Thank you for posting that which I have already stated. Does that prove your point? The Warren Report made statements that were NOT supported by the testimony. There's a BIG difference between the White House yielding to Connally and putting "the final stamp of approval" on the location.
No, not really. They are pretty much the same thing here. Because the Trade Mart was
selected as the luncheon site; and Kenneth P. O'Donnell was
the person who "made the final decision to hold the luncheon at the Trade Mart"
(direct quote from Page 31 of the Warren Commission Report).
Ergo, Ken O'Donnell did
ultimately put his seal of "approval" on the Trade Mart.
But, aside from any semantics issues here, if Kenny O'Donnell (or someone else in a very high position in President Kennedy's inner circle) had truly wanted to nix the Trade Mart as the location for the November 22 luncheon, then it would have been nixed. Simple as that. And there would have been nothing that John Connally could have done about it.
Yes, it's true that Connally wanted the luncheon to be held at the Trade Mart. But if the Secret Service had told O'Donnell that they just simply could not secure the balconies in that building properly enough to ensure JFK's safety, then O'Donnell would have undoubtedly nixed the Trade Mart as the luncheon site.
Don't you agree that that would have happened, Gil? Or were John Connally's desires and wishes the only things that mattered to O'Donnell, and to hell with the President's safety?
Your interpretation of the facts, as usual, is ridiculous.
Gil Jesus, in his first post in this thread, is obviously implying that John B. Connally was part of something sinister when it comes to Connally pushing for the Trade Mart as the Dallas luncheon site.
Because if that's NOT what you're implying in your first post, Gil, then what's the point of highlighting things like "Governor"
and "the Governor felt very strongly on it"
You apparently want to believe that John Connally was a prime conspirator in the murder of JFK. Otherwise, again, what's your point?
Your interpretation of the facts, as usual, is not only ridiculous -- it's insane.
And to illustrate just how insane Gil's theories can be, I offer up the following prime example:"Let's not forget that all of the previous three successful Presidential assassinations were made from a distance of three feet or less. In addition, the position of Kennedy's head at Z312, together with the description by the witnesses of an entry wound in the right front of the head and an exit wound in the right rear, would indicate a trajectory of a shot coming out of the floorboard of the car.
"Let's also not forget that Johnson's man Connally was less than 3 feet from the President when he was murdered and was reportedly known to have carried a gun strapped to his ankle. Think about it."
-- Gil Jesus; July 15, 2007 [original post below]http://groups.google...d783b571f900c24
Edited by David Von Pein, 04 February 2012 - 01:24 PM.