Gil Jesus

If Robert Kennedy had "gone along" with a coverup of the assassination, then there was no reason for him to run for President in 1968.

They most certainly were. Were the plots to kill Castro initiated before January 20. 1961 ? Yes they were. Historically, the ACTIONS of those "blood-thirsty" Kennedys don't exactly corroborate their murderous intents. For example, when JFK had the opportunity to cold-bloodedly kill 350 million Soviets and Chinese with a Nuclear first-strike in 1962 during the missile crisis, did he do it ? I mean, this President had the chance to kill more people in one 24-hour period than anyone in HISTORY, an act surely to satisfy the blood-lust of anyone seeking to conquer the world, and what did he do ? He took the first step in disarmament. When he had the chance to murder Castro as part of the Bay of Pigs invasion, did he ensure the invasion's success and Castro's demise ? No, quite the opposite. Patrice Lumumba was arrested and subsequently murdered BEFORE JFK took the oath of office. Rafael Trujillo was murdered while the President was out of the country. South Vietnam's Diem was murdered in spite of Kennedy's arrangement to get him safely out of the country and on to Paris. When RFK sent the Federal Marshalls into Mississippi, were their orders to kill as many people as they could ? Why would a murderous Attorney General conduct a war on Organized Crime when it would have been much easier to join forces with them ( ala the CIA ) in a common goal of killing Castro ? It just doesn't make sense that the Kennedys were the biggest murderers in American History and that JFK's assassination was some kind of retribution for what they had done. I agree with the late Arthur Schlesinger who dismissed the "retribution" angle of the assassination saying that murder was totally " out of character" of the Kennedys. And as far as I'm concerned, their actions support that.

Hosty had the phone number of the rooming house. Oswald knew it. All Hosty had to do was to call the phone company with the number and he could have gotten the address. Driving by it would have allowed him, as the previous poster said, to "scope it out" as they say in today's jargon. It also would have given him the appearance that he was coming from the opposite direction of Dealey Plaza as he approached the house. Walking on foot also gave him the option of avoiding capture by fleeing on foot through yards and over fences. Driving past the house and being dropped off 5 blocks away made the fare seem like the destination was not 1026 North Beckley.

Bill, might I suggest a possible reason why the Sixth Floor Museum and thus Mr. Mack would seem to have a vested interest in the "Oswald-did-it" scenario. There are tourist dollars at stake here. If the TSBD was NOT the source of the shots that killed Kennedy and wounded Connally, then the value of the building as a tourist attraction is considerably less. Mack didn't support the official version of events until he was hired by the Sixth Floor Museum. In my book, that says it all.

This 2008 interview with Hugh Aynesworth in the Dallas Morning News, reveals that : Mr. Frazier was questioned vigorously by police – accused of being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy – and even told falsely by police officers that Oswald had named him as a co-conspirator. In Washington, before the Warren Commission, he was "pressured" to change his recollection. Corroboration for this claim comes from his sister. That the Warren Commission had a "pre-arranged agenda" that caused them to label anyone whose testimony disagreed with that agenda to be labelled "mistaken". http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...fk.3d76e89.html

Mr. Lane, does this help you out ? Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer Exhibit 705 being this radio log which covers a great many matters, but in light of the importance of the time and the description and all, I think the entire log should go in and then we can refer to different items in it. Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as Commission's Exhibit No. 705. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 705, and received in evidence.) ( 4 H 183 ) Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, we were furnished a Commission Document No. 290, dated December 5, 1963, that purported. to be a radio log for your department, and it did not have any item in it in regard to instruction to Officer Tippit to go to the Central Oak Cliff area. Do you know why that would be true? Mr. CURRY. I don't know why it wasn't in that log except that these logs, after they are recorded, they are pretty difficult to try to take everything off of them, channel 1 and channel 2 is in on them and they spent many hours going over these and copying these. This would be available and I listened to our recording. Mr. RANKIN. That is Exhibit 705 you are talking about? Mr. CURRY. That is right. Mr. RANKIN. So if there is a discrepancy between the two, are you satisfied that Exhibit 705 is correct? Mr. CURRY. Is the correct exhibit; yes. Mr. RANKIN. Commission Document No. 290 does say at the heading that most routine transmissions were left out for reasons of brevity. Would that be any explanation? Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it could be, yes. Because these would have been routine broadcasts. ( 4H 185-186 )

CE 134 is an enlargement of CE133-A. I invite everyone to look at it and see the mounting and ring on the bottom of the rifle. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0267b.htm Likewise, the rifle advertised in the ad ( February 1963 ) that Oswald ordered the rifle from was clearly equipped for a bottom mounted sling: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=222208 Oswald ordered and was photographed with a rifle that was equipped for a a bottom mounted sling. But the Depository Carcano was not. http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/...p5Fd3Ig=/large/

Please indulge me one final comment on this lost soul. There is something inherently abnormal about someone who runs around referring to anyone who disagrees with him/her as either a "kook" or "Mr. Kook". This is not normal behavior, especially for a 46-year old man. Neither is childish-name calling. I personally have had several run-ins with this individual over the years and have found him to be less than truthful with the information he presents. He makes a statement in a posting, then refers back to that statement in a future posting as if it were some sort of "source" or fact. Using such "sources" in this fashion are the equivalemt of saying, "if you don't believe me, just ask ME." It's ridiculous, from a viewpoint of research. Sadly, he is a man completely out of touch with reality, evidenced by some of the more humorous of his posts at alt.conspiracy.jfk. In one such post, he writes: "WHAT DOES "BACK AND TO THE LEFT" PROVE? ANYTHING?" http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...22b8ff853bebd3e In another he posts: "let's assume for the sake of argument that there were/are several different MC 91/38 rifles with the exact same serial number on them of "C2766"....my next logical question (based on the totality of evidence in THIS Kennedy murder case) is this one: So what?" This is a man in denial. Add to this enigma that is David Von Pein, an almost God-like worship of Vincent Bugliosi and a belief in "Reclaiming History" as if it were the word of the Almighty Himself. If his behavior in this forum was anything like it was in Lancer, or anything like it is in either amazon.com or in alt.conspiracy.jfk, then who ever booted him out of here did the right thing. After all, there ARE rules of behavior in this forum.

"Mainly because the master and ruler of your prized "Education Forum" decided to boot me out of your territory -- supposedly due to a technical matter about my not having a photo to post within my "profile" area there. But we all know it wasn't that, don't we? You kooks just don't want to hear someone come into your neighborhood to talk about the ACTUAL EVIDENCE in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases. Simple as that. Always has been." --David Von Pein to Tom Purvis in newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk To which I responded that I had received a letter from John Simkin explaining the circumstances under which posters could and would have their membership terminated. My understanding was that the members who attacked other members would be moderated and if they did not have a picture and/or profile, they would be terminated. I told Von Pein: Produce the evidence that you were evicted for some other reason than what Simkin wrote in that letter. As usual, when I ask him for physical proof, he is unable to produce it. Instead his response was: " I was told by Simkin to get a photo for the profile, that's true. But that was only after I had posted several days' worth of hard, strong LN-leaning evidence that nobody there wanted to hear. " And then, his parting shot: "BTW, just for the records of 9/11/2008 --- Gil is an evidence-skewing moron. " It's no wonder he got booted from here. Deb Conway booted him out of Lancer also a few years ago.

It's a 63 Chevy, Don.

I believe that it was on Friday, July 25, 2008.

Has Bugliosi finally lost it ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45f1Riv_z1I

An example of how eyewitnesses can be pressured by police into changing their stories. Sandra Serranno was a WITNESS ( NOT A SUSPECT ) in the RFK murder who claimed that a "woman in a polka dot dress" ran by her on a staircase yelling, "We shot Robert Kennedy!!". Watch how LAPD interrogator Enrique Hernandez gets her to change her story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmEWF-zVY7U

In 1975, the Senate Committee on Intelligence (also known as the "Church Committee") investigated reports that the CIA was involved in plots to murder foreign heads of state. The investigation was a result of a series of published reports by columnist Jack Anderson that the CIA and the US Mafia had conspired to kill Fidel Castro. Shown is a memorable exchange between Richard Helms and Sen. Christopher Dodd over whether or not the CIA's supplying Rolando Cubela with an instument of murder constituted an "assassination plot". Were the Kennedys trying to kill Fidel Castro, or was the CIA operating on its own without Presidential approval ? See what the Church Committee concluded. Also, Geraldo Rivera's "Good Night America" first airing of the Zapruder film is shown. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jsB_kpoYdo

Robert Kennedy describes Lyndon Johnson as President and is alleged to have asked Johnson, "Why did you have my brother killed ?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijBqqbSzq_Y

Personally, I don't see anything in that speech overly pro-war or hawkish. Here it is for anyone else who would like to read it : http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...art11221963.htm

Thanks. Mr White. There's no doubt that the Z-film was altered in some fashion while it was in the hands of Life Magazine. They even printed a couple of frames backwards in one edition of their magazine. Like I've said on this forum before, the description if the head wound ( specifically the large rear exit wound ) by over 40 witnesses who saw it is not supported by the Z-film. The description of DP witnesses who saw the "back of the head come off" is not supported by the Z-film. The description of DP witnesses who saw a "red halo" over Kennedy's head ( IMO the result of a double head shot ) is not supported by the Z-film. The "Harper bone fragment" is nowhere to be seen on the Z-film. We can believe that ALL of these witnesses were simply wrong and that ALL of these things didn't actually happen---or we can believe that the Z-film was somehow altered to coverup a conspiracy. I guess it is an individual choice.

I will back you up on that Vince. You DID e-mail me that exact position. But that position requires a belief in a "Coincidence Theory", if you will. It requires in a belief that Oswald killed JFK: On a day when the SS just happened to remove the motorcycle escorts from the side of the car. On a day when the SS just happened to remove the general from the front seat of the car. On a day when the SS just happened to leave the agent who would have been in the front of the running board on the President's side of the car at the airport. On a day when the SS just happened to stay up all the previous night drinking and carousing with hookers. On a day when the SS just happened to stay off of the rear bumper of the limo. On a day when the SS just happened to move the motorcycle escorts to the back of the limo and then to tell the Dallas motorcycle officers at Love Field to "hold your position no matter what happens." On a day when the SS just happened to order their agents not to move when the shooting started. On a day when the SS just happened to slow the limo down when the shooting started. On a day when the SS just happened to "casually look around" when the shooting started. Too many coincidences here, my friend, for me to buy into that kind of a theory. And I haven't even started touching on the inconsistencies in the "evidence". I suppose that's where we differ: what you see as negligence and perhaps even as gross negligence, I see as criminal. Because I believe that a couple could be "coincidences", but when you put all of them together, there's no way that all of these occurances could have happened without being planned. Watch Groden's video of the entire motorcade, Vince. Watch how far away from the President's limo the lead police car is. Watch how far back from the follow-up car Lyndon Johnson's convertible is before it turns onto Houston street, near the end of the motorcade. Kennedy's limo and the followup car are all by themselves. Like they were out on an island and no one around. Funny how that didn't happen in Tampa. Funny how that didn't happen in Berlin. When I first saw that, I KNEW that they were expecting something to happen. They stayed as far away from those two cars as they could for as long as they could. They led this guy into an ambush and although they didn't pull the trigger, they made it much easier for the party or parties who did. That, is complicity. The people who were responsible for the murder of John Kennedy were people who preferred Lyndon Johnson as President and Hoover as head of the FBI. I have no doubt that some of those people were employed by the USSS. And for saving Hoover's job, Hoover made sure that the real perpetrators would never come to justice. And Johnson's "commission"'s purpose was to rubber-stamp Hoover's investigation, affirming the conclusion that Hoover had come to before any of the evidence was even examined by the FBI. Let me thank you for all the help (and prodding) you've given me over the years. Thank you for your honesty and generosity in using your material. Few people would write a book and then put it on line for the research community to use for free. And although I may not agree with your new position, I respect your right to have it and to change it anytime you want to. And most importantly, I look forward to your continuing friendship.

Besides, you wouldn't put a clip 1/3 of the way down from the top of the clipboard, would you ? In my experience with police depts., I've never seen a clipboard like that. To me, that's a wanted poster.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that what appears to be a "mugshot" attached to the clipboard was, in fact, a metal clip which somehow attached the clipboard to the dashboard or Tippit's car. Can anyone else recall this - I know it has been discussed somewhere before, but I cannot remembe where. Chris Scally Seems to me that the "mugshot" is way below the spring loaded clip, which can be seen at the top of the clipboard.

Let me stick my two-cents worth in here if I may and tell yuou how I found out about it. Lancer member Richard van Noord, who knew Vince was a friend of mine, e-mailed me to let me know that Vince had posted a glowing review on Bugliosi's book and the review was on the book's website. I went there, to see for myself and sure enough it was there. Concerned with his "conversion", I e-mailed Vince to ask him if he wanted me to remove the 5-part video presentation that he he gave last year at Slippery Rock University from my Youtube channel. His reply was No. "My work still stands". He explained that although he still believed that there were conspiracies to kill Kennedy, he was now of the belief that Oswald simply "beat them to the punch" as he put it. Of course, this made no sense to me. How does one reconcile the SS actions before and lack of action during the shooting with some guy who brings his rifle to work one day to kill the President ? The inconsistencies in the evidence alone, the lack of a chain of possession, the altering of affidavits, the ignoring of witnesses, and the unfair police lineups all point to a conspiracy, at the very least, to cover the crime up. And the Secret Service --- not only did they REMOVE the protection that the Dallas cops had positioned to protect the President during the motorcade, they made a CONSCIOUS EFFORT when the shooting began, to order their agents NOT TO MOVE and then slowed the car to almost a complete stop. Or as Ralph Yarborough put it, "they just looked around casually". Vince knows this. It was HIS research that revealed all of this. In the Video "Ambush!: How the Secret Service set up JFK" on my youtube channel, there is a scene from TMWKK, where Vince asks this question: "During November 1963, when there is an increase in conspiratorial activities, the Secret Service reacts as though no threat ever existed. WHY ?" Well, it's pretty obvious. It's hard to imagine anyone who has investigated this crime this deeply could be convinced that it was anything other than the result of a conspiracy. But I guess it's possible. So I'm as puzzled as anyone else as to what caused his "conversion". I think he was just "schmoozed" by a snake charmer. In my dealings with Vince P, he's always been honest and helpful and I find it hard to believe that he's ever been anything more than a guy in search of the truth. As far as him being part of a "limited hangout", well I'd have to see evidence of that before I could believe it. And although I don't agree with his new position, he's entitled to his opinion and to change that opinion anytime he wants to.