIA) has informed the Commission that normally a Soviet national would not be permitted to emigrate if he might endanger Soviet national security once he went abroad.287 Those persons in possession of confidential information, for example, would constitute an important category of such 'security risks.'"
@robmanzanedo Marina to America. Oswald was a VERY unusual case. There were perhaps a dozen US defectors to Russia in those years, his return may be unprecedented. But there are numerous factors here for the Soviets - Oswald knew nothing of import in Russia, neither did Marina. He was more a headache than anything else, but he'd be able to raise a storm if his wife wasn't with him. Since there were no security risks involved, her travel though unusual wasnt sinister
The report also contains a six-paragraph examination of George De Mohrenschildt that ignores many facts about the man later revealed by independent authors and a 1979 Congressional Report by the Select Committee on Assassinations. Hell - you said more about his role as a CIA "contact" than the WC Report: "Neither the FBI, CIA, nor any witness contacted by the Commission has provided any information linking the De Mohrenschildts to subversive or extremist organizations." The whole truth? Right.
@robmanzanedo Mohrenschildt was a very colourful guy. Again, Bug etc are not defending the deficiencies of the WR - but just because they didn't investigate as much as they should have - and just because the CIA and FBI were not forthcoming, does NOT mean "conspiracy." The ONLY relevance here in terms of Mohrenschildt (who was related to Jackie, if memory serves) is if he "guided" LHO in any way. Beyond their social meetings, there is NO evidence of any such "guidance."
Later, the report states that "While in Atsugi, Japan, Oswald studied the Russian language", but it contains not a shred of information about 1) what LHO was doing in Atsugi; 2) the fact that Atsugi was a top secret US base; 3) that major intelligence agencies maintained stations at Atsugi after World War II or 4) that the airbase was the home of the U2 spy plane.
@robmanzanedo Atsugi: Well, this is the sort of innuendo which is a lot of smoke, but no fire. He was a Marine. He was stationed in Japan, along with a great many other Marines. Most of whom had no intelligence clearance, Oswald included. If we take the position that the military lied about his "true" role there, one would wonder why a man with his aptitude didn't last long there, didn't rise in his rank and showed no sign in his past of any special quality which would be needed by intel
The following paragraph is entitled "Residence in the Soviet Union". What??? The examination of LHO's background BEGINS with his defection to the USSR? Hardly an extenive examination of LHO's military background.
@robmanzanedo You seem a bit confused. You should read Bug's book. He most certainly does NOT suggest the WC's efforts were pristine, that the investigation was perfect. And further research on LHO's past, is an example of that. But further research has NOT found evidence as claimed by others of an intel background. For example, let's talk David Ferrie. The WC interviewed and investigated claims the Oswald and Ferrie were in the same Cadet group in NOLA in 1956.
When you say that the intelligence links are "greatly exaggerated", are you contending that NO such links exist? In the sixth chapter's opening paragraph, the WC states that, "Study of the period from Oswald's birth in 1939 to his military service from 1956 to 1959 has revealed no evidence that he was associated with any type of sinister or subversive organization during that period", and they contend that LHO "was young, inexperienced, and had only a limited education."
@robmanzanedo Ferrie: They interviewed several people, including Ferrie, on this connection. Because others raised numerous questions (such as Garrison), the HSCA interviewed far more people. While it was determined that Oswald very likely attended 4 to 10 meetings with Ferrie present, there was NO credible evidence it went beyond that. The only people who say there was a connection say LHO was training for Bay of Pigs - when he was in the USSR etc
Next, you state that the "so-called 'links' to intelligence" and "(h)is security clearance and such has been greatly exaggerated", and you confidently state that these issues are "covered by Bugliosi ad nauseum". As "Bug"'s work is a defense of the WC Report, I will refer to the sections in that report dealing with the "Background of Lee Harvey Oswald" in response, partly because it is the main source and partly because I don't feel like purchasing Bug's book to make a point here!
... "The very structure of the media is designed to produce conformity to established doctrines. In a three–minute stretch between commercials, or in seven hundred words, it is impossible to present unfamiliar thoughts or surprising conclusions with the argument and evidence required to afford them some credibility. Regurgitation of welcome pieties faces no such problems.” Noam Chomsky -- "Necessary Illusions"
“In the Democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force.... A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in the democratic political order, there is always the danger that independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root." ...
Not yours or mine, that's for certain. As I read the statement, Parenti is merely suggesting that the deep or "gangster" state aparatus systematically conceals information pertaining to, and marginalizes those who attempt to independently investigate, their more brutal and immoral actions. Your use of the term "paranoid" is a weak attempt to do the same thing. For a primer on the mass media censorship in the US, refer to "Necessary Illusions" by Noam Chomsky.
Now back to the discussion. Responding to a sentence from Parenti, you contend that those who suspect a conspiracy in the JFK case believe "that if you accept the conclusion of 'no conspiracy' then you are a dupe of greater powers which engineered it." That is your characterization, not Parenti's. No one's calling you or "Bug" a "dupe". Anyone who has followed the media over the past 30 years knows we NEVER get the entire truth from corporate media. Whose interests are served by this reality?
@robmanzanedo I said: "that if you accept the conclusion of 'no conspiracy' then you are a dupe of greater powers which engineered it." That is your characterization, not Parenti's."
True, he didn't say "dupe." He DID say: "To know the truth about the assassination of John Kennedy is to call into question the state security system and the entire politico-economic order it protects...
@robmanzanedo "... This is why for over thirty years the corporate-owned press and numerous political leaders have suppressed or attacked the many revelations about the murder unearthed by independent investigators like Mark Lane... Their efforts reveal a conspiracy to assassinate the president and an even more extensive conspiracy to hide the crime."
On Posner: " a deliberate contrivance that used outright untruths". Corp Media: "The media's ideological gatekeepers..."
“The only way to have intelligent public opinion is to have discussion, and the moment you check discussion you destroy democracy. ... The only way in which we can preserve democracy is to reserve to every citizen of the democracy the right to express the convictions that he has: the right to be right and the right to be wrong. The Constitution does not guarantee us only the right to be correct, we have a right to be honest and in error."
@robmanzanedo Nearing's sentiments are fine, but it doesn't help when critics of the investigations basically describe those investigators and their supporters as complicit in one of the biggest crimes of the century, engaging in lies and suppression. People can have honest differences, but that's not the suggestion at least from Parenti. He suggests those who disagree are criminals and are criminally suppressing the "truth."
To 1239jer: Thank you for the civil and informative response. The subject matter is so controversial and of such importance that, as prior posts have illustrated clearly, the discourse around it usually deteriorates before any substantive truths appear. Before I begin this round, allow me to share the words of Scott Nearing, a socialist critic who was charged under the Espionage Act of 1918 during World War I for writing an anti–war pamphlet as America prepared to enter the conflict:
Mohrenschildt: CIA contact. As a contact, and since LHO was under surveillance upon his return from Russia, it should come as no surprise that the CIA asked him about LHO. Further, the FBI also had him under watch, and Hostey received a threat from Oswald. Why would the FBI and CIA tend to hide these contacts? Because they were covering their asses (especially the FBI) for not tailing LHO closer ESPECIALLY after receiving a threat weeks before JFK came. etc etc
The claims made by Parenti and by you Rob are the sort of claims which have been assessed and found wanting, in some cases for decades. And deliberate distortions are the mainstay of a lot of these theories. Take Mohrenschildt. He was connected to LHO via the tiny Dallas Russian community. He, like many businessmen of the era, were contacted by intelligence agencies as they frequently travelled to central and south America. This was absolutely typical contact. He was no "spy."
Parenti: "Oswald's overall employment record and income sources remain something of a mystery. To this day, the government refuses to release his tax returns, with no explanation as to what issue of national security is at stake."
The more I read, the more I shake my head. The IRS is not authorized to release ANYONE'S tax returns.(!) AS to his income, the WC accounted for all of about $10 of his income once he returned from Russia. No mystery here at all. It;s in the Report.
Parenti: "Oswald spent most of his time with rabid anti-communists, including emigré Cubans and CIA operatives. Besides Banister and de Mohrenschildt, there was David Ferrie. (In his book First Hand Knowledge, Robert Morrow, a conservative businessman and CIA operative, tells how he served as a pilot on CIA missions with Ferrie.) Oswald also knew businessman Clay Shaw..."
This bullshit would take several essays to properly address. Let's see the Ferrie evidence, for example.
Here are Parenti's closing words: "Most of the independent investigators I have met seem to be serious politically literate people. Their struggle to arrive at the truth is not impelled by a love of conspiracies but by a concern for the political and historic importance of the case. They seek the truth no matter how dirty it might be. That process of confronting the machinations of the national security state is (not a conspiracy hobby - it) is an essential part of the struggle for democracy."
Does he write about Oswald's relationship with George de Mohrenschildt, who was "part of a network of ex-Nazis contracted by the CIA"? Does he cite the "CIA memorandum" that "advised de Mohrenschildt on how to handle" him? Did he mention that de Mohrenschildt was killed by a gun blast to the head three hours after a House Assassinations Committee Investigator had tried to contact him, or any of the other twenty-four persons who had information related to the case that also met violent deaths"?
Does Bugliosi cite the fact that in February 1959, Oswald failed the Marine Corps proficiency test in Russian, and more importantly, does he mention that Oswald later developed some fluency in Russion by attending the U.S. Army's School of Languages at Monterey? Does Bugliosi explain how "after two-and-a-half years, Oswald's sudden request to return to the United States was immediately granted by U.S. officials--all this after he had threatened to give away state secrets to the Soviets"?
Yes, it is a large undertaking. But you didn't answer my question - does Bugliosi cite any of the authors listed in Parenti's article? Does he describe HOW Oswald "defected" to the U.S.S.R.? Did he make any mention of Oswald's links to the U.S. intelligence community or his secret security clearance as a Marine while he was working at Marine Air Control in Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan, a top secret location from which the CIA launched U2 flights and performed covert operations in China?
Whether you care to admit it or not, the evidence uncovered by these "conspiracy theorists" point to the conclusion that Oswald may indeed have been a patsy. If you read Bugliosi's work and take the time to read Parenti's article, I would have a simple question for you: did Mr. Bugliosi mention any of the research compiled by the investigators referenced in the article? And if not, does this provide any reasonable doubt in your mind?
In this article Parenti writes, “for over thirty years the corporate-owned press and numerous political leaders have suppressed or attacked the many revelations about the murder unearthed by independent investigators like Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, Carl Oglesby, Harold Weisberg, Anthony Summers, Philip Melanson, Jim Garrison, Cyril Wecht, Jim Marrs … and many others. ... Their efforts reveal a conspiracy to assassinate the president and an even more extensive conspiracy to hide the crime.”
@robmanzanedo The first clue here is how Parenti characterizes those researchers - many of whom have NO corporate/government ties.: "...the corporate-owned press and numerous political leaders have supressed or attacked the many revelations...." This is paranoid bullshit. It suggests - wrongly - that if you accept the conclusion of "no conspiracy" then you are a dupe of greater powers which engineered it. Is Bugliosi, the guy who suggests Bush should have been impeached, some "dupe"?
@robmanzanedo Yes, the claims in the article have been exhaustively rebutted by Bugliosi and others. Such as how could he get to Helsinki? How could he get such a quick Marine discharge? How did he get so readily admitted. Many of these issues - such as the quick readmittance - were covered by the WC, and the debate within State indicates there was a lot of resistance to allowing this. But if you rely on the word of one person, you wouldn't know this, would you?
I didn’t read Mr. Bugliosi’s book either, but one significant clue to his mistaken conclusion is how, in this speech, he begins the investigation of Oswald only AFTER his return from the Soviet Union. This misses many large pieces of the puzzle. I would refer you to an article entitled “The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State” by Michael Parenti as a relatively concise compilation of facts uncovered by many investigators.
@robmanzanedo Bug spends more than 100 pages on Oswald before the USSR and during the USSR. Maybe in this speech he doesn't go there, but he most certainly does in the book. Exhaustively.
@robmanzanedo What Parenti covers in his essay vis a vis Oswald is covered by Bugliosi ad nauseum. First, the so-called "links" to intelligence while at the Marines. His security clearance and such has been greatly exaggerated by later researchers, he was never given intelligence training. The Monterey language claim has long been debunked. I'm amazed that Parenti repeats it (also covered by Bug). BTW, the WC had no authority and did not "classify" documents as Parenti claims.
Arthur says Bug makes "no case" for Oswald acting alone. And you say you read the book? Do you also claim that the Bible doesnt say Jesus is God? As I said before, after reading the book, you'd see there is no other conclusion but that Oswald shot the president, and Oswald acted alone. Obviously, most critics here have never read his book OR the Warren Report. He, unlike those, rely on EVIDENCE, not OPINION. One is entitled to their own opinion, one is not entitled to their own facts.
Lee H. Oswald EXTREMELY UNSTABLE, SLASHED HIS WRIST, that is why he was picked by CIA in the first place to be a patsy. Bugliosi stop it, you made enough money with your books.
Verdelufe 2 days ago
Bugliosi's book is full of misrepresentations, distortions, and downright falsehoods. His case is based on these. He can't even prove Oswald was JFK's killer, let alone prove he acted alone.
smartalek65 6 days ago
I think this guy is making the same kind of assumptions that others make in the other direction. What makes sense to him is what he sees. Just like when this doesn't make sense to some they find something else that does. The truth of the matter is that flat out we will NEVER know for sure everything about this case. Just like you will never know if O.J. really did or not. Too many redacted documents...too much hidden....too long has gone by. I can respect Bugliosi but I do not agree.
DedHedJosh 1 month ago
Comment removed
polskie90 3 weeks ago
Vince is Right On, and I recommend his book to everyone who seeks the "Truth" behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is not going to tell many of you what you want to hear, but the truth is what we seek, not some Hollywood Fantasy. The overwhelming "evidence" of Oswald's guilt far outweighs the plausability of any contrived Conspiracy Theory.
BlueWolfe38 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Maybe someday Conspiracy Theorists will come across some actual "evidence" (say, like some curtain rods) on which to hang their fantasies. Until that time JFK Conspiracy Theory will remain nothing more than a Parlor Game where everybody makes their own rules.
BlueWolfe38 1 month ago
Comment removed
trycoun 1 month ago
I cannot take Vincent Bugliosi serious anymore.
trycoun 1 month ago
@trycoun
Confirmation bias? Read his book first.
Aaberg123 1 month ago
Comment removed
trycoun 1 month ago
Comment removed
trycoun 1 month ago
@Aaberg123
his book is not even 1 % worth the paper it is printed on, i am pittied to admit.
in it, in the same vain and patronizing manner like in this video he makes the same a-priori-statements from whom he either works his way backwards OR even would not quantify them at all. just like his most outrageous and ridiculous claims at 0:41 "...because there is nothing to leak out".
that is poor circular logic at best, if any at all, and an insult to any audience.
trycoun 1 month ago
@trycoun i'm pretty sure he burns whole conspiracy shithouse down.
polskie90 2 weeks ago
Although the documentary did a fair job of debunking some of the popular conspiracy theories regarding multiple shooters, it ignored all other political and global issues surrounding the Kennedy presidency that may have motivated his assassination. By doing so, the film overlooked one very critical question. A conspiracy is by definition two or more persons involved in planning an illegal act. Even if there was only a single shooter, how would that fact automatically negate a conspiracy?
robmanzanedo 2 months ago
I just watched a two-hour documentary entitled "JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet", which dedicated itself to debunking the "magic bullet" theory argued by some "conpriracy theorist". They spend a great deal of time examining in minute detail evidence and simulations - both computer-generated and live - of the assassination, all geared toward the proposition that a conspiracy was highly unlikely because the evidence pointed to a single shooter.
robmanzanedo 2 months ago
Bugliosi didn't just solve the supposed mystery, he exposed the extent of the deliberate dishonesty of the people who've peddled conspiracy nonsense for years.
andrelebaron 3 months ago
I believe in coincidences, yes, but not when it coincides with lying government secret agents and those who shill for them.
Fact: Oswald killed a Dallas cop
Fact: Ruby killed Oswald
Fact: The C.I.A. killed President Kennedy
Fact: Bugliosi's bullshit killed his credibility
Go retire, Vincent, there's no fool like an Old Fool
I ain't buying your bullshit...
"Reclaiming History" is 1,549 pages of regurgitated lies.
You wasted your time on it and a good tree, too !!!
smh6669 3 months ago
No credible evidence, Mr. Bugliosi ?
And yet, Vincent makes no reference to the voluminous evidence of the intrusive bullet hole in the windshield of Kennedy's Continental convertible. Or the fact that the CIA secretly transported the car back to Dearborn, MI. so the damage repaired before any more people caught on to their scheme.
What is your incentive for lying about a 48 y.o. assassination, Mr. Bug ?
I loved your book "Helter Skelter", read it 3 times, otherwise, sir, you suck !!!
smh6669 3 months ago
@smh6669 that's been to done to death. It was a fragment that hit the inside of the windshield, never penetrated and would have resulted in a face wound if he had been hit from the front and that didn't happen. What is your incentive for making things up?
andrelebaron 1 month ago
you're great vince, but you can't always be right....nothing can ever make me believe that there wasn't a conspiracy
ma121887 3 months ago
@ma121887 if facts and logic can't convince you than just state that you have an irrational need to believe in comic book conspiracy theories and leave it at that.
andrelebaron 1 month ago 2
vince you fail
metubegirl69er 4 months ago
"Im just a patsy" ........come on vince.
Mlczdk1 4 months ago
Can anyone give me a reason the CIA would trust a man who slit his wrists in Russia? was that part of the plan?
billyballs68 4 months ago
Dealey Plaza was the worst possible place for a conspiracy, the motorcade just passed blocks and blocks of high rise building with hundreds of angles to shoot the president, easy getaway too, you would never be found. Oswald acted alone, dead men tell no tales.
billyballs68 5 months ago
@billyballs68 getaway ? LOL have another hit on the carck pipe buddy....the only one who could get away was the cia and they did just that.
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke Great explanation, I can see you're an educated person.
billyballs68 5 months ago
Comment removed
billyballs68 5 months ago
@renduke Was cutting his wrists in Russia part of the CIA plan too?, hahahahahahaha
billyballs68 5 months ago
@billyballs68 You are missing very important points CIA -Center for Intelligent Agency - THEY THINK - So they had to pick a guy with some NUT LOOK, if the plot happened in Miami for sure they would find someone over there too.Oswald could not act alone because he would be caught firing 3 or 4 shots from the window of the 6th floor of the TSBD, it would call the attention of the crowd, so CIA spread snipers all around DP probably 5 snipers, each one would fire ONLY ONE SHOT. Got it ?
Verdelufe 4 months ago
@Verdelufe Can you supply me with a list of 5-10 actual pieces of evidence that prove that?, not a list of 5-10 questions, that is the standard tactic of CTers, to ask questions, I'll wait for your list of 5-10 actual pieces of evidence. Thanks.
billyballs68 4 months ago
@billyballs68 There is no question here, I was talking about logic, to be analytical, how the CIA brains work to have a Nut Look, and more than 3 shots would call the attention of the crowd. But if you want physical evidence there is only one besides the neck & head shots that the NCT denied for no reason. I found myself this evidence of a sniper nest I made 4 videos at YT " Cowboy's Sniper Nest", "Cowboys-Lee Bowers Witness men in uniforms" "Cowboy's Rifle Flashes" & "Cowboys missed the shot"
Verdelufe 4 months ago
@Verdelufe You are a kook, sorry but it's true. You have NO evidence.
billyballs68 4 months ago
@billyballs68 What kind of answer is that, so feeble, so hyprocrite, typical among NCTers.
Verdelufe 4 months ago
@billyballs68 lets see if you can understand this speaking of being "educated"...when there are dozens of coincidences at some point you have to say that is far beyond all probability.
it's like yea dad my room smells like pot but the neighbors smoke all the time and the wind IS blowing this way...i known 3rd time this week...yea i am the only one with your atm pin and 400 hundred is missing so ?
thats not my signature on the receipt there are many forgers in this world dad...urrr right
renduke 4 months ago
@billyballs68 you want factual evidence ??? OZ passed a parefin test....he was arrested in the theater at the same time tippet was being shot many blocks away....ss agents Hill AND Kinney The two agents closest to the Limo BOTH reported TWO SHOTS AFTER the Throat shot...see video Clint Hill interview 1 and video SS agent Kinney and Hill JFK...video John Connally Larry King Mrs Connaly says her husband was hit by a shot other then the throat shot...how's that for evidencial FACT
renduke 4 months ago
@renduke Can you please tell me where I can view the physical evidence you claim exists?, like proof Oswald was in the theatre while Tippet was being shot?, please tell me where I can see physical evidence. Forensic science has proven you wrong son.
billyballs68 4 months ago
@billyballs68 view the videos i already mention also mauser rifle jfk
renduke 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@renduke Oswald left an abundant trail of incriminating evidence. An assassin, intelligent enough in preparing a »plant« that he even did not know the motorcade route in advance, would not be so careless as to carry incriminating documents in his wallet or leave photographs of himself holding the murder rifle where the police could easily find them.
billyballs68 4 months ago
@renduke No record or Oswald's police interview- If I steal a bike off your front lawn the police will visit your house and write a report-Buliosi is trying to go Manson on this- reaching for anything
MiamiIndianTribe 4 months ago
@MiamiIndianTribe whats your point ? it was a conspriacy threw and threw thats the bottom line
renduke 4 months ago
@renduke I've known that since i was ten- my point is that the alleged murderer of the president didn't have any recorded interviews- now don't yell at me :-)
MiamiIndianTribe 3 months ago
@MiamiIndianTribe the pres was murdered that is NOT Alleged...Bugliosi is clueless see video jfk detail agents hill and kinney...the two agents closest to the limo BOTH reported two shots AFTER the throat shot.
renduke 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MiamiIndianTribe whats your point ? it was a conspriacy threw and threw thats the bottom line
renduke 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Verdelufe Oswald left an abundant trail of incriminating evidence. An assassin, intelligent enough in preparing a »plant« that he even did not know the motorcade route in advance, would not be so careless as to carry incriminating documents in his wallet or leave photographs of himself holding the murder rifle where the police could easily find them.
billyballs68 4 months ago
LOL, Bugliosi is an absolute joke. You want to read a real book about the JFK assassination? Then read "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James W. Douglass. The lone nut theory is nothing but a strawman argument, based on misinformation, falsified witness testimony, and hypothosis. Not only did Oswald not kill anybody, the EVIDENCE shows that he actually tried to STOP the plot. He was a low-level CIA employee, whose job was to infiltrate radical groups. He was set up.
LongLiveOx 5 months ago 2
@LongLiveOx A former CIA agent who was questioned by the Warren comission stated it was them on his death bed. Watch Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory"
GeekBoy03 5 months ago
@GeekBoy03 you do not wrestling fake right?
hmm, probably not.
andrelebaron 3 months ago
@andrelebaron huh? Can you say that in English , please?
GeekBoy03 3 months ago
Comment removed
aspie25 5 months ago
@LongLiveOx You're forgetting about the piles of evidence that points to Oswald, mountains of evidence. Oh, and the zero amount of credible evidence that says Oswald didn't do it, LOL!!!! I love Kooks like you.
billyballs68 5 months ago
Bullets are "magic" ?
MisterThomasPAINE2 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
SMACsonic 5 months ago
Fucking Vincent "Bug" Bugliosi is a fucking murderer. The murderer of the truth. Though a very bungling one.
core2duo07 5 months ago
i would also concied that the Ruby thing does NOT have the typical ear marks of a mob hit or convert op...it would be against every mob and covert rule there is to get that close to Oswald and Not take a head shot.
renduke 5 months ago
i should also add as i said before the average laymen can not even begin to concieve of the extents that covert ops go to. my text book page 1 comment in a recent post is in fact just the tip of the icebreg....i am inclined to believe there is a rather good chance they had a guy in the sewer drain...concealment from the public...route of escape...for every 300 ft closer to a target the rate of success increases by a factor of triple
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke Even the elite screw up. And often. We'd have to believe that these guys would be capable of pulling this off seamlessly, leaving no trail, and this, probably the most scrutinized event in history. Sewer drain? They'd not be able to get Kennedy from that angle
1239jer 5 months ago
@1239jer i'de have to actually be in that drain to buy that non shootable story...the local does make prefect sense for all the reasons i mentioned.....also when a target is traveling in a straight line at you or away from you, you really don't need much of an angle
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke The angle for sure for the head shot wouldn't work, as JFK was leaning over at near the plane of the top of the door. A shot from the drain would be too low an angle to hit - let alone even see - JFK
1239jer 5 months ago
@1239jer thats speculation i wouldn't really say one way or the other without actually being down there...most sewer drains afford an angle of about 100 feet down range...i'de like to know how many feet the limo was away from that drain...i am more then sure that is a VERY answerable OBJECTIVE question...not to sure i would get an honest answer from you although i may.
renduke 5 months ago
Can't wait for the HBO series based on Bugliosi's 'Reclaiming History'. I hope it premieres on November 22, 2013.
abennett4 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'@abennett4 Can't wait for the HBO series based on Bugliosi's 'Reclaiming History'. I hope it premieres on November 22, 2013."
.
It should be fantastic, the diehards CTers will not like it, but hopefully some real evidence will convince the moms and dads of america.
BTW click on ProtectAus for some JFK videos i have made, proving the facts!
ProtectAus 5 months ago
wow this has been a 2 man thread for about a month....someone needs a life
renduke 5 months ago
Lincoln, McKinley, King Umberto of Italy, Attempt on Hitler, Anwar Sadat....did that sink in ??? 50% at least
renduke 5 months ago
the limo driver highly trained in the art of quick escapes takes no evasive action some 4 seconds after the intial shot...in the interium there was a 2nd shot.
do you recall how quickly they reacted in the regan and ford things.... Oswald then gets killed..then after the fear of a USSR plot they march the new pres around the streets of washington like oh well...Jfk's brain disappears....i mean seriously it is very hard 4 a reasonable person 2 look past all of this
renduke 5 months ago
jer PLEASE ! i will probaly need 2nd post for this... for such a nobody...he traveled to and from the USSR with amazing ease....he was interviewed on tv in new orleans...a well known pro castro person then shows up to work on the street of a presidential motorcade carrying a suspecious package and goes COMPLETELY unchallenged...the SS is asked to stand down from gaurding the limo YES THERE IS VIDEO of this....to say a person of Oswalds skill could land such shots is questionable at best.
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke He didn't travel "with amazing ease." Others made similar journies to the USSR and OSwald's movements back and forth were not beyond the norm. He wasn't instantly allowed to return, for example. The FBI dropped the ball for sure, which is why the threatening note was destroyed and why these sorts of people now are tracked more closely. What many CTs fail to realize is how incompetent many of these agencies are.
1239jer 5 months ago
@renduke Obviously, the Secret Service was not up to snuff that day in Dallas but nothing in 48 years have come to light to implicate them in the assassination. Oswald reached the level of Sharpshooter (higher than Marksman) in the marines. Makes him at least average for a marine; excellent compared to the average joe. Experts in front of the WC and HSCA testified it was an easy shot. Ballistics showed the bullets that hit Kennedy came from Oswald’s rifle.
abennett4 5 months ago
I can see "them" not letting Oswald in on the FULL conspiracy -- just letting him in enough to be a good patsy/ fall guy... Just a thought.
GaryHMan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy thinks he can convict GOD, if he had the chance. He thinks hes hot shit because he convicted Manson. A 5th grader could have convicted Manson!!!
ROBERTSINNEWYORK 6 months ago
I saw another video with Bugliosi where he points out that in a crime, an innocent person could have, at most, three pieces of evidence pointing to his guilt. He says in his book, he lays out 53 separate pieces of evidence that irresitably points to Osawald's guilt. Only in a fantasy would (or in the feverish minds of conspiracy buffs) could an innocent person have 53 pieces of evidence pointing to his guilt.
abennett4 6 months ago
@abennett4 Absolutely true. If one watches "JFK", one gets the impression that they framed this guy Oswald, as if there was no evidence against him other than he was a Marxist and worked at the TSBD. The truth is there is so much evidence pointing directly at Oswald as the perpetrator, it's almost ludicrous to say he wasn't involved. Bug's point is that sometimes 1 or 2 pieces of evidence can actually suggest an innocent man is guilty. He lists some 53 however.
1239jer 5 months ago
@1239jer while that is true there is AT LEAST that big a list indicating that Oswald was a piece of a bigger puzzel.......in a court of law there would all kinds of room for "reasonable" doubt. i think he was certainly involved but did not act alone. it's well establish that ruby had ties to sam giancana anyone who says he didn't is lieing plain and simple..LO traveled to ussr and back way to easily for a schnook..the list is endless..goes unchallenged carrying an odd looking package
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke Most of these issues were addressed by the HSCA which was intent on sniffing out a conspiracy. Oswald's known contacts however don't add up to a conspiracy, nor does his lifestyle and his sources of income. Ruby had underworld contacts, but, again, there is no indication that any of these contacts compelled him to shoot Oswald. While the HSCA concluded "conspiracy," their conclusions as to any players was there was no evidence linking many of the oft-cited players to the killing.
1239jer 5 months ago
@renduke In a court, it'd be a slam-dunk in terms of linking Oswald to the assassination. I don't think many people are aware just how much evidence links Oswald to the murder. There is NO reasonable doubt as to his guilt, though most CTs aren't reasonable. AS for conspiracy, that's harder to rule out, but as I said above, lacking specific evidence linking him means no determination can be made. There have been many claims, but most are dubious.
1239jer 5 months ago
@1239jer ummmm did you understand what i wrote ? yes it's a slam dunk he was involved.....there is also a mountain of circumstancial evidence that he was part of a bigger picture......if you can look past at least 20 pieces of circumstancial evidence then he acted alone.
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke I don't think you'd be able to make a convincing case that Oswald was part of a conspiracy. Once it is established Oswald killed JFK and did it alone, there is nothing compelling to link him to others. For example, we see no sign of an alternate source of income. We see nothing suggesting he got his job outside the efforts of a neighbour. And the onus would be on those making the case. 48 years on, the best is some dubious witness accounts of him talking to a CIA agent, etc.
1239jer 5 months ago
@1239jer these discussion often go in endless circles..it appears your mind is close and you have reached your inmovable conclusion...."once it is established Oswald did it alone"
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke MInd closed? After reading "Six Seconds in Dallas" in 1972 I believed there had to be a conspiracy. That view held for 20+ years until I realized most of these authors deliberately distorted and ignored evidence which implicated Oswald and Oswald alone. If you take a close look at Oswald, you'd realize that a) he was TOTALLY capable of pulling off the assassination and b) he'd be the LAST guy someone would want to use to carry it out.
1239jer 5 months ago
@1239jer you can't believe that navie.....the last guy they would want to carry it out ? no doubt...but it appears he was groomed as the prefect patsy...and do you really really believe they would not plan for a fall guy ? PLEASE !
THE BOTTOM LINE ? IF you look at history going all the way back to the days of casear when ever a very high profile figure is taken out 1/2 the time it is a conspriacy...that is fact my friend... i will name just a few
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke If you have read the biographies of LHO, he'd be the last guy to be involved in this sort of thing knowingly. And I'm sorry, but the evidence so overwhelming points to him as the assassin, there's simply no way this could have NOT been him. His gun. His fingerprints. Fled the scene. Shot and killed a cop. Tried to do the same upon arrest. Left his wife all his money. Told provable lies while interrogated. etc etc etc.
The truly naive are those who believe this could have been set up.
1239jer 5 months ago
@1239jer the more you talk the more you discredit youself...the last guy to be involved knowingly.....but he did it and did it alone you see the contradiction ? i am done with you
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke Only the terminally naive and gullible like yourself buy this nonsense. There is no "contradiction." He is the last guy who would agree to be involved in a conspiracy OR who conspirators would recruit. Was he set up outside of his knowledge? It strains credulity, except for the gullible. "They" couldn't know if he'd, like most of the TSBD employees, would have watched the motorcade from the street, etc etc.
1239jer 5 months ago
@1239jer You make a very credible case. CT buffs always try to change the subject (Caesar, for god's sake!) or make illogical connections (Ruby was involved with the mob) and present nothing but the flimziest evidence to back it up. When evidence is presented that refutes a conspiracy, they invarably say that the presenter of the evidence is part of the conspiracy. When all else fails, they tell us we're naive or closed-minded when many times,like you and me, we came from a very pro-CT stance.
abennett4 5 months ago
@1239jer "The truly naive are those who believe this could have been set up"
.
They were planning this before JFK was even president? they sent him to Russia, even though Oswald had the lowest security and the Russians thought him worthless.
He worked for CIA,FBI,KGB and the Dallas Boyscouts, but lived the life of a pauper for cover.
They gave Oswald fake names and created a double in Mexico
They set up rifles, fingerprints, shirt/blanket fibers, lying witnesses!
Hard to believe but true???
ProtectAus 5 months ago
@ProtectAus you are SO navie....i can't go into particulars but can swear on my fathers soul...i have seen rather high level officals get on tv and spread all kinds of dis information about a covert case that was in the process of going wrong....yes setting up fake names....planting finger prints and or fire arms....creating doubles...lying witnesses...the surpression of the truth...ARE TEXT BOOK PAGE 1 mo for covert ops.
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke When I hear suggestions of the level of cover-up supposedly done, I simply ask Have you ever worked for a government agency? They screw up, bungle and generally live by the axiom "if something can go wrong, it will go wrong." But, according the the CTs, suddenly, in Dallas, a near-seamless conspiracy, lacking any physical evidence, no witnesses to other assassins, no witnesses who could link credibly LHO to anyone... Right. The breathless naivete of some here is astonishing.
1239jer 5 months ago
@1239jer with self proclaimed detective skills that are far above average you should know the answer to that question.....i will throw in one small disclaimer...not for but in literally in concert with.
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke So, we have a lot of stuff that goes nowhere. For example, LHO is Mexico. There is a mountain of evidence which says he went - indeed, he even told investigators he went. So, what do CTs do? Find the one witness who wasn't sure it was Oswald, ignore the dozen others, focus on a photo of non-Oswald, even when it makes zero sense to have an OSwald imposter who looks different, etc etc. If this went to court now, a judge would say "you've failed to make the case of conspiracy."
1239jer 5 months ago
@renduke What connection did Ruby have with Sam Giancana and if Ruby was out to silence Oswald, why did no one silence Ruby? Some conspiracy theorists think if A knows B and B knows C, then A must be inextricably involved with C. It just doesn’t work that way. If Oswald needed to be "silenced", he would have been dead before he was in police custody. "They" knew where he worked, for gods sake!
abennett4 5 months ago
@abennett4 well if you know your history Ruby was in FEDERAL CUSTODY AND WAS NOT granted his request to be moved to washinton dc where he felt safe and offered to talk about the crime of the century...it is ALSO FACT that Sam Giancanna Was Murdered the night before he was schuduled to appear before congress about his possiable involment in the crime of the century......let me tell you something I have been on the fringes of covert ops...they will do ANYTHING to protect their interests secrets.
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke But he also repeatedly told all who would listen that he and he alone carried out the murder and specifically denied that anyone else was involved. Which makes sense as his killing of LHO bore none of the hallmarks of a mob hit. Further, if Oswald had not asked to change his shirt, Ruby, sending a money order around the corner, would not have been there to shot Oswald.
1239jer 5 months ago
@renduke There have been hunderds of mobsters who have flipped for the government in the last 48 years. Not one has suggested that organized crime had anything to do with the Kennedy assassination. The FBI conducted extensive electronic surveillance of the mob in the early '60s. These recordings revealed no shortage of unhappiness over the Kennedy administration's crackdown on their activities. However, the HSCA, who leaned pro-CT, found no evidence of involvement in the Kennedy assassination.
abennett4 5 months ago
@renduke Ruby also thought millions of jews were being murdered in the jail cells below him. Again, if he was threatening to "spill the beans" and those involved in the conspiracy were so powerful, he wouldn't have died of natural causes.
abennett4 5 months ago
@abennett4 not a bad argument but there are at least a dozen things that point to conspriacy as well you can't have your cake and eat it too.
renduke 5 months ago
There WAS a conspiracy!
It was the one that consisted between authors {Mark Lane, etc.}, book publishers, and movie makers {Oliver Stone, etc.}...with the intent to profit at the expense of naive, ill informed, mentally challenged, aluminum foil hat wearing losers!!!!
MrYellowlabs 6 months ago
Long live Vince! Can't wait for his next book!
Tsnore 6 months ago
You would do yourself a favour by reading a) the Warren Report and b) Buglioisi's book. If you had, you wouldn't be misled by blatant bullshit like this from Parenti "Oswald was an FBI informant or contract agent, with assigned number S-172 or S-179." or "If not paid by security agencies, how did Oswald support himself during his forays into New Orleans and Dallas?" or "In fact, George de Morenschildt got him the [TSBD] job." I could go on and on.
1239jer 6 months ago
Rob: Well, your approach, unfortunately, mirrors the approach of too many CTs. Your critic spends more time discussing "agendas" rather than facts and evidence. I've gone to the bother of closely analyzing the Parenti material and realize that he in large part repeats stuff from Stone's JFK. Interestingly, Bug addresses ALL the contentions Parenti brings up with the sole exception of the Russian language school claim.
1239jer 6 months ago
"... But his arrogance is of little use in untangling the hopelessly conflicted facts in this 44-year old national tragedy. His incessantly hurling slurs such as 'deranged conspiracy theorist,' 'crackpot,' 'con man,' 'kook,' and 'huckster' at virtually all critics inevitably carries a whiff of buffoonery and anxious self-promotion about it. And that's particularly the case when he's flat-out wrong on the facts."
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
"(But) despite Bugliosi's pugnacious pummeling, he hasn't laid a glove on major elements of the case for conspiracy. And, regrettably, it must be said that the most distinguishing characteristic of this book is its demagogic pugnacity. Bugliosi cleaves the world of opinion holders neatly in two - sensible Warren Commission loyalists and conscious evildoers, the 'conspiracy theorists.'"
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Continues Aguilar, "Although Warren Commission skeptics might not welcome this gargantuan new salvo, there is no denying that Bugliosi's Herculean effort is an historic and important contribution. It is valuable not only as a reference for the myriad facts in the case and for debunking some of the pro-conspiracy codswallop that has not elsewhere already been debunked. ..."
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Within such a worldview, the JFK assassination is merely one of the more blatant examples of their machinations, and Bugliosi is in actuality defending the honor of the unseen financial elite, and in doing so, playing his role as faithful courtier. Throughout my life, I have always been puzzled by the large number of contradictions that permeate modern America history, but with this notion of elite, behind-the-scenes manipulation of state mechanisms, most of these contradictions disappear.
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
WC critics are far less responsible for the "widespread skepticism" than the leaders whose honor Bug so passionately defends. I believe, to borrow a concept from Chris Hedges, that these leaders are “courtiers” to an unseen financial elite – not the representatives of the common citizenry; further, throughout the twentieth century the unseen elite have been pursuing a goal of global governance that would make the current state inconvenient, if not obsolete.
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
"These critics, Bugliosi contends, are also responsible for a widespread loss of faith in once-respected institutions. Such widespread skepticism, 'gestating for decades in the nation's marrow,' he writes, 'obviously has to have had a deleterious effect on the way Americans view those who lead them and determine their destiny.'" Although Bugliosi's social scenario is accurate, I would argue that his contempt is misplaced.
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Writes Aguilar, "(Bugliosi) ... devotes 900 more pages of text and endnotes to pounding myriad 'conspiracy theorists' whose efforts over the years, Bugliosi claims, have wrought a grave injustice on the Commission and performed a 'flagrant disservice to the American public.'[2]" It is not just that critics have convinced 75 percent of Americans (Bugliosi's figure [3]) to reject the official truth, which he says happens to be the real truth."
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
I've made it clear that I'm not going to buy and read a 1,602-page book just to spar with you. So I did the next best thing. I found a review of the book by author Gary L. Aguilar, who embodies two distinctly relevant traits: 1) Bugliosi actually consulted with him on numerous ocassions and is even quoted within the book; and 2) he believes that Bugliosi's conclusions are incorrect.
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
The bottom line is, the HSCA addressed almost all of those unaddressed questions, and despite concluding "conspiracy" found NOTHING to connect Oswald (as they concluded he fired all shots which struck) to any other groups or individuals who in any way assisted or was complicit with him in the murder of the president.
The common error of many is to start with "qui bono" and identify possible culprits, as if "motive" trumps hard forensic evidence. It doesn't. And that hard evidence says "LHO"
1239jer 6 months ago
If one dispassionately examines the evidence against LHO, one realizes he was so clearly guilty that it is no surprise the Dallas police and the FBI knew they had their man that evening. The WC investigated LHO and found that his associations, his income and his beliefs were all consistent with he being a lone assassin.
It's a fair critique to note the WC didn't follow up on a lot of leads, but they did far more investigating than the critics seem to ever want to acknowledge.
1239jer 6 months ago
AS for your comments as to how the WC report could have been reported as "truth" in the first place, the basic conclusions found therein have in fact stood the test of time. The Single Bullet Theory, when examined extensively by the HSCA, that firm for the lawyers and by Myers, none of whom assumed as the WC did a TSBD origin, ALL concluded the trajectories worked.
The autopsy? Beside a dispute over the head entry location, the original autopsy was confirmed as accurate and conclusive.
1239jer 6 months ago
...and, if the "3rd" shot was 313 and the 4th was after, no better. JFK/Conn were then hit at 206, which simply does not match the Zapruder film. Clearly, something is wrong here. And if the dictabelt evidence is worthless, then the HSCA's second gunman conclusion is worthless too. As there is NO OTHER evidence of a conspiracy!
1239jer 6 months ago
@1239jer A team of 12 physicists and scientists from Harvard, MIT, Bell Labs (my old employer), Lawrence Berkeley Labs and so on, under the aegis of the National Research Council, looked at the infamous Dictabelt in 1982 and determined that the so-called gunshots were sounds recorded “one minute after the assassination.” Also, the 1st shot that hit Kennedy came no later than ZF frame 225 and the head shot clearly at ZF frame 313. At 18.2 frames/sec, that gave Oswald at least 4.8 seconds. Enough!
abennett4 5 months ago
@abennett4 you really can't be that stupid.....if the 1st shot is at 225 and the 3rd shot at 313 a total of 4.8 seconds that means he has to get off 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with that piece of shit rifle....= IMPOSSIABLE
renduke 5 months ago
@renduke You are being illogical. I said "the 1st shot that hit". The 1st shot that hit was was the 2nd shot that was fired (the 1st shot missed). The 2nd shot that hit was the 3rd shot that was fired. Almost everyone (and as this video makes clear) agrees that the 1st (of 3) shot missed. Using simple algebra, 88 frames divided by 18.2 frames/sec, you get 4.835 seconds between the last TWO shots. Please go back and read my original post. I never said anything different.And the rifle wasnt shit!
abennett4 5 months ago
The 1979 report appears to be an attempt to rectify the inadequate WC Report, which you've made clear, is also what Bugliosi takes great pains to do. But neither do anything to explain how, in such a wealthy and scientifically progressive nation, such an inadequate report pertaining to the assassination of its President can be presented as truth in the first place. Only when considering the possibility of a "deep state" above and beyond the consitutional state does this make any sense at all.
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo What is interesting about the HSCA is that while concluding "conspiracy" it nevertheless dismisses after much investigation much of the main contentions of the conspiracy community. It concluded that the only shots which struck were fired not only from Oswald's rifle, but by Oswald himself. The "conspiracy" conclusion is based almost solely on the acoustic dictabelt information.
1239jer 6 months ago
Further, some of the leading committee members were determined to expose what they saw as the true perpetrators of the killing - the Mafia. Despite several years to investigate, huge resources, they concluded there was no evidence to link the Mafia and many of the other oft-named groups said to be behind it. (They did not rule out individual Mafia players, however.)
IOW, if the WC can be accused of rushing to judgment, the HSCA can not. Yet, who were the conspiracists?
1239jer 6 months ago
And, oh yes. The acoustic evidence. Put aside the scientific debate over that for the moment. Instead, ask yourself, with a million videos here at Youtube on the subject, many high-rez copies of the Zapruder film and the availability of the dictabelt recording, why hasn't someone matched up the visual with the audio? Well, guess what, THEY HAVE. And what have they found? The audio "hits" don't match! With the "4th" as 313, JFK/Conn are hit at 191. Nope.
1239jer 6 months ago
In addition, I found it very interesting that the wording of the listed items under Section C were consistent for items "a" through "d", which all began with the phrase, "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that ...". Only item "e" differed: "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy."
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
D. (cont.) "...the conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive".
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
"D. Agencies and Departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties; President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection; a thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted; the investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate; ...
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
"C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo This HSCA conclusion was based on faulty acoustical evidence. A team of 12 physicists and scientists from Harvard, MIT, Bell Labs (my old employer), Lawrence Berkeley Labs and so on, under the aegis of the National Research Council, looked at the infamous Dictabelt in 1982 and determined that the so-called gunshots were sounds recorded “one minute after the assassination.”. That's why you hardly ever hear about this "evidence" anymore (even from the CT community).
abennett4 5 months ago
To 1239jer: I have to assume that Bugliosi spoke about the 1979 Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations. As a refresher, the headings of Parts B, C & D of the Findings Section are as follows: "B. Scientific Acoustical Evidence Establishes a High Probability That Two Gunmen Fired at President John F. Kennedy; Other Scientific Evidence does not Preclude the Possibility of Two Gunmen Firing at the President".
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Re Parenti: There are so many issues he raises unanswered by the WC which have since been answered. For example, how did Oswald get from London to Heathrow? While the WC said the direct flight was not feasible (as he checked in by 11:59 PM in Hotel Torni, Helsinki) two indirect flights were - via Copenhagen in at 17:05, via Stockholm in at 17:35. Which is likely what Oswald did. Some claim a military escort for that leg. The better question to ask is: What the hell for? What was the rush?
1239jer 6 months ago
The basic problem here, Rob, is that it has been well-known for more than 40 years that the WC did not investigate as well as they could have on many issues. But most of those issues have since been thoroughly investigated and the basic conclusions the WC made stand the test of time.
Parenti, unfortunately, has an ax to grind in terms of a supposed "agenda" from the WC etc, as illustrated by the quotes I pulled out. But focussing on the WC ignores that these gaps have been filled.
1239jer 6 months ago
The interesting part is revealed earlier in the report, where the WC didn't mention any security precautions that should have kept LHO from travelling to Russia. Instead, we get this: "This information from the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency thus suggests that ... (t)he prompt issuance of Oswald's visa may have been merely the result of normal procedures, due in part to the fact that the summer rush had ended." And you wonder why the WC Report is questioned?
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo ...further, spies typically are associated with embassy and business contacts, and not high-profile defectors who make the New York Times. If a spy, LHO makes Clouseau look like a mastermind. In the eyes of the Soviets, if a "spy," this guy was the biggest clown they'd ever met. But they weren't going to turn away a high-profile American... but they sent him to the boondocks and kept him under constant surveillance.
1239jer 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo The bottom line with LHO in Russia and his return is that far from being the movements of some "spy" or "agent," this was a guy who had delusions of grandeur, only to end up in a radio factory in Minsk (and not some "important" position in the Soviet hierarchy), and then in menial jobs back in America. This guy was no spy or agent, he was a clown. The Soviets knew it (and also knew the Americans would never use a guy like this), and anything new we've learned from them confirms it
1239jer 6 months ago
Another interesting point from the WC Report involves Russia' allowing LHO's wife to travel to the USA: "The (CIA) has informed the Commission that normally a Soviet national would not be permitted to emigrate if he might endanger Soviet national security once he went abroad.287 Those persons in possession of confidential information, for example, would constitute an important category of such 'security risks.'"
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo Marina to America. Oswald was a VERY unusual case. There were perhaps a dozen US defectors to Russia in those years, his return may be unprecedented. But there are numerous factors here for the Soviets - Oswald knew nothing of import in Russia, neither did Marina. He was more a headache than anything else, but he'd be able to raise a storm if his wife wasn't with him. Since there were no security risks involved, her travel though unusual wasnt sinister
1239jer 6 months ago
The report also contains a six-paragraph examination of George De Mohrenschildt that ignores many facts about the man later revealed by independent authors and a 1979 Congressional Report by the Select Committee on Assassinations. Hell - you said more about his role as a CIA "contact" than the WC Report: "Neither the FBI, CIA, nor any witness contacted by the Commission has provided any information linking the De Mohrenschildts to subversive or extremist organizations." The whole truth? Right.
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo Mohrenschildt was a very colourful guy. Again, Bug etc are not defending the deficiencies of the WR - but just because they didn't investigate as much as they should have - and just because the CIA and FBI were not forthcoming, does NOT mean "conspiracy." The ONLY relevance here in terms of Mohrenschildt (who was related to Jackie, if memory serves) is if he "guided" LHO in any way. Beyond their social meetings, there is NO evidence of any such "guidance."
1239jer 6 months ago
Later, the report states that "While in Atsugi, Japan, Oswald studied the Russian language", but it contains not a shred of information about 1) what LHO was doing in Atsugi; 2) the fact that Atsugi was a top secret US base; 3) that major intelligence agencies maintained stations at Atsugi after World War II or 4) that the airbase was the home of the U2 spy plane.
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo Atsugi: Well, this is the sort of innuendo which is a lot of smoke, but no fire. He was a Marine. He was stationed in Japan, along with a great many other Marines. Most of whom had no intelligence clearance, Oswald included. If we take the position that the military lied about his "true" role there, one would wonder why a man with his aptitude didn't last long there, didn't rise in his rank and showed no sign in his past of any special quality which would be needed by intel
1239jer 6 months ago
The following paragraph is entitled "Residence in the Soviet Union". What??? The examination of LHO's background BEGINS with his defection to the USSR? Hardly an extenive examination of LHO's military background.
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo You seem a bit confused. You should read Bug's book. He most certainly does NOT suggest the WC's efforts were pristine, that the investigation was perfect. And further research on LHO's past, is an example of that. But further research has NOT found evidence as claimed by others of an intel background. For example, let's talk David Ferrie. The WC interviewed and investigated claims the Oswald and Ferrie were in the same Cadet group in NOLA in 1956.
1239jer 6 months ago
When you say that the intelligence links are "greatly exaggerated", are you contending that NO such links exist? In the sixth chapter's opening paragraph, the WC states that, "Study of the period from Oswald's birth in 1939 to his military service from 1956 to 1959 has revealed no evidence that he was associated with any type of sinister or subversive organization during that period", and they contend that LHO "was young, inexperienced, and had only a limited education."
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo Ferrie: They interviewed several people, including Ferrie, on this connection. Because others raised numerous questions (such as Garrison), the HSCA interviewed far more people. While it was determined that Oswald very likely attended 4 to 10 meetings with Ferrie present, there was NO credible evidence it went beyond that. The only people who say there was a connection say LHO was training for Bay of Pigs - when he was in the USSR etc
1239jer 6 months ago
Next, you state that the "so-called 'links' to intelligence" and "(h)is security clearance and such has been greatly exaggerated", and you confidently state that these issues are "covered by Bugliosi ad nauseum". As "Bug"'s work is a defense of the WC Report, I will refer to the sections in that report dealing with the "Background of Lee Harvey Oswald" in response, partly because it is the main source and partly because I don't feel like purchasing Bug's book to make a point here!
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
... "The very structure of the media is designed to produce conformity to established doctrines. In a three–minute stretch between commercials, or in seven hundred words, it is impossible to present unfamiliar thoughts or surprising conclusions with the argument and evidence required to afford them some credibility. Regurgitation of welcome pieties faces no such problems.” Noam Chomsky -- "Necessary Illusions"
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
“In the Democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force.... A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in the democratic political order, there is always the danger that independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root." ...
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Not yours or mine, that's for certain. As I read the statement, Parenti is merely suggesting that the deep or "gangster" state aparatus systematically conceals information pertaining to, and marginalizes those who attempt to independently investigate, their more brutal and immoral actions. Your use of the term "paranoid" is a weak attempt to do the same thing. For a primer on the mass media censorship in the US, refer to "Necessary Illusions" by Noam Chomsky.
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Now back to the discussion. Responding to a sentence from Parenti, you contend that those who suspect a conspiracy in the JFK case believe "that if you accept the conclusion of 'no conspiracy' then you are a dupe of greater powers which engineered it." That is your characterization, not Parenti's. No one's calling you or "Bug" a "dupe". Anyone who has followed the media over the past 30 years knows we NEVER get the entire truth from corporate media. Whose interests are served by this reality?
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo I said: "that if you accept the conclusion of 'no conspiracy' then you are a dupe of greater powers which engineered it." That is your characterization, not Parenti's."
True, he didn't say "dupe." He DID say: "To know the truth about the assassination of John Kennedy is to call into question the state security system and the entire politico-economic order it protects...
1239jer 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo "... This is why for over thirty years the corporate-owned press and numerous political leaders have suppressed or attacked the many revelations about the murder unearthed by independent investigators like Mark Lane... Their efforts reveal a conspiracy to assassinate the president and an even more extensive conspiracy to hide the crime."
On Posner: " a deliberate contrivance that used outright untruths". Corp Media: "The media's ideological gatekeepers..."
1239jer 6 months ago
“The only way to have intelligent public opinion is to have discussion, and the moment you check discussion you destroy democracy. ... The only way in which we can preserve democracy is to reserve to every citizen of the democracy the right to express the convictions that he has: the right to be right and the right to be wrong. The Constitution does not guarantee us only the right to be correct, we have a right to be honest and in error."
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo Nearing's sentiments are fine, but it doesn't help when critics of the investigations basically describe those investigators and their supporters as complicit in one of the biggest crimes of the century, engaging in lies and suppression. People can have honest differences, but that's not the suggestion at least from Parenti. He suggests those who disagree are criminals and are criminally suppressing the "truth."
1239jer 6 months ago
To 1239jer: Thank you for the civil and informative response. The subject matter is so controversial and of such importance that, as prior posts have illustrated clearly, the discourse around it usually deteriorates before any substantive truths appear. Before I begin this round, allow me to share the words of Scott Nearing, a socialist critic who was charged under the Espionage Act of 1918 during World War I for writing an anti–war pamphlet as America prepared to enter the conflict:
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Mohrenschildt: CIA contact. As a contact, and since LHO was under surveillance upon his return from Russia, it should come as no surprise that the CIA asked him about LHO. Further, the FBI also had him under watch, and Hostey received a threat from Oswald. Why would the FBI and CIA tend to hide these contacts? Because they were covering their asses (especially the FBI) for not tailing LHO closer ESPECIALLY after receiving a threat weeks before JFK came. etc etc
1239jer 6 months ago
The claims made by Parenti and by you Rob are the sort of claims which have been assessed and found wanting, in some cases for decades. And deliberate distortions are the mainstay of a lot of these theories. Take Mohrenschildt. He was connected to LHO via the tiny Dallas Russian community. He, like many businessmen of the era, were contacted by intelligence agencies as they frequently travelled to central and south America. This was absolutely typical contact. He was no "spy."
1239jer 6 months ago
Parenti: "Oswald's overall employment record and income sources remain something of a mystery. To this day, the government refuses to release his tax returns, with no explanation as to what issue of national security is at stake."
The more I read, the more I shake my head. The IRS is not authorized to release ANYONE'S tax returns.(!) AS to his income, the WC accounted for all of about $10 of his income once he returned from Russia. No mystery here at all. It;s in the Report.
1239jer 6 months ago
Parenti: "Oswald spent most of his time with rabid anti-communists, including emigré Cubans and CIA operatives. Besides Banister and de Mohrenschildt, there was David Ferrie. (In his book First Hand Knowledge, Robert Morrow, a conservative businessman and CIA operative, tells how he served as a pilot on CIA missions with Ferrie.) Oswald also knew businessman Clay Shaw..."
This bullshit would take several essays to properly address. Let's see the Ferrie evidence, for example.
1239jer 6 months ago
Here are Parenti's closing words: "Most of the independent investigators I have met seem to be serious politically literate people. Their struggle to arrive at the truth is not impelled by a love of conspiracies but by a concern for the political and historic importance of the case. They seek the truth no matter how dirty it might be. That process of confronting the machinations of the national security state is (not a conspiracy hobby - it) is an essential part of the struggle for democracy."
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Does he write about Oswald's relationship with George de Mohrenschildt, who was "part of a network of ex-Nazis contracted by the CIA"? Does he cite the "CIA memorandum" that "advised de Mohrenschildt on how to handle" him? Did he mention that de Mohrenschildt was killed by a gun blast to the head three hours after a House Assassinations Committee Investigator had tried to contact him, or any of the other twenty-four persons who had information related to the case that also met violent deaths"?
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Does Bugliosi cite the fact that in February 1959, Oswald failed the Marine Corps proficiency test in Russian, and more importantly, does he mention that Oswald later developed some fluency in Russion by attending the U.S. Army's School of Languages at Monterey? Does Bugliosi explain how "after two-and-a-half years, Oswald's sudden request to return to the United States was immediately granted by U.S. officials--all this after he had threatened to give away state secrets to the Soviets"?
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Yes, it is a large undertaking. But you didn't answer my question - does Bugliosi cite any of the authors listed in Parenti's article? Does he describe HOW Oswald "defected" to the U.S.S.R.? Did he make any mention of Oswald's links to the U.S. intelligence community or his secret security clearance as a Marine while he was working at Marine Air Control in Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan, a top secret location from which the CIA launched U2 flights and performed covert operations in China?
robmanzanedo 6 months ago
Whether you care to admit it or not, the evidence uncovered by these "conspiracy theorists" point to the conclusion that Oswald may indeed have been a patsy. If you read Bugliosi's work and take the time to read Parenti's article, I would have a simple question for you: did Mr. Bugliosi mention any of the research compiled by the investigators referenced in the article? And if not, does this provide any reasonable doubt in your mind?
robmanzanedo 7 months ago
Comment removed
robmanzanedo 7 months ago
In this article Parenti writes, “for over thirty years the corporate-owned press and numerous political leaders have suppressed or attacked the many revelations about the murder unearthed by independent investigators like Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, Carl Oglesby, Harold Weisberg, Anthony Summers, Philip Melanson, Jim Garrison, Cyril Wecht, Jim Marrs … and many others. ... Their efforts reveal a conspiracy to assassinate the president and an even more extensive conspiracy to hide the crime.”
robmanzanedo 7 months ago
@robmanzanedo The first clue here is how Parenti characterizes those researchers - many of whom have NO corporate/government ties.: "...the corporate-owned press and numerous political leaders have supressed or attacked the many revelations...." This is paranoid bullshit. It suggests - wrongly - that if you accept the conclusion of "no conspiracy" then you are a dupe of greater powers which engineered it. Is Bugliosi, the guy who suggests Bush should have been impeached, some "dupe"?
1239jer 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo Yes, the claims in the article have been exhaustively rebutted by Bugliosi and others. Such as how could he get to Helsinki? How could he get such a quick Marine discharge? How did he get so readily admitted. Many of these issues - such as the quick readmittance - were covered by the WC, and the debate within State indicates there was a lot of resistance to allowing this. But if you rely on the word of one person, you wouldn't know this, would you?
1239jer 6 months ago
I didn’t read Mr. Bugliosi’s book either, but one significant clue to his mistaken conclusion is how, in this speech, he begins the investigation of Oswald only AFTER his return from the Soviet Union. This misses many large pieces of the puzzle. I would refer you to an article entitled “The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State” by Michael Parenti as a relatively concise compilation of facts uncovered by many investigators.
robmanzanedo 7 months ago
@robmanzanedo I know it's a large undertaking, but you really need to read Bugliosi's book.
flyoverjoe 7 months ago
@robmanzanedo Bug spends more than 100 pages on Oswald before the USSR and during the USSR. Maybe in this speech he doesn't go there, but he most certainly does in the book. Exhaustively.
1239jer 6 months ago
@robmanzanedo What Parenti covers in his essay vis a vis Oswald is covered by Bugliosi ad nauseum. First, the so-called "links" to intelligence while at the Marines. His security clearance and such has been greatly exaggerated by later researchers, he was never given intelligence training. The Monterey language claim has long been debunked. I'm amazed that Parenti repeats it (also covered by Bug). BTW, the WC had no authority and did not "classify" documents as Parenti claims.
1239jer 6 months ago
Arthur says Bug makes "no case" for Oswald acting alone. And you say you read the book? Do you also claim that the Bible doesnt say Jesus is God? As I said before, after reading the book, you'd see there is no other conclusion but that Oswald shot the president, and Oswald acted alone. Obviously, most critics here have never read his book OR the Warren Report. He, unlike those, rely on EVIDENCE, not OPINION. One is entitled to their own opinion, one is not entitled to their own facts.
1239jer 7 months ago