Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paul Troglia

Why Assassination Necessary

Recommended Posts

Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding that on the evening of April 10, 1963, some person fired a shot at you while you were in your home on Turtle Creek Boulevard; is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the circumstances surrounding that event, as you can now recall them?

General WALKER. I was sitting behind my desk. It was right at 9 o'clock, and most of the lights were on in the house and the shades were up. I was sitting down behind a desk facing out from a corner, with my head over a pencil and paper working on my income tax when I heard a blast and a crack right over my head.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you do then?

General WALKER. I thought--we had been fooling with the screens on the house and I thought that possibly somebody had thrown a firecracker, that it exploded right over my head through the window right behind me. Since there is a church back there, often there are children playing back there. Then I looked around and saw that the screen was not out, but was in the window, and this couldn't possibly happen, so I got up and walked around the desk and looked back where I was sitting and I saw a hole in the wall which would have been to my left while I was sitting to my right as I looked back, and the desk was catercornered in the corner up against this wall. I noticed there was a hole in the wall, so I went upstairs and got a pistol and came back down and went out the back door, taking a look to see what might have happened.

Hey Paul

the problem I have with the "Lone gunman" theory. If LHO was that cold-

blooded hitman why did he miss Gen. Walker who was an easy target, sitting in

a well lighted room at his desk. Compared to the moving JFK , this target was only

good for "warming up" .

He missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

There is an old saying, A lie has speed, but truth has staying power.  The lone assassin conclusion has held up a mighty long time.

AND nearly as long, the Conspiracy side of the story... how's that for staying power?

The conspiracy side is not a side, it is a thousand sides, accusing everyone and everything of taking part in the assassination. For heaven's sake, someone on this sight is even blaming Haliburton! No, don't close the sight down, but please, don't become the Flat Earth Society either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul

Thought you might want to take a look at your potential adversary in the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.  His name was Jonathon Abt and I brought back a post I did about a month ago for you to look at.  It is a shortened version of a much more in depth paper I did a couple of years ago.

Jim Root

Thanks, Jim. Be glad to read it. You're good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul,

I have a question and I hope you can answer it.

Can you explain to me where Oswald learned how to shoot from a elevated position , on a moving target?

Kennedy's limo was moving away from the window. Elm Street also goes down hill, so from above, Oswald had a straight shot. He did not have to "lead" his target, like a duck shooter. And with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second, the path of the bullet in the distance it had to go was also a straight line. Add to that a 4.5 power scope and the shot was, and I mean this literally and figuratively, a no-brainer.

Is this question really what makes you doubt Oswald's guilt?

___________________________________--

Paul:

Watch the Bob Groden video (1993). Then tell us it was LHO acting alone.

Are you working for Posner???

I still think you are a put on.

And you said you'd love to prosecute LHO. I trust then you know rules of evidence and legal procedure, what is relevent and admissible, The hearsay rule and exceptions to, how to do voir dire, how to challenge jurors for cause, how to cross examine witnessses. How to introduce evidence. (Just for openers).

The critical community got an opportunity to ask a few questions last year of Sen Arlen Specter. My friend Steve Jones was there and saw this whole thing. His report to me is on either this site or Wim's, don't remember which. READ IT. Specter is an atty and just look at his answers to Mark Lane. Priceless.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul,

I have a question and I hope you can answer it.

Can you explain to me where Oswald learned how to shoot from a elevated position , on a moving target?

Kennedy's limo was moving away from the window. Elm Street also goes down hill, so from above, Oswald had a straight shot. He did not have to "lead" his target, like a duck shooter. And with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second, the path of the bullet in the distance it had to go was also a straight line. Add to that a 4.5 power scope and the shot was, and I mean this literally and figuratively, a no-brainer.

Is this question really what makes you doubt Oswald's guilt?

___________________________________--

Paul:

Watch the Bob Groden video (1993). Then tell us it was LHO acting alone.

Are you working for Posner???

I still think you are a put on.

And you said you'd love to prosecute LHO. I trust then you know rules of evidence and legal procedure, what is relevent and admissible, The hearsay rule and exceptions to, how to do voir dire, how to challenge jurors for cause, how to cross examine witnessses. How to introduce evidence. (Just for openers).

The critical community got an opportunity to ask a few questions last year of Sen Arlen Specter. My friend Steve Jones was there and saw this whole thing. His report to me is on either this site or Wim's, don't remember which. READ IT. Specter is an atty and just look at his answers to Mark Lane. Priceless.

Dawn

Hi Dawn,

My goodness, no, I don't know the rules of evidence, voir dire or any of those legal skills. My assertion that I'd love to prosecute the case was meant only as reference to which side has the most evidence, hard facts, to support its case. And while I understand why so many people think there was a conspiracy, I just think a proper debate should have the opposite side presented. There are certainly others much more qualified than I to do that, but I guess I'm all you've got. I don't work for Posner--he thought I was too much of a conspiracy buff (just kidding).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your question is confusing to me, Paul. A group of people disliked JFK's policies and had him removed. It's as simple as that. Obviously, there was something they wanted to happen that could not happen as long as JFK was alive. We look for the clues as to what that was, and who it was, by reading, and trying to understand, history. In JFK's case, there are a number of suspects.

Who is this "group of people" other than Oswald? Where is the evidence other than supposition. If "simple as that" is your criterion, then the simplest of all is one man--Oswald-- and no conspirators other than his own sociopathic demons.

/quote]

Paul, you are a correct that the simplest solution would be a single shooter, Oswald. Unfortunately, the evidence, even the evidence accepted by the Warren Commission, points toward the likelihood of a second shooter. A second shooter implies a conspiracy, "a group of people." If you go to the JFK online seminars section of this forum, you will find my seminar on the autopsy photos, and why I believe they show evidence of a second shooter. Please read. Elsewhere in this thread you have cited the Neutron Activation analysis done by Vincent Guinn, (performed for the HSCA, by the way) which supposedly proved the so-called "magic bullet" had passed through the wrist of Governor Connally, and thus, the single bullet theory. I contend it actually proves nothing, and suggests the opposite conclusion than what was given. Here is a summary of Guinn's results, taken from his testimony before the HSCA.

sample antimony sample silver sample copper

6001c2 1235 141oswald 22.4 6002d 4516

6001c 1218 573 walker 20.6 6001a 2766

6001c3 1156 6001b2 16.6 842 wrist 994

6001c rt 1139 6003a 15.9 6001c1 391

6001c1 1062 6003a rt 15.9 6000a 372

6002b2 *1007 6001b 15.3 6003a2 257

6002b1 *990 6001b1 15.3 6000b 167

6002a1 *983 6001b4 15 6001d 147

6002b *949 6001b3 13.9 6002c 120

6002b4 946 6000b 13.5 573 walker 100

6002b3 942 6001a 12.2 6001c rt 67

6002a3 882 6000a 11.8 6003b 62

6002a2 *869 6001d 11.6 399 magic 58

399 magic **833 6002b4 10.7 6002a2 58

842 wrist **797 6002a1 10.3 6001c 48

6001b4 *791 6002a3 10.2 6002a rt 45

6001b *732 6002b2 10.1 840a floor 44

6003a *730 6001c2 10.1 840b floor 42

6003a rt***667 6002a2 9.9 567 seat 40

840b floor***647 6002b3 9.8 843 brain 40

6001b2 ****646 6003a3 9.8 6003c 36

6001b3 ****646 842 wrist 9.8 6002a1 34

840a floor*****638 6002b 9.7 6002a 30

843 brain****621 6002b1 9.7 6002a3 30

6001b1 ****621 6003a1 9.6 6003a1 28

567 seat***602 6001c1 9.5 6003a rt 27

6003c *464 6001c3 9.2 6002b 25

6003a3 *441 6002a 9.1 6002b3 24

6003a1 *395 6002a rt 9.1 6002b4 24

6002a *385 6003c 8.8 6001b 23

6003a2 *363 6003d 8.7 6001c3 23

6002a rt*358 840a floor 8.6 141oswald 22

6000b *261 6001c 8.5 6003a 21

6003d *240 6001c rt 8.5 6001b4 20

6000a **173 6003a2 8.3 6001c2 20

6001d **161 6002d 8.3 6001b2 19

6001a **158 567 seat 8.1 6001b1 19

6002d 121 843 brain 7.9 6001b3 18

6003b 80 6003b 7.9 6003d 17

6002c **24 840b floor7.9 6003a3 16

573 walker**17 399 magic7.9 6002b1 16

141oswald**15 6002c 6 6002b2 10

* denotes within 36 ppm of one other sample

** denotes within 36 ppm of two other samples

*** denotes within 36 ppm of three other samples

**** denotes within 36 ppm of four other samples

***** denotes within 36 ppm of five other samples

Guinn initially tested the recovered bullets and fragments on 8 elements. Unfortunately, of all the items tested, the wrist fragment was the least like the magic bullet. He then narrowed it down to just three elements, antimony, silver, and copper, and tested a number of other 6.5 mm M/C bullets for comparison. He found here that the magic bullet and wrist fragment sit side by side on antimony, and decided from this that therefore it was highly probable they were from the same bullet. Unfortunately, if one were to use this same logic, that residing within 36ppm on antimony is an indication that two fragments come from the same bullet, then over half of the other bullets tested were highly probable to be the same bullet as another bullet tested, even though it might be from another test lot, from another year. In short, his results were gobbledy-gook. He found there was little uniformity when doing repeat tests of the same bullet, and from slice to slice within the same bullet.

In fact, if anything, his tests showed that the wrist fragment is most likely NOT from the "magic bullet." When one looks at the fragments found in Kennedy's brain and in the car, one finds that these 4 fragments have a variance of 45 on antimony, .7 on silver, and 4 on copper. The 2 other items purported to be related, the magic bullet and the wrist fragment, have a variance of 36 on antimony, 1.9 on silver, and 946 on copper. Since the variance of 4 related items should be much greater than the variance of 2 related items, this is a strong argument that the magic bullet and the wrist fragment came from separate sources. But even this argument is questionable due to the unreliability of neutron activation analysis when applied to M/C ammunition. Bullets 6001b and 6003a, for example, came within 2ppm on antimony, .6 on silver, and 2ppm on copper, making them nearly identical, even though they came from different lots from different years, and were shown to be quite different through repeated tests.

The only conclusion possible is that Guinn saw what either he wanted to see or what he was told to see; his report shows that no scientific match between the magic bullet and the wrist fragment exists.

I urge you to go back and read the reports by the Government "experts" and not rely on the likes of Lattimer and Posner. Every report I've studied, from Guinn to Baden to Canning to Sturdivan, has been so full of holes it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

P.S. Sorry about the weird appearance of the chart. There were supposed to be three columns. I'm not sure why all the spaces were removed between the columns, but they were.

You certainly do get specific, Pat, and I applaud your perserverance in actually trying to get some facts. But if a different bullet caused Connolly's wrist injury, unless it was a piece of a bullet, it would have blown his wrist off. That didn't happen. And the best video of all, the Zapruder film, doesn't show any violent reaction. So it makes sense that a fragment, fired in the same time sequence as the first shot, struck Connolly.

Hey, you don't suppose there is some conspiracy to mess up your chart, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding that on the evening of April 10, 1963, some person fired a shot at you while you were in your home on Turtle Creek Boulevard; is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the circumstances surrounding that event, as you can now recall them?

General WALKER. I was sitting behind my desk. It was right at 9 o'clock, and most of the lights were on in the house and the shades were up. I was sitting down behind a desk facing out from a corner, with my head over a pencil and paper working on my income tax when I heard a blast and a crack right over my head.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you do then?

General WALKER. I thought--we had been fooling with the screens on the house and I thought that possibly somebody had thrown a firecracker, that it exploded right over my head through the window right behind me. Since there is a church back there, often there are children playing back there. Then I looked around and saw that the screen was not out, but was in the window, and this couldn't possibly happen, so I got up and walked around the desk and looked back where I was sitting and I saw a hole in the wall which would have been to my left while I was sitting to my right as I looked back, and the desk was catercornered in the corner up against this wall. I noticed there was a hole in the wall, so I went upstairs and got a pistol and came back down and went out the back door, taking a look to see what might have happened.

Hey Paul

the problem I have with the "Lone gunman" theory. If LHO was that cold-

blooded hitman why did he miss Gen. Walker who was an easy target, sitting in

a well lighted room at his desk. Compared to the moving JFK , this target was only

good for "warming up" .

He missed. He missed one out of three with Kennedy, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul

Read my first post on this thread again.

Jim Root

I read your post about Walker, Jim, and I don't think the difference between Marina's telling of the shooting and the German newspaper knowledge means much of anything. Walker probably told a bunch of his lunatic fringe that somebody shot at him. That's a big deal in his circle. And as far as how the newspaper knew he was at the hotel. Frankly, they could call his office and ask.

You have my utmost respect for having read the 26 volumes. By the way, I used to be on your side, a long time ago, when the books started coming. But what happened was I got to know more and more about less and less-- the wood in the window, the chicken in Oswalds stomach, the speed of Zapruder's camera, the color of Billy Lovelady's shirt, Ruth Paine's communist husband, the length of a curtain rod--and I ended up losing the picture in the mosaic for the accuracy of an individual tile. I guess all I'm saying is , okay, some of the little things didn't always add up, but the farther back I stood, the clearer the picture became.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

Walker's office was his home, his staff part time. He had no scheduled appearance in Shreveport during the time period of the assassination that I can identify. Wlker did an interview with a Canadian newpaper, after Oswald was dead but before the FBI had info about Oswald's attempt on his life and no mention of the Oswald connection is made in the article, very different from the interview done while Oswald was alive.

My hypothisis suggests that a living Oswald could identify Walker as the man who helped him to enter the Soviet Union (see Serendipity), which would then connect Walker to Oswald and the assassination. Walker was already a recognized Kennedy critic (Senate hearings on Muzzling the Military). By mid afternoon of the 22nd both Oswald's picture and the fact that he had defected to the Soviet Union where on every news channel. Given Walker's anti-Kennedy public stance and if he had in fact met Oswald on his way into the Soviet Union, the information passed to the German Newspaper becomes logical and necessary in order to distance himself from Oswald. After the death of Oswald it would be just as necessary for Walker to distance himself from the article as reported in Germany.

It was not until I read the Warren report and began to research what was "left out" primarily dealing with the life and times of Edwin Walker that I switched from being what is called a "lone nutter" to being a person that saw, in the life of Walker, a "very slippery fellow" (Phrase used to describe Sir Robert Thomas Wilson a British spy of the Napoleonic period whose feats in Europe and South America rival any James Bond exploits).

The Warren Report, as written, does not work if Oswald does not take the shot at Walker.

Must admit though that most of what I have found becomes questionable if Oswald, or somebody else involved, did not take the shot at Walker. This of course would move the plot up to and before April 10, 1963......Way before Oswald got a job at the TSBD. (Before McCloy wrote his letter to Walker) It would also move the plot to Walker's Pro Blue program in Germany, but that was before Oswald even returned from Russia.

Interesting, at least to myself.

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

I will have to think about your premise, "The Warren Report as written does not work if Oswald does not take the shot at Walker." At last, a statement that has some teeth in it. They may be false teeth, but at least it's teeth.

My gut reaction is to say OK, because the Warren Report is only one conclusion, albeit a sound one (from my point of view) based on the 26 volumes which include that "very slippery fellow." Maybe the lone assassin theory needs tweeking in that Oswald met Walker, a known Kennedy hater, who said something to him like, "Why don't you shoot the bastard." Not exactly a finely-honed conspiracy, but close enough, I guess.

The problem for me is Walker was a right wing nut and Oswald a left wing nut who would have cross-threaded each other. The chance of them meeting and talking about anything seems slim to me. They probably would have shot each other on sight.

But like I said, let me think on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all people on the JFK Assassination Debate string:

Anybody know how to get this string to not have so many repeating entries. Sometimes answers don't correspond to the original post, or copies of copies appear. It gets hard to follow. Same concerns, anyone? I tried Help, but no luck.

Sorry for the break in the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

My hypothisis is that Oswald and Walker may have met on October 9, 1959 and at no other time. October 9, 1959 was the same day that a message was sent from the US Embassy in Helsinki, Finland that outlined the method, which Oswald followed, to quickly receive an entry visa from the Soviet Embassy Helsinki(HSCA). That message was classified until some 13 years after the assassination.

It is my hypothisis that until Walker saw Oswald's picture on TV the afternoon/night of the assassination he was totally unaware that Oswald had returned to the United States let alone that he was living in Dallas. If the first paragraph has any truth to it, Walker's actions the next morning make a great deal of sense. I suggest you read the complete testimony of Edwin A. Walker:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/walker_e.htm

"The problem for me is Walker was a right wing nut and Oswald a left wing nut who would have cross-threaded each other."

The timing of Oswald's application to the State Department to return to the United States coincides directly with Walker's "Pro Blue Program" that leads to Walker's resignation from the Army (cross-threaded). Just as Yuri Nosenko's (Soviet KGB defector) first meeting with CIA officers is made within hours of Oswald's departure from the Soviet Union back to the United States (and Nosenko's actual defection is done within days of the assassination of Kennedy)

Of the twelve conclusions offered by the Warren Commissioners, numbers four and eleven are the most important in tying Oswald to the assassination of President Kennedy as a “lone nut” gunman. Number 4, states:

“The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.” (Pg 19 Warren Report summary).

This statement is supported with these remarks:

“Oswald had attempted to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10, 1963, thereby demonstrating his disposition to take human life.” (Ibid Pg 20)

The eleventh conclusion begins:

“On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone. (Ibid Pg 22)

This position is supported with these words:

“The Commission could not make any definitive determination of Oswald’s motives. It has endeavored to isolate factors which contributed to his character and which might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy. These factors were…. His capacity for violence as evidenced by his attempt to kill General Walker.” (Ibid Pg 23).

Researchers seem to find that it is easier to ignore or to downplay the attempted assassination of Major General Edwin Walker when criticizing various aspects of the Warren Report on the death of President John F. Kennedy. I formed a hypothesis that suggested that if there were a conspiracy designed to frame Oswald, or to protect others, questions surrounding Walkers’ life and the central role he plays in the conclusions of the Warren Report demanded a detailed search.

If there was some sort of conspiracy, either to murder the President or to cover-up the facts surrounding the assassination, the Warren Commissioners were either patsies themselves or were active participants in the conspiracy. Perhaps a combination of both, patsy and conspirator could reasonably be suggested when looking at the makeup of the commission. We must, by necessity deal with that matter in other threads.

Could Walker be a part of the conspiracy as well? No matter what may be true, the importance assigned to the Walker assassination attempt by the Commissioners themselves has attracted my attention in a magnetic way.

The way Walker answered questions and my first cursory examination of his military experiences intrigued me. His actions in the hours immediately surrounding the assassination, in particular his telephone interview with the German newspaper, appeared to be the actions of a man with something to hide.

Walker's testimony displays his ability to reveal little when asked.

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Jim, you win. I am willing to concede the motivation for Oswald to kill the president is open to debate, and that in that arena, nobody is "wrong." But I must go along with the Commission that it was Oswald, to the exclusion of all others, who sat in the 6th floor window on Novemember 22, 1963-- no patsies, no accomplices in the sewers, nobody on the knoll, no Lyndon Johnson, no Texas oilmen or Cubans or Santos Trafficante or Haliburton-- just him and him alone.

You're dedication to this 40 year old story is compelling. I don't know if this happens to you or not, but every time I think about this thing, it's as if it happened yesterday, as though the cast of characters is still around. We are talking about people, long dead, their stories buried long ago. And even if there was a conspiracy (there wasn't), it's dead too. So why are we playing with this stuff?

And now Jim, tell me about Ruby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

There is an old saying, A lie has speed, but truth has staying power.  The lone assassin conclusion has held up a mighty long time.

AND nearly as long, the Conspiracy side of the story... how's that for staying power?

The conspiracy side is not a side, it is a thousand sides, accusing everyone and everything of taking part in the assassination. For heaven's sake, someone on this sight is even blaming Haliburton! No, don't close the sight down, but please, don't become the Flat Earth Society either.

Amen, Paul, re Haliburton (and others). I suggest it is as wrong to call someone a murderer, without evidence to support the position, as it is to call someone a Communist without evidence. A smear is a smear. Yu are however, wrong about Trafficante. IMO, he did it.

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...