JFK Assassination 50th Anniversary

PJenPJen Posts: 127
edited December 2013 in A Moving Train
I recently discovered an old post that included a link to a documentary about the JFK Assassination called 'Evidence of Revision (Part 1 of 6).' The link no longer worked so I'm posting it again in light of November 22, 2013 marking the 50th anniversary of his assassination.

I just finished watching the entire series and trying to express how it affected me is next to impossible. It's very powerful. Some of the footage is deeply disturbing and not for the fainthearted. There are many things I could say but the most important is, if you want an education that you most likely never received in school or at university, it's imperative that you watch this series in it's entirety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gBxMJFQd04
"Don't let it get ya down, ya know, still give your love, just give it away. I love singing that part." -- EV (SVT)
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Apparently some people still believe he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. Despite the fact that approximately 120 marksmen have tried to replicate what Oswald was supposed to have achieved that day, and failed. Not one person has managed to replicate the feat. Also, in spite of the fact that dozens of witnesses - including a handful of policemen - claim to have seen shots fired from behind the grassy Knoll, and ran in that direction immediately after the shooting.
    And also in spite of the fact that many witnesses were 'encouraged' by the F.B.I to change their stories when questioned, and that the autopsy was a complete sham, and a ton of evidence was left out - deliberately omitted - from the Warren Commission.

    Some people will believe anything if it helps them to maintain their faith in a superior entity - Government, God, e.t.c.

    ...not to mention the rifle apparently used by Oswald was a piece of shit produced in the 1940's that cost approx $12.88 cents in 1963, and was referred to by the Italians as 'The humane weapon' because it was incapable of hitting anything. Also, the sight on the weapon supposedly used by Oswald, and which was found to be misaligned, cost approx $1.50. No wonder that 120 marksmen who have since tried to recreate what he was supposed to have done, have all failed.
  • Yeah. Makes you hang your head pretty low.

    it was a SIMPLE matter really
    [WATCH THE FINGER]

    OH REALLY?

    (regardless, anyhow. the circumstantial absurdities surrounding his murder make Oswald acting alone beyond impossible)

    I remember TRYING to show my mother the 5th disc clip of the horribly manipulated "interview" (ie. witness harassment \ interrogation) of Sandra Serrano (who saw a woman with a Polka Dot dress excitedly leaving the scene of the RFK asassination, saying "we got him!") ... I remember my mother got through about TWO MINUTES of the recording before she said she felt, "too sick to watch any more." Again, how much hard "evidence" do you need when you can hear for yourself how deliberately misdirected the investigations were?
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. …We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.
    FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62–109060–18
    The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr Katzenbach, is having something issued so that we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin. Mr Katzenbach thinks that the President might appoint a Presidential Commission of three outstanding citizens to make a determination.
    HSCA Report, appendix vol.3, p.472

    source site
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • ajedigeckoajedigecko Posts: 2,430
    "today, we need a nation of minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

    President John F. Kennedy.


    he was beginning to upset the democrats.
    live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
  • PJenPJen Posts: 127
    Yeah. Makes you hang your head pretty low.

    it was a SIMPLE matter really
    [WATCH THE FINGER]

    OH REALLY?

    (regardless, anyhow. the circumstantial absurdities surrounding his murder make Oswald acting alone beyond impossible)

    I remember TRYING to show my mother the 5th disc clip of the horribly manipulated "interview" (ie. witness harassment \ interrogation) of Sandra Serrano (who saw a woman with a Polka Dot dress excitedly leaving the scene of the RFK asassination, saying "we got him!") ... I remember my mother got through about TWO MINUTES of the recording before she said she felt, "too sick to watch any more." Again, how much hard "evidence" do you need when you can hear for yourself how deliberately misdirected the investigations were?

    The clip of Sandra Serrano was def. disturbing. Both of my parents were high school seniors when JFK was assassinated and it had a profound impact on them. They still get fired up when talking about it. I shared the documentary link with them yesterday and they've already watched Part 1. They both said that they've learned things that they never knew before, and they've read quite a bit on the topic over the years. Anyway, I'm just glad I chanced upon the old post (just realized that you originally shared the link). Thanks, because it's been a real eye opener and will give my parents some 'closure' as well. I'll check out your other links too.
    "Don't let it get ya down, ya know, still give your love, just give it away. I love singing that part." -- EV (SVT)
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    ajedigecko wrote:
    "today, we need a nation of minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

    President John F. Kennedy.


    he was beginning to upset the democrats.

    He also upset the C.I.A, who he intended to disband.
  • The gun Oswald used was more than capable. Also, he had plenty of time to get the shots off.

    Conspiracy theorists claim Oswald only had 5 of 6 second (or 5.6 seconds) to fire all 3 shots, but it was more like 9 or 10 seconds. They base it on the first shot being the one where Kennedy is visibly hit after he emerges from behind the Stemmins freeway sign. This is false. The first shot occurred right after the turn from Houston onto Elm, long before the car disappeared behind the sign. Notice the camera shaking at this time. Also the little girl running in the background stops dead in her tracks and looks towards the Book Depository. The 2nd shot hit both Kenndy and Connally - there was nothing "magic" about it. Third shot head shot. Pretty simple, really.

    I can't figure Oswald out though. Some things just don't add up. Not just his activities in Russia and New Orleans. For me, just the fact that he just happened to get a job at the Book Depository 6 weeks prior to the assassination and then the parade route also just happens to go right past the building- after having to slow down because of that sharp turn on the corner. Too much coincidence there. And if he did it for political reasons, or to be infamous, why did he keep denying he did it? Who uses the word "patsy?"

    And Ruby - you'll never convince me that he just shot Oswald spur of the moment. He wired money to a friend from a Western Union across the street from the Police station - when he was arrested he had a receipt in his pocket that was date stamped 11:17 AM. Then he just happened to make it down to the police station basement no problem and stand in line right at the moment when they bring Oswald out and he shoots him - 3 minutes after Western Union. Please. It was a set up. The fact that he had that Western Union receipt with the time stamped on it is suspicious in and of itself. No one wires money one minute and then walks across the street, pulls out a gun and shoots an accused Presidential assassin on live television the next. He HAD to shoot him. It was an orders hit. He had no choice. He didn't do it to spare Jackie Kennedy the burden of having to return to Dallas to testify. He was the owner of a strip club in downtown Dallas, Texas. And he had ties to the mob. He wasn't Jack Reacher, lol.
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • ajedigeckoajedigecko Posts: 2,430
    Byrnzie wrote:
    ajedigecko wrote:
    "today, we need a nation of minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

    President John F. Kennedy.


    he was beginning to upset the democrats.

    He also upset the C.I.A, who he intended to disband.

    Not to mention "cheating" on the wife...
    live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    The gun Oswald used was more than capable.

    Not according to anybody who's ever fired one. Also, the sight was found to be misaligned.

    He would have been lucky to have hit a stationary cow with that piece of shit.
  • ajedigeckoajedigecko Posts: 2,430
    Byrnzie wrote:
    The gun Oswald used was more than capable.

    Not according to anybody who's ever fired one. Also, the sight was found to be misaligned.

    He would have been lucky to have hit a stationary cow with that piece of shit.

    If i practice accuracy with a gun that has bad sights. I will learn how to compensate for the lack of precision.
    live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    The gun Oswald used was more than capable.

    Not according to anybody who's ever fired one. Also, the sight was found to be misaligned.

    He would have been lucky to have hit a stationary cow with that piece of shit.

    You've been reading too many conspiracy books.
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    ajedigecko wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    The gun Oswald used was more than capable.

    Not according to anybody who's ever fired one. Also, the sight was found to be misaligned.

    He would have been lucky to have hit a stationary cow with that piece of shit.

    If i practice accuracy with a gun that has bad sights. I will learn how to compensate for the lack of precision.

    It wasn't a bad sight. The sight was misaligned. And the gun was an out-of date piece of crap that was widely mocked by those who knew it as a weapon that was incapable of hitting anything.

    120 marksmen later tried to replicate what Oswald supposedly did, and they all failed. Every single one of them.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    You've been reading too many conspiracy books.

    You don't need to have read any conspiracy books - though I read one about 20 years ago - to discover that the notion that JFK was shot by a lone gunman - Oswald - is an utter absurdity that falls to pieces when you begin examining the evidence. It doesn't take very long, and it doesn't take a genius to work it out.
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    You've been reading too many conspiracy books.

    You don't need to have read any conspiracy books - though I read one about 20 years ago - to discover that the notion that JFK was shot by a lone gunman - Oswald - is an utter absurdity that falls to pieces when you begin examining the evidence. It doesn't take very long, and it doesn't take a genius to work it out.

    Ok, what evidence do you have that Kennedy was shot by 2 different gunmen? Evidence , mind you; not opinions or theories.
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • RoughMixRoughMix Posts: 385
    Byrnzie wrote:

    120 marksmen later tried to replicate what Oswald supposedly did, and they all failed. Every single one of them.

    The reason they couldn't replicate the feat was,as waiting trophy man stated, the time frame was different.
    The marksmen were trying to aim-fire,aim-fire,aim-fire, in less than 6 seconds.They actually had about nine or ten seconds to fire three shots.
    The first shot was taken just after the limo turned onto Elm St.How did such a close range shot miss?The bullet ricocheted off the streetlight and hit the curb down near the railway overpass.A piece of concrete struck bystander James Tague on the cheek.This was at a time when Zapruder had stopped filming.Everyone thought the first shot occured when Kennedy disappeared behind the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Zapruder film.That was the second shot.The third shot finished the job.
    One shooter(Oswald),but he possibly used by outside influences who wanted Kennedy dead.
    "They don't give a shit Keith Moon is dead,
    is that exactly what I thought I read."
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Byrnzie wrote:
    You've been reading too many conspiracy books.

    You don't need to have read any conspiracy books - though I read one about 20 years ago - to discover that the notion that JFK was shot by a lone gunman - Oswald - is an utter absurdity that falls to pieces when you begin examining the evidence. It doesn't take very long, and it doesn't take a genius to work it out.

    Ok, what evidence do you have that Kennedy was shot by 2 different gunmen? Evidence , mind you; not opinions or theories.

    The fact that dozens of people heard shots coming from behind the grassy knoll and ran in that direction.
    The fact that it was impossible for a lone gunman to have shot Kennedy from the book depository in the time given, and with the weapon found there, and considering the wounds inflicted on those below, such as the exit wound at the back of Kennedys head.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    RoughMix wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:

    120 marksmen later tried to replicate what Oswald supposedly did, and they all failed. Every single one of them.

    The reason they couldn't replicate the feat was,as waiting trophy man stated, the time frame was different.
    The marksmen were trying to aim-fire,aim-fire,aim-fire, in less than 6 seconds.They actually had about nine or ten seconds to fire three shots.
    The first shot was taken just after the limo turned onto Elm St.How did such a close range shot miss?The bullet ricocheted off the streetlight and hit the curb down near the railway overpass.A piece of concrete struck bystander James Tague on the cheek.This was at a time when Zapruder had stopped filming.Everyone thought the first shot occured when Kennedy disappeared behind the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Zapruder film.That was the second shot.The third shot finished the job.
    One shooter(Oswald),but he possibly used by outside influences who wanted Kennedy dead.

    So there were two magic bullets now? Not just one bullet that changed direction in mid-air and landed intact after penetrating two human bodies, only to be conveniently found later on the bed beside Kennedy.
  • RoughMixRoughMix Posts: 385
    Byrnzie wrote:
    RoughMix wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:

    120 marksmen later tried to replicate what Oswald supposedly did, and they all failed. Every single one of them.

    The reason they couldn't replicate the feat was,as waiting trophy man stated, the time frame was different.
    The marksmen were trying to aim-fire,aim-fire,aim-fire, in less than 6 seconds.They actually had about nine or ten seconds to fire three shots.
    The first shot was taken just after the limo turned onto Elm St.How did such a close range shot miss?The bullet ricocheted off the streetlight and hit the curb down near the railway overpass.A piece of concrete struck bystander James Tague on the cheek.This was at a time when Zapruder had stopped filming.Everyone thought the first shot occured when Kennedy disappeared behind the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Zapruder film.That was the second shot.The third shot finished the job.
    One shooter(Oswald),but he possibly used by outside influences who wanted Kennedy dead.

    So there were two magic bullets now? Not just one bullet that changed direction in mid-air and landed intact after penetrating two human bodies, only to be conveniently found later on the bed beside Kennedy.
    I think you are confused.There wasn't even one magic bullet.That news is so old,you should really get caught up.
    It has been proven that the so called "magic" bullet was anything but.Connelly was sitting in a jump seat in front of the President.This seat was about 6 to 8 inches inside of Kennedy and a little lower.The bullet trajectory was found to line up.No"changing direction in mid air".
    Also,the bullet (CE 399) was found on the stretcher which was used for Connelly not Kennedy.
    "They don't give a shit Keith Moon is dead,
    is that exactly what I thought I read."
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    RoughMix wrote:
    I think you are confused.There wasn't even one magic bullet.That news is so old,you should really get caught up.
    It has been proven that the so called "magic" bullet was anything but.Connelly was sitting in a jump seat in front of the President.This seat was about 6 to 8 inches inside of Kennedy and a little lower.The bullet trajectory was found to line up.No"changing direction in mid air".
    Also,the bullet (CE 399) was found on the stretcher which was used for Connelly not Kennedy.

    Except when the initial analysis was done, they already factored in the height of the seats in the car.

    And the fact that the 'magic' bullet was found on another stretcher doesn't really add any credence to your argument. Somebody obviously placed it there.
  • Byrnzie wrote:

    Ok, what evidence do you have that Kennedy was shot by 2 different gunmen? Evidence , mind you; not opinions or theories.

    The fact that dozens of people heard shots coming from behind the grassy knoll and ran in that direction.
    The fact that it was impossible for a lone gunman to have shot Kennedy from the book depository in the time given, and with the weapon found there, and considering the wounds inflicted on those below, such as the exit wound at the back of Kennedys head.

    Okay the fact that "people heard shots coming from behind the grassy knoll and ran in that direct" is not evidence. First off, the acoustics in Dealey Plaza are tricky. It's a big echo chamber. Gunshots cause reverberations off other buildings in the area. Depending on where you were standing, you may have thought you heard the shots being fired from any and all directions. Also, the first person to run up the grassy knoll was patrolman Clyde Haygood immediately after the assassination. And because he ran up there, everyone else followed him. What did they find behind the picket fence? Nothing. Officer Haygood heard 3 shots, btw. The first shot and then 2 more shots that were closer together(throat and head shot).

    As stated by Roughmix there was plenty of time to get all 3 shots off. I don't need to repeat what we both have said about the timing. And the gun, albeit an odd choice, was more than capable of carrying out the assassination. Oswald was cheap, so that is likely the reason he didn't buy a more expensive and automatic weapon.

    After the bullet exited Kennedy's throat, it began tumbling (also known as yawing) and actually entered Connally's back sideways. Because it was tumbling, the bullet lost much of it's velocity so it did not hit any of Connally's bones with maximum force. And by the time it got to Connally's thigh, it barely had enough force to embed itself below the flesh. This is why the bullet seemed so pristine, although it was anything but. It had significant damage to it - the nose was flattened; it was oval instead of round; it lost fragments of itself, etc.

    ".......such as the exit wound at the back of Kennedy's head." There was no exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head. Watch the Zapruder film. Look at a still photo after the head shot (any frame after 313) and you will clearly see the back of Kennedy's head intact. I don't even know how this is even still being debated - it's right there on the film. Oh wait, the film was tampered with, right??

    Also as mentioned, a lot of this stuff is so dated and reasonable explanations and scientific studies have been made in recent years that debunk all of these theories regarding the "magic" bullet; the "back and to the left" movement; the back of Kennedy's head; 3 shots in 6 seconds, on and on and on....

    Like I said before, I can't figure Oswald out. Whether he acted alone or was used by an outside agency such as CIA or the Kremlin/KGB. Same goes for Jack Ruby. Who was he working for? Or was he just under the influence of prescription drugs and looking to go down in history? I'm not sure we'll ever know the answers, or even if it did come out somehow- if anyone would ever believe "the truth."
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • RoughMix wrote:

    The reason they couldn't replicate the feat was,as waiting trophy man stated, the time frame was different.
    The marksmen were trying to aim-fire,aim-fire,aim-fire, in less than 6 seconds.They actually had about nine or ten seconds to fire three shots.
    The first shot was taken just after the limo turned onto Elm St.How did such a close range shot miss?The bullet ricocheted off the streetlight and hit the curb down near the railway overpass.A piece of concrete struck bystander James Tague on the cheek.This was at a time when Zapruder had stopped filming.Everyone thought the first shot occured when Kennedy disappeared behind the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Zapruder film.That was the second shot.The third shot finished the job.

    That was a good show/documentary about the bullet ricocheting off the traffic light. And it made sense to me. Had to have been the first shot that injured James Tague.

    And Amos Euins has never changed his story. He was right there on the corner of Elm and Houston and he has said time and time again that the first shot occurred just as the limo straightened out after the sharp turn and headed down Elm. He also said he heard 3 shots and they all came from the book depository. He was actually looking up at the window when either the 3rd shot was fired, or as the barrel of the gun was being withdrawn through the window - I can't remember.
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Byrnzie wrote:

    Ok, what evidence do you have that Kennedy was shot by 2 different gunmen? Evidence , mind you; not opinions or theories.

    The fact that dozens of people heard shots coming from behind the grassy knoll and ran in that direction.
    The fact that it was impossible for a lone gunman to have shot Kennedy from the book depository in the time given, and with the weapon found there, and considering the wounds inflicted on those below, such as the exit wound at the back of Kennedys head.

    Okay the fact that "people heard shots coming from behind the grassy knoll and ran in that direct" is not evidence. First off, the acoustics in Dealey Plaza are tricky. It's a big echo chamber. Gunshots cause reverberations off other buildings in the area. Depending on where you were standing, you may have thought you heard the shots being fired from any and all directions. Also, the first person to run up the grassy knoll was patrolman Clyde Haygood immediately after the assassination. And because he ran up there, everyone else followed him. What did they find behind the picket fence? Nothing. Officer Haygood heard 3 shots, btw. The first shot and then 2 more shots that were closer together(throat and head shot).

    As stated by Roughmix there was plenty of time to get all 3 shots off. I don't need to repeat what we both have said about the timing. And the gun, albeit an odd choice, was more than capable of carrying out the assassination. Oswald was cheap, so that is likely the reason he didn't buy a more expensive and automatic weapon.

    After the bullet exited Kennedy's throat, it began tumbling (also known as yawing) and actually entered Connally's back sideways. Because it was tumbling, the bullet lost much of it's velocity so it did not hit any of Connally's bones with maximum force. And by the time it got to Connally's thigh, it barely had enough force to embed itself below the flesh. This is why the bullet seemed so pristine, although it was anything but. It had significant damage to it - the nose was flattened; it was oval instead of round; it lost fragments of itself, etc.

    ".......such as the exit wound at the back of Kennedy's head." There was no exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head. Watch the Zapruder film. Look at a still photo after the head shot (any frame after 313) and you will clearly see the back of Kennedy's head intact. I don't even know how this is even still being debated - it's right there on the film. Oh wait, the film was tampered with, right??

    Also as mentioned, a lot of this stuff is so dated and reasonable explanations and scientific studies have been made in recent years that debunk all of these theories regarding the "magic" bullet; the "back and to the left" movement; the back of Kennedy's head; 3 shots in 6 seconds, on and on and on....

    Like I said before, I can't figure Oswald out. Whether he acted alone or was used by an outside agency such as CIA or the Kremlin/KGB. Same goes for Jack Ruby. Who was he working for? Or was he just under the influence of prescription drugs and looking to go down in history? I'm not sure we'll ever know the answers, or even if it did come out somehow- if anyone would ever believe "the truth."

    I watched a documentary recently that included testimony from a deaf fella who says he was standing on the overpass overlooking the road and the parking-lot behind the grassy knoll, and that he saw a man firing with a rifle, and then passing the rifle to another man before making his getaway. He described the events in minute detail.
    Also, many other witnesses were coerced by the police into changing their stories. Why?

    As for the back of Kennedy's head being intact, I've seen the autopsy photo's. The back of his head had clearly been blown away.

    viewtopic.php?f=13&t=144233&p=5369873&hilit=jfk#p3317631

    http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/autopsy.htm

    I don't have the answers either, but there's just so many inconsistencies and questions surrounding this event that there must have been more to it than the convenient, simple, lone-gunman scenario.
  • Hey trophyman,
    i have a million and one things i could throw out there right now, but i'm actually curious about one thing, since i just stumbled upon it, that you might find "curious".

    I'm sure you are aware of Garrison and his prosecution of Clay Shaw.
    It is popularly portayed that Garrison engaged in the prosecution of an innocent man, even though wikipedia itself has the following to say:
    In 1979, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Clay Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA,

    and
    In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that the Committee was "inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton [Louisiana] in late August, early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw,"[19] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana "established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the assassination".[20]

    Now. The man played by John Candy in Stone's JFK is New Orleans Attorney Dean Andrews Jr.. This man informs the FBI 3 days after the JFK assassination that on the day after the assassination a man named "Clay Bertrand" called him (in the hospital where he was being treated for pneumonia, no less) asking him to defend Oswald at trial. Three weeks later, he then does a 180 and tells the FBI that "Clay Bertrand" was a "figment of his imagination." He then alleges that he made up the name and fabricated the story to protect another one of his clients, Eugene Davis. Of course, Eugene Davis flatly denies this charge.

    NOW READ THIS SHIT RIGHT HERE: Official Questioning of Dean Andrews Jr.

    ARE YOU SERIOUS?
    ***A FIGMENT OF HIS IMAGINATION?***
    The guy goes on not one but several rants about wanting to beat the shit out of this "fictional" character (which he calls a "rat", among other unflattering terms). He clearly identifies him as a bisexual with an affinity for young men. He says he has sandy hair, a description very much matching Clay Shaw, and he says he not only recognized the voice on the phone, but had seen him not once, but twice. The second time being after he had been harassed at length by the FBI ("feebees") of which encounter he pretty much outright says that he lied to the FBI to get them off his back, seemingly insinuating that he was personally uncomfortable with the heat surrounding the whole affair (ie he doesn't want to end up dead) and he seems to indicate that he outright lied to them about this "figment" to get them to go away.
    Mr. LIEBELER. . . . Let me ask you this: When I was down here in April, before I talked to you about this thing, and I was going to take your deposition at that time, but we didn't make arrangements, in your continuing discussions with the FBI, you finally came to the conclusion that Clay Bertrand was a figment of your imagination?

    Mr. ANDREWS. . . . That's what the Feebees put on. I know that the two Feebees are going to put these people on the street looking, and I can't find the guy, and I am not going to tie up all the agents on something that isn't that solid. I told them, "Write what you want, that I am nuts. I don't care." They were running on the time factor, and the hills were shook up plenty to get it, get it, get it. I couldn't give it to them. I have been playing cops and robbers with them. You can tell when the steam is on. They are on you like the plague. They never leave. They are like cancer. Eternal. . . . It was my decision if they were to stay there. If I decide yes, they stay. If I decide no, they go. So I told them, "Close your file and go some place else." That's the real reason why it was done. I don't know what they wrote in the report, but that's the real reason.

    He further indicates that Oswald had been in his office, not once, but 3-5 times, the first time with a bunch of GAY "mexicano" kids (could they possibly have been CUBANOS?) ...

    He even further, outright acknowledges that his office had been "rifled" and that "they" seemed to have taken documents and had messed up his office.

    The guy then gets called to the the Shaw trial by Garrison and flatly denies in front of the grand jury that Shaw was in fact Clay Bertrand (pretty smart move, cuz he doesn't end up immediately dead like Ferrie and Bannister) and then actually gets prosecuted by Garrison for PERJURY, AND GETS CONVICTED OF IT AS WELL!

    ARE YOU SERIOUS?

    Between this shit, and EVERYTHING surrounding George DeMorenshildt, particularly his letter to personal friend, CIA Director George H. W. Bush, claiming fear for his life at the time of the HSCA trials, followed by a personal RESPONSE from GHW Bush, followed then by George re-entering the country, being served with notice of a request of his appearance at the HSCA, followed by HIS DEATH BY GUNSHOT IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER (seriously, that day) ...

    ARE YOU SERIOUS !?!
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    I watched a documentary recently that included testimony from a deaf fella who says he was standing on the overpass overlooking the road and the parking-lot behind the grassy knoll, and that he saw a man firing with a rifle, and then passing the rifle to another man before making his getaway. He described the events in minute detail.
    Also, many other witnesses were coerced by the police into changing their stories. Why?

    As for the back of Kennedy's head being intact, I've seen the autopsy photo's. The back of his head had clearly been blown away.

    viewtopic.php?f=13&t=144233&p=5369873&hilit=jfk#p3317631

    http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/autopsy.htm

    I don't have the answers either, but there's just so many inconsistencies and questions surrounding this event that there must have been more to it than the convenient, simple, lone-gunman scenario.

    The "deaf fella" is Ed Hoffamn of 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' fame,' which is the documentary-equivalent of the Oliver Stone movie. I watched that when I was 15 - fascinating tale and ultimately hilarious and absurd.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpsDrzzGjfc

    Yeah, this guy's not coo coo, at all. :roll:

    "Also, many other witnesses were coerced by the police into changing their stories. Why?" Who? Beverly Oliver? Gordon Arnold. Texas is full of nuts and there's 2 of them right there for ya. That is all.

    "As for the back of Kennedy's head being intact, I've seen the autopsy photo's." Have you seen the Zapruder film, too? How come I mention the Zapruder film and you have no comment? Instead you go to the autopsy photos, which do not show the back of Kennedy's head blown out. And by the way, the diagram's don't count either. Anyone can draw a picture. Why don't you just look at the video for proof? I guess that would be too easy and take away all the fun of this murder mystery??

    It looks to me like the back of his head is intact:

    http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/JbXI0WSlTGw/hqdefault.jpg
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • Sorry Drifting, but I'm no longer interested in anything to do with Jim Garrison, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Dean Andrews, or Oilver Stone's fictional movie, JFK. It's just that- a movie.

    I'll add just one comment regarding the HSCA - the only "evidence" they provided of a conspiracy was the police motorcycle dictabelt recording that they said "proved" there was a 4th shot. It has since been discredited. Turns out it was a recording that was made prior to the assassination., before the officer was anywhere near Dealey Plaza.

    I admit Oswald and Ruby are still suspicious characters and we don't know the whole story, but it's not nearly as fantastic as you guys make it out to be.
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    The "deaf fella" is Ed Hoffamn of 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' fame,' which is the documentary-equivalent of the Oliver Stone movie. I watched that when I was 15 - fascinating tale and ultimately hilarious and absurd.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpsDrzzGjfc

    Yeah, this guy's not coo coo, at all. :roll:

    Hilarious and absurd? How so?

    And you say the guy's coo coo? Why? Because he happens to be deaf?
    It looks to me like the back of his head is intact:

    http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/JbXI0WSlTGw/hqdefault.jpg

    Doesn't look that way to me.

    http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE2_HI.jpg

    If he'd received a shot to the back of the head, from the direction of the school book depository, then there would have been a huge exit wound at the front of his head, or in his face. But there wasn't.
  • Byrnzie wrote:

    Hilarious and absurd? How so?

    And you say the guy's coo coo? Why? Because he happens to be deaf?
    It looks to me like the back of his head is intact:

    http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/JbXI0WSlTGw/hqdefault.jpg

    Doesn't look that way to me.

    http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE2_HI.jpg

    If he'd received a shot to the back of the head, from the direction of the school book depository, then there would have been a huge exit wound at the front of his head, or in his face. But there wasn't.

    "Hilarious and absurd? How so?" Everything about it is hilarious and absurd. You honestly believe his story? Come on now.

    "And you say the guy's coo coo? Why? Because he happens to be deaf?" Why would I think he's coo coo because he happens to be deaf? Are you serious asking me this? Now YOU'RE being absurd. But not very funny.

    "Doesn't look that way to me." Look again.

    "If he'd received a shot to the back of the head, from the direction of the school book depository, then there would have been a huge exit wound at the front of his head, or in his face. But there wasn't." What makes you say that? Are you an expert on gunshot wounds or something? Same with the "back and to the left" movement. Just because it happened that way doesn't mean it had to come from the front-right. But let's say you're right about that, then wouldn't the back-left side of his head been blown out? But that's not what you're saying - you're saying the back-right side of his head was blown out. Same with the autopsy drawings - it shows the back-right part missing. How is that possible if he was shot from the front-right? Magic bullet?
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Byrnzie wrote:

    Hilarious and absurd? How so?

    And you say the guy's coo coo? Why? Because he happens to be deaf?
    It looks to me like the back of his head is intact:

    http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/JbXI0WSlTGw/hqdefault.jpg

    Doesn't look that way to me.

    http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE2_HI.jpg

    If he'd received a shot to the back of the head, from the direction of the school book depository, then there would have been a huge exit wound at the front of his head, or in his face. But there wasn't.

    "Hilarious and absurd? How so?" Everything about it is hilarious and absurd. You honestly believe his story? Come on now.

    "And you say the guy's coo coo? Why? Because he happens to be deaf?" Why would I think he's coo coo because he happens to be deaf? Are you serious asking me this? Now YOU'RE being absurd. But not very funny.

    "Doesn't look that way to me." Look again.

    "If he'd received a shot to the back of the head, from the direction of the school book depository, then there would have been a huge exit wound at the front of his head, or in his face. But there wasn't." What makes you say that? Are you an expert on gunshot wounds or something? Same with the "back and to the left" movement. Just because it happened that way doesn't mean it had to come from the front-right. But let's say you're right about that, then wouldn't the back-left side of his head been blown out? But that's not what you're saying - you're saying the back-right side of his head was blown out. Same with the autopsy drawings - it shows the back-right part missing. How is that possible if he was shot from the front-right? Magic bullet?

    So the autopsy photo's are fake?
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Why did about 30 people run up to the area behind the grassy knoll immediately after the shooting? Are you suggesting that they were all confused? Dozens of people heard shots coming from that direction, above the noise of the motorcade and the crowds lined along both sides of the road leading up to the corner of Elm Street. Many people also say they saw flashes coming from that direction at the time of the shooting. Were they all audibly and visually impaired?
Sign In or Register to comment.