The Discharge Of Lee Harvey Oswald And Other Related Issues

[Michael Clark]

7 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Cheers Paul, much appreciated. I will give it a watch later on.

I've read, on this forum, a lot of Jack White's posts, and also read a few bits and bobs elsewhere... to be honest I am a bit skeptical because I have read some quite wild things that he said (one example that springs to mind was when he claimed that for a person to catch something travelling at 11mph they would need to run 22mph - which would only be true if they started 11 miles behind and had an hour to catch up with it. lol)

but yeah I will give it the credence it deserves.

Regards

Alistair, I believe it was Joh Simkin who noted that it was after he was severely attacked while sleeping that he began to make strange claims.

Cheers,

Michael

 

[David Josephs]

On 3/29/2017 at 10:53 PM, Alistair Briggs said:

Cheers Paul, much appreciated. I will give it a watch later on.

I've read, on this forum, a lot of Jack White's posts, and also read a few bits and bobs elsewhere... to be honest I am a bit skeptical because I have read some quite wild things that he said (one example that springs to mind was when he claimed that for a person to catch something travelling at 11mph they would need to run 22mph - which would only be true if they started 11 miles behind and had an hour to catch up with it. lol)

but yeah I will give it the credence it deserves.

Regards

I had actually done that analysis Alistair...  In about 4 steps Hill gets from his position to the rear of the limo...  

It takes 21 frames.  If we accept 18.3fps that equals 1.15 seconds which means Hill hits the ground and covers almost 27 feet in a second when in reality, if the limo is moving at 4-5mph as it appears he only need run at 9-10mph for that second - which is much more realistic. (the fastest average humans run at 16mph, BOLT ran the 100m dash at 28mph..  this man is dressed in a suit and dress shoes jumping from a moving vehicle...  I think it helps to prove the limo was traveling much less than 11.2 mph Shaneyfelt claims - which he states is the average over the entire distance...  

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

On 3/29/2017 at 11:14 AM, Alistair Briggs said:

A link to that would be conducive.

 

 

Not sure if you were aware... LIFE altered the image significantly before publishing...   so the question is which image are we working with - before or after these changes?

 

If Jack was working with copies of photos since there is only 1 negative in evidence

 

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by David Josephs

[Alistair Briggs]

36 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I had actually done that analysis Alistair...  In about 4 steps Hill gets from his position to the rear of the limo... 

lol when I first read that I was asking myself who Hill was... only because I'm pretty sure the Jack White 22mph running thing was about Willis... I think. lol

Anyway,

36 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

It takes 21 frames.  If we accept 18.3fps that equals 1.15 seconds which means Hill hits the ground and covers almost 27 feet in a second when in reality, if the limo is moving at 4-5mph as it appears he only need run at 9-10mph for that second - which is much more realistic. (the fastest average humans run at 16mph, BOLT ran the 100m dash at 28mph..  this man is dressed in a suit and dress shoes jumping from a moving vehicle...  I think it helps to prove the limo was traveling much less than 11.2 mph Shaneyfelt claims - which he states is the average over the entire distance... 

What about his momentum though because he wouldn't be starting from a standing still position (relatively) he would be travelling at the same speed as the car he 'leapt' from - wouldn't his relative speed by higher then...

27 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Not sure if you were aware... LIFE altered the image significantly before publishing...   so the question is which image are we working with - before or after these changes?

Yep, I'm aware of the alterations made by LIFE.

I liked the bit in the 'letter' there that reads: "the original was not exactly the acme of photographic perfection" lol

Regards

P.S. I'm going to see if I can find the link to the Jack White thread about 22mph.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Alistair Briggs

[David Josephs]

Have you ever tried jumping of a moving car at 11 mph?  Not an easy thing to hit the ground running...

And if you play the stabilized version backward in Quicktime you can see how much the limo slows prior to the headshot before it takes off...

It may be possible yet it is much more likely the 2 vehicles were moving much slower at the time...

Also to remember that both Hill and Kellerman say he jumps on the limo after the 2nd shot... not the last shot.

[Alistair Briggs]

7 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Have you ever tried jumping of a moving car at 11 mph?  Not an easy thing to hit the ground running...

And if you play the stabilized version backward in Quicktime you can see how much the limo slows prior to the headshot before it takes off...

It may be possible yet it is much more likely the 2 vehicles were moving much slower at the time...

Also to remember that both Hill and Kellerman say he jumps on the limo after the 2nd shot... not the last shot.

In terms of someone 'besting' 'expectations', 'motivation' can play a big part. In the same way someone could lift a car, by use of 'hysterical strength' maybe someone can (over a short enough distance) run faster than 'expected' if they were 'motivated' enough... maybe...

...as you say though, it is more likely the 2 vehicles were moving slower at the time... I have no problems with that thinking at all.

It is an interesting topic to be sure. In deference to not wanting to go too off kilter within this thread, perhaps another thread for this kind of discussion may be an idea?

Regards

[Alistair Briggs]

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

...CIA-did-it CT.

Just on that subject Paul;

I recently picked up a book called 'The Mammoth Book of Cover-Ups' by Jon E Lewis, in which he briefly goes through 100 of the 'most disturbing conspiracies of all time' and he gives each 'cover-up' a plausibility rating from 0 to 10. In terms of JFK theories this is how he rated some of them;

Castro/the USSR assassinated JFK: Alert Level 3
LBJ conspired to kills his predecessor: Alert Level 6
The CIA asassinated Kennedy: Alert Level 2.5
Anti-Castro Cuban exiles assassinated Kennedy: Alert Level 7
The Mob killed Kennedy: Alert Level 6
JFK was killed by a conspiracy, not a 'lone gunman': Alert Level 7

To put some of those numbers in context here are a few random other ones;

British Royal Family are the imperial masters of the planet: Alert Level 2
Elvis lives: Alert Level 0
The Nazis sent a successful mission to the moon: Alert Level 1
Bobby Kennedy murdered Marilyn Monroe: Alert Level 4
Libya was framed for the Lockerbie bombing: Alert Level 9
Earth is hollow and inhabitated by aliens with UFO's: Alert Level 1

[Paul Trejo]

27 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Just on that subject Paul;

I recently picked up a book called 'The Mammoth Book of Cover-Ups' by Jon E Lewis, in which he briefly goes through 100 of the 'most disturbing conspiracies of all time' and he gives each 'cover-up' a plausibility rating from 0 to 10. In terms of JFK theories this is how he rated some of them;

Castro/the USSR assassinated JFK: Alert Level 3
LBJ conspired to kills his predecessor: Alert Level 6
The CIA asassinated Kennedy: Alert Level 2.5
Anti-Castro Cuban exiles assassinated Kennedy: Alert Level 7
The Mob killed Kennedy: Alert Level 6
JFK was killed by a conspiracy, not a 'lone gunman': Alert Level 7

To put some of those numbers in context here are a few random other ones;

British Royal Family are the imperial masters of the planet: Alert Level 2
Elvis lives: Alert Level 0
The Nazis sent a successful mission to the moon: Alert Level 1
Bobby Kennedy murdered Marilyn Monroe: Alert Level 4
Libya was framed for the Lockerbie bombing: Alert Level 9
Earth is hollow and inhabitated by aliens with UFO's: Alert Level 1

Alistair,

Agreed that the CIA-did-it CT is not as alarming as the LBJ did it CT.

Agreed, also, that the CIA-did-it CT is not as alarming as the foreigners-did-it CT's.

Agreed, also, that the CIA-did-it CT is not as alarming as the Mafia-did-it CT's.

Agreed, also, that the CIA-did-it CT is not as alarming as the TRUTH -- which is that a USA conspiracy (not a lone gunman) killed JFK.

So, basically, I am agreeing that the CT to which I subscribe, by Dr. Jeff Caufield in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) is more alarming than that CIA-did-it nonsense which has dominated CT literature for a half-century.

My main point, however, is that CIA-did-it literature continues to predominate in the CT literature, even down to this very day.

So -- the elephant in this fight is clearly the CIA-did-it school -- as dumb as they are.  They are still nasty today, even on this FORUM.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Alistair Briggs]

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

My main point, however, is that CIA-did-it literature continues to predominate in the CT literature, even down to this very day.

There must be reasons for that. Is it because it's the most 'appealing' theory, one that makes the most sense. In a 'back to basics' and in an overly simplistic way... JFK wanted to 'destroy' the CIA - JFK is assassinated - the CIA survives... that's the 'motive' and they certainly had the 'means'... thus there is certainly an 'appeal' to that line of thinking... and it can be 'backed up' with evidence by 'connecting the dots' - that's not to say it is correct of course...

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

So -- the elephant in this fight is clearly the CIA-did-it school -- as dumb as they are.  They are still nasty today, even on this FORUM.

I can understand your 'frustrations' on this point, Paul; yeah some people have been 'nasty' (to you) on this forum  - of course, it's not overly helpful when you call them 'dumb'. lol People don't like being called dumb. lol Seriously though, one thing that I have found is that even with some CT's that are in general terms polar opposites there is still some cross over points between them and it can thus be helpful to  listen more to those who have oppossing views because on some points there would be some agreement...

... anyroads;

You mentioned something above that I thought was quite interesting;

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

So, basically, I am agreeing that the CT to which I subscribe, by Dr. Jeff Caufield in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) is more alarming than that CIA-did-it nonsense which has dominated CT literature for a half-century.

... on what grounds is it more alarming?

Regards

[Paul Trejo]

10 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

There must be reasons...that [CIA-did-it CT is most popular].

Is it because it's the most 'appealing' theory, one that makes the most sense. In a 'back to basics' and in an overly simplistic way... JFK wanted to 'destroy' the CIA - JFK is assassinated - the CIA survives... that's the 'motive' and they certainly had the 'means'... thus there is certainly an 'appeal' to that line of thinking... and it can be 'backed up' with evidence by 'connecting the dots' - that's not to say it is correct of course...

I can understand your 'frustrations' on this point, Paul; yeah some people have been 'nasty' (to you) on this forum  - of course, it's not overly helpful when you call them 'dumb'. lol People don't like being called dumb. lol Seriously though, one thing that I have found is that even with some CT's that are in general terms polar opposites there is still some cross over points between them and it can thus be helpful to  listen more to those who have oppossing views because on some points there would be some agreement...

... anyroads;

You mentioned something above that I thought was quite interesting;

... on what grounds is it more alarming?

Regards

Alistair,

By the numbers:

1. The CIA-did-it CT is the most popular because it was the earliest -- started by Harold Weisberg, Ed Epstein and Mark Lane in 1965 (instantly after the Warren Report was published), and then kicked into high gear by Jim Garrison in 1968.

2.  Yet blaming the CIA was really only a convenience -- there was no hard evidence -- it is really only that: (2.1) the CIA is paid to keep secrets and to keep quiet, so one can project anything one want onto them, and they have no ability to sue for slander; and (2.2) if one had real evidence on the real JFK killers, one could also be killed quickly and quietly, so it was easier to blame the CIA without fear of reprisals.

3.  Jeff Caufield, for example, told me personally that in his close analysis of every page of Jim Garrison's papers, that Jim Garrison's first theory was that the Radical Right in Dallas and New Orleans had killed JFK.  But digging into this yielded more death threats and dangers than any other road, so Garrison backed off of it -- said Jeff Caufleld - and began blaming the CIA, always hoping that somebody from Dallas would catch the spirit of what he did in New Orleans.  (Nobody ever did.)

4.  The CIA-did-it CT does not make the most sense.  JFK did threaten to cut up the CIA into a thousand pieces -- but that was immediately after the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco, and JFK was hopping mad.  But after that, JFK actually increased funding for the CIA.   Also, JFK worked to assassinate Fidel Castro secretly, by using RFK and Operation Mongoose, and other secret plots. 

5. Jim Garrison did not know all these latter facts that emerged only at the end of the last century.  (Garrison did not know, e.g. that Operation Mongoose was actually JFK's project).  Garrison died in the 1990's. 

6. So, the CIA-did-it scenario is really out of date -- it is a 20th century CT, and anybody who follows it is really stuck in the 90's.

7.  The appeal of the CIA-did-it scenario is that it is (7.1) the most popular; (7.2) the subject of most of the 400 books on the topic; (7.3) the subject of most of the 4,000 web sites on the topic; (7.4) the easiest to understand.

8.  The actual evidence points to the Radical Right in Dallas (and New Orleans) and the Dallas Police and Deputies.  But that is unthinkable to millions of patriotic Americans.

9.  It's easier just to call J. Edgar Hoover a homo and to hate the FBI, the CIA and the "Establishment."   It's a chicken CT, IMHO.

10.  There seems to be a worry that the Dallas Police Department would be offended by Jeff Caufield's CT.  But remember that Ricky White, son of DPD officer Roscoe White, came out publicly in the 1990's with his father's confession.  He made a lot of money, actually.    When more DPD officer sons and grandsons come out with their family stories, they stand to make a lot of money as well -- and a new chapter in US History will unfold -- with the truth for a change.

11.  As for people being nasty to me on this FORUM -- I estimate that of my 4,800+ posts on this FORUM in the past 6 six years, only 500+ have directly promoted my CT, and 4,300+ were defensive posts against insults.

12.  Things changed somewhat at the start of 2016, when people realized that Jeff Caufield's new book was supporting my CT.   The insults really became harsher, because the CIA-did-it CTers feel the ground slipping from underneath them, IMHO.  I am finally used to the nastiness.  More often today, however, more objective voices like yours emerge, and I can promote my CT more directly.

13.  Yes, I have called generic CT positions "dumb" and worse.  Yet this is always in response to harsh and even vicious insults that I continue to receive simply for sharing my CT freely on this FORUM.  I never descend to hatred, however, or to scatological wit (or witlessness), and I generally maintain a civil discourse.  I far prefer civil discourse.

14.  My pet peeve is when some CTers spread hate language -- especially toward individuals, e.g. Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald.  It's unforgivable, IMHO, and I won't stand for it.  I'll speak out.

15.  Now, why did I say that the Radical Right, or Walker-did-it CT is more alarming than the CIA-did-it CT, Alistair?  Well, I was simply echoing the survey results that you yourself had posted.  I was agreeing with them.  

15.1.   If the CIA killed JFK, then this is less alarming because the US Government remains in control -- and the CIA is at a high-level, and maybe they had secret information that justified it -- we don't know -- but the Constitution kept running as usual -- the VP took the helm, and Law was restored.

15.2.  But if Ex-General Walker killed JFK, that is more alarming because US Civilians acted out, and they were never prosecuted under the Law -- some of them may still be roaming free.  That is, anyway, the logic that I presume guided the survey takers. 

15.3.  I myself believe, however, that the US Government did prosecute the JFK Killers -- although not openly.  They could not be punished openly during the Cold War, because the USSR would have used it in propaganda.

15.4.  Yet it remains more alarming because it tells us something about US Civilians -- they are sometimes more unpredictable than we like to believe.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 31, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Alistair Briggs]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

...simply echoing the survey results that you yourself had posted.  I was agreeing with them. 

Just a small point, they weren't 'survey results', they were just 'numbers' that the author, Jon E Lewis, gave to them... what he says in his introduction to his book on the subject is this: "Each conspiracy theory is assigned an 'Alert Level' rating indicating its likely veracity. But this is only an indication: the reader must make up his or her own mind."

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

15.4.  Yet it remains more alarming because it tells us something about US Civilians -- they are sometimes more unpredictable than we like to believe.

I think being sometimes more unpredictable than we like to believe is a human trait generally. We're only human...

Reminds me of the song Human Being by Terrorvision that includes the following lyrics;

What makes a man bruise his loving wife,
What makes a man want to take his own life,
And it's always on my mind... we're only human.
What do you want, it's more than I can give,
Man I'm just a human being.
I wish I'd been to Woodstock,
Or written Wild Thing,
I wish I'd shot the pope dead,
Or killed a foreign king,
And it's always on my mind... we're only human.

Anyway,

thanks for being so candid, and in-depth, with your response.

Regards

[Alistair Briggs]

On 31/03/2017 at 5:44 PM, Paul Trejo said:

10.  There seems to be a worry that the Dallas Police Department would be offended by Jeff Caufield's CT.  But remember that Ricky White, son of DPD officer Roscoe White, came out publicly in the 1990's with his father's confession.  He made a lot of money, actually.    When more DPD officer sons and grandsons come out with their family stories, they stand to make a lot of money as well -- and a new chapter in US History will unfold -- with the truth for a change.

Not to sound too cynical here, but I read that and see 'stories' and 'make a lot of money' and, well, can't help but think of made up stories to make money. lol

Anyroads, on the subject of the DPD, I have recently been doing a fair bit of reading about Roger Craig and really wanted to gauge your opinions on him.

Regards

[James DiEugenio]

Jon Lewis is really credible isn't he?

 

https://www.amazon.com/Mammoth-Book-Special-Forces-Training/dp/0762452331/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

 

https://www.amazon.com/Mammoth-Book-Covert-Ops/dp/178033785X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

 

PT is beyond the pale.  But I am surprised that Alistair does no know how the game is played by now.  All you have to do is scratch once.

Edited April 4, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

8 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Not to sound too cynical here, but I read that and see 'stories' and 'make a lot of money' and, well, can't help but think of made up stories to make money. lol

Anyroads, on the subject of the DPD, I have recently been doing a fair bit of reading about Roger Craig and really wanted to gauge your opinions on him.

Regards

Alistair,

Dallas Deputy Roger Craig is a brilliant case in point.  There are many aspects to his JFK story.  Where would you like to begin?

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Alistair Briggs]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jon Lewis is really credible isn't he?

The book in question - The Mammoth Book Of Cover-Ups - is a compendium; a book that, by its very nature, can only give a very brief overview of each of the 100 'conspiracy theories' therein, thus the author becomes less of an author and more of a compiler, one that introduces each topic and gives a very brief run down of the salient 'facts', then, as something of a 'selling point', the author gives each conspiracy theory an 'Alert Level', rating its likely veracity (in his opinion of course) and then, for each one, comes a short list of 'further reading'...

... and what does Jon E Lewis say in the introduction about the 'Alert Level'? " ...this is only an indication: the reader must make up his or her own mind."

*btw Jon E Lewis is a pen name used by the author/farmer John Lewis-Stempel .

*I just had to go and have a nosey over at Amazon at that book and one of the 'reviews' from a Jack Harrison stood out (especially for the mention in it of another book; one which I'm sure you are a fan of )