Steven Tomlinson
-
Posts
31 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Steven Tomlinson
-
-
In 1994 James Files provided this picture of himself and an unidentified man to Bob Vernon after conducting the on camera interview, that was later released as "Confession of an Assassin" by MPI Home video. James Files provided this picture after Vernon asked him if he still had pictures of himself from 1963.
Files went to his storage locker and pulled out the picture. Vernon was pleased and expressed his appreciation. He also asked: Who is the other guy? Files replied that he did not want to go in that. However Vernon asked why not and pressed on a little bit. Files eventually said something like: "Off the record, that's the guy who killed Tippit." I am not sure if Files intended Bob Vernon to publish that information on the Internet, frankly I don't think so, but since he has, the picture has been on the website www.jfkmurdersolved.com long before I came on the scene, and long before I had ever heard of James Files. But naturally the identity of this mystery man has intrigued me for years, ever since I first saw it. Also, since the picture shows James Files and a real man, I wondered why the man, or any of his relatives or friends, have never come forward to deny the allegation. Surely there must have been people who have recognized him, if not the man himself. And if he would not be the man who killed officer Tippit, you would expect people to come forward to deny the allegation, especially if it could be easily proven that James Files wasn't telling the truth. I have always thought that this circumstance alone adds weight to the veracity of James Files.
I have cracked my brains for years on who it could be. I have compiled lists of candidates, mob guys, undercover agents, cuban exiles, etcetera, most of which I could cancel out quickly because there are known pictures of most candidates and they did not resemble the man in the picture. I have asked around, and was sent on some wild goose chases, false leads and dead end roads.
Based on the information from James Files, http://jfkmurdersolved.com/tip.htm , we are looking for a tall caucasian man that
- was born and raised in America, and is maybe still alive.
- was from Chicago, as he was an acquaintance of James Files.
- was 25 to 35 years of age in 1963 (now 70 to 80 years of age).
- has no widely known connection to the Kennedy assassination.
- was in Dallas 11/22/1963
- was probably not called for the Warren Commision or the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
- was an undercover intelligence agent.
- worked for David Atlee Phillips.
- knew Lee Harvey Oswald, otherwise he could not have been sent to kill him.
- may have had a similar training as Lee Harvey Oswald
_________________________________
FWIW,
Seems to be missing a front tooth and to have really bad teeth. See enlarged photo in Duncan's post #10, too.
--Thomas
_________________________________
I believe in Harvey and Lee, that there were at least 2 men sharing the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald. Could this photo of the man on the right be one of Lee Oswald? I'll state right away that he does not look like Donald O. Norton -- his nose is too slim. OK. Could he be the killer of J.D. Tippit? Witnesses describe LHO as the killer -- and I believe Lee killed Tippit. Are we looking at the birth Oswald? He seems to have a discolored tooth, like Lee had.
I believe Harvey was Russian, trained in English for 3 years. Robert Oswald said about his "brother" (paraphrase), "I was surprised at how much hair [Harvey] lost!" I guess that statement was to convince family, friends and acquaintances that Harvey had changed physically while in Russia.
Then, again, is this actually J.D. Tippit himself?
Kathy
The guy on the right looks a good older version of http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/Tooth/Tooth.htm
-
Why should it be considered such an impossibility that Harvey addressed and mailed the paper bag to a non-existent address? If he's working for someone that he doesn't trust, it's a good idea, similar to stamping 544 Camp Street on one occasion of his leafleting. If he had ended up in court, 544 Camp Street being basically the same location as Guy Banister would have been useful to him in claiming who he really worked for and if the mailed paper bag had been brought into evidence and maybe some 'other' interesting fingerprints found on it, then this also would have been of use to him.
-
On the Oswald transfer film that shows Will Fritz from 'elevator' to 'shooting', he seems to be getting out of the way as soon as exiting the elevator. Most conspicuous is his slow motion 'acting' turn after the shooting. No way is this natural!
-
Was this Mauser when broken down, short enough to have been cupped under the arm per the curtain rod story?
-
Is it considered just a close coincidence that whilst in custody LHO attempted to call a person called 'Herty' or 'Hertig', which is quite close to 'Hartogs'? If I had been mistaken for somebody else, intentionally or otherwise, that I knew existed and wished to disassociate myself from that person, a good way would be to communicate with someone who knew who I really '''was''' some time ago. This failed call is mentioned in Anthony Summers' "Conspiracy - Who Killed President Kennedy?" page 175-176.
-
The link is missing the 'l' from html.
ST
-
James
Do you know these two men who are being led through the DPD at the same time as Oswald.
Don't know who they are but the people on the left seem to have a strange aversion to being lit up from the same frontal light that Harvey's face, shirt and the other guy's shirt is lit up by. The cop's hat doesn't seem to have a problem being lit up from the rear. They better stop quick 'cos they're gonna walk into Harvey.
If the pictures real the two guys look related and have the same barber as Lyle Lovette(?) A barber I would sue!
ST
-
In a message on another subject, I mentioned the CIA Assassination Manual.
I am surprised that apparently this excellent website went ignored...
http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id496.html
...since nobody mentioned it. I suggest everyone give it a look.
Jack
Not a bit suprised. Let's see ... US does it, Brits do it, Russians do it, Israelis do it ... we could list the countries all night
Jack, I took a look at the manual long time ago and re-read it yesterday. Very chilling like Kubark torture manual, like so many other things. The near total decline in morality and respect for law and life itself (other than the Oligarchs who protect their own friends, family - and their ill-gained plunder) is where we find ourselves now. We [uSA] are signers of numersous treaties that would make carring out anything in such a manual illegal - as well as internal laws on the books [no doubt secret signing statements by the Fuhrer have long ago negated that in fact]. We also engage in 'assassination' wholesale by bombings, state-sponsored terrorism, wars, sponsoring of death squads elsewhere and the occassional homebaked assassination....certainly JFK, MLK, RFK - maybe even 3.000 in 9-11. Mr. S likes to rant and rave that we are un-American for pointing the above truths out. I, and I think most on this site (at least the sane and humaine ones) condemn such asctions equally when done by any other nation...it just so happens that the USA now is leading the world in this and is the most powerful and influential nation on earth [sadly]. Morally, ethically, we are near the bottom of the barrel. I don't recognize a concept of un-American. I do recognize the concept of being moral and truthful and for peace, justice, law, equality - and those [like the current adminstration and the Beast that has America in its grip now] who abhor all those things - despite the PR spin [read propaganda cover-up] which Mr. S likely is a part of there in DC. Americans are afraid....Presidents get killed. Their neighbors get killed. Soldiers get killed fighting a trumped-up war. We are all spied upon and many feel they shouldn't speak too much nor loud or take out the wrong book from the library, etc. There is a general sense that if one opposes the Government too much in America today they may face loss of job, tax 'problems', chilling attention by the athourities, in extreme cases imprisonment or even in rare moments death. And there is just too much damn violence in America and a cult of violence coming largely from the example set at the top - as well as from the massive inequality of opportunity and wealth distribution in the USA and other ills of the society. When I lectured on JFK and other related things long ago persons made clear, when talking to them afterwards, many would also have liked to speak out more, but were afraid of the consequences. It is only worse now - much worse. Those of you who live outside of the USA don't really know the level of fear and insecurity, now inside the country and growing. America is still 'riding' on the momentum of its image at the end of WW2 and too few inside and out have failed to notice that while we may have defeated that evil system, we have also over the 60 intervening years come to follow all too much in their footsteps and are headed in that direction now. I know that sounds alarmist and to many not a valid analysis. I fear not. It will not look the same as it did then. It will look more like what gleam is in the eye of those in control in the USA today. See excellent book at
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/...ism_BGross.html
Those that turn a blind eye to the assassination manual, the torure manual, the assassinations and torture going on now and those of the past, the wars only for control and profit, the dimunition of civil liberties and freedoms in the USA and elsewhere, the false-flag covert operations, the government manipulations and overthows, the cover-ups and lies, the imperialism, the growing militarism, the rise of a policestate and prisonsystem (largest in the world in number and %), the growing inequality, the theft of the nation - in fact of many nations, the rising tide of neo-fascism, currently centered [oh so sadly] in my own country [uSA] will, I think, pay the price for that lack of attention.
It is cliche', but also true that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.....
The planet simply can not 'afford' where we are currently headed even one more time. My own country is at the brink of horrible things. Because we have never come to terms with the symptoms and evidence before us, over the last decades, keeps most citizens without the tools of analysis needed to see what is going on [the media and propaganda system also having a major effect here] -and then do what is needed to expose, correct and stop it. Our election system, long a failed one of two similar corporate-oligarch parties, is now not even functioning at all. The Congress is a rubber stamp of the best-money-can-buy prostitutes. The Judiciary packed and rigged all too much. The Military too big, too well funded, not under control - but too much in control, backed by the War-Profiteers, hungry for conquest and blood. The police are all over the streets, airports and everywhere in America armed-to-the-teeth and protecting the property and the system - not the people. I could go on. I will stop here. It is a very sad moment in history...
Mr. S represents quite well [if in a very crude fashion] a segment of the US mindset [my guess would be about 20% - another 20% can be fooled when needed to support parts of this agenda]. They may be the lunatic fringe in the eyes of many, but they are currently in power and not about to relinqish it without a fight IMO.
NB. Below are 14 characteristics of some past fascist governments. I'll leave it for the reader to see if anythings within seem resonant to where things are heading in any big superpower today.
The 14 characteristics of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gyrobase...?oid=oid%3A3136
Dr. Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. ]
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and antigay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections -- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
It is not too late to do something about it...but IMO getting very late in the day, indeed. I don't believe it would be correct to say this horrible fate has yet been completed today, but things are headed that way fast.
Not to belittle the work done by a political scientist with probably lots of letters after his name but is there much difference between what he sees as 14 characteristics of certain fascist governments and the infamous 'Protocols of the elders of Zion'.
It has always amused me or more precisely annoyed me that people argue over whether the Protocols story is authentic over and above whether the individual protocols themselves describe how things are or how far they've reached/descended in the world of governance.
Quite simply, the whole history of the world comes under the study of individual and group psychology, preferably using eyes and ears and throw away the books containing 500,000 words interspersed(?) with 2,000 words of useful information. There are no mysteries and no surprises in the world of what people want, individually or as a group, and how far/low they'll go to get it. I would suggest that mass control started with the pyramid building programme and has rarely if ever ceased. It's just the means of control that change. I also claim to know how they could have moved the pyramid stones with relative ease, but that'a another story...Cuckoo! Cuckoo!
As far as the CIA assassination manual is concerned. I read part of it, got bored, in a relative sense, with the detail and just felt saddened to be reminded in increasingly graphic detail of what my fellow human(?) kind will resort to under the states guidance.
ST
-
Has the thought ever crossed anyone's mind that perhaps BOTH oswald's were in custody?
The statements seem to contradict each other on crucial issues. One such contradiction is;
I never went to Mexico City / I paid $26.00 to get there.
There are others.
Oswald repeats the scenario, as later told by Hoover to LBJ, that LHO got out of the depository because Truly and the cop with him vouched for LHO to the cops at the door. This would make the 2nd floor confrontation with this Oswald an impossibility. Which Oswald was confronted on the 2nd floor?
When the recollections of these persons of Oswald's statements are put together the stories almost match.
The statement by Robert Oswald that this was not the LHO that he knew is intriguing.
Chuck
The denial of having been to Mexico City was in an interview 2:25 - 4:04 on Saturday. The admission of having been to Mexico City was in an interview on Sunday 9:30 - 11:15. This change of heart could again have been a decision based on the belief that he had been left out to dry by his organisers. There are then at least 2 changes of heart that could follow a pattern of, "Sod it covering anybodies/things ass anymore. I'll tell the/some truth."
1. 4:45 - 6:39 Saturday: Left by Rambler station wagon - 7:55 Saturday: Bus and taxi.
2. 2:25 - 4:04 Saturday: Not been to Mexico City - 9:30 - 11:15 Sunday: Been to mexico City.
The early Saturday statements could be construed as covering for something or somebody. The later Saturday and early Sunday statements do not. If Harvey was part of 'something' and was anything but a moron he 'at some precise time' in his mind would decide that, "I'm on my own here. No-one's coming to my aid. The gloves are off!" He apparently decided this between 6:39 and 7:55 Saturday evening.
ST
-
In an interview 4:45 - 6:30
(Sheriff Roger Craig saw Oswald enter a white station wagon 15 minutes after the assassination. Oswald confirmed this in Captain Fritz's office. A man impersonating Oswald in Dallas just prior to the assassination could have been on the bus and in the taxicab.) "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Ruth Paine. Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it. I told you people I did.
Then in an interview 7:55 - ?
. . . . It wasn't actually true as to how I got home. I took a bus, but due to a traffic jam, I left the bus and got a taxicab, by which means I actually arrived at my residence."
If it is accepted that LHO travelled by station wagon or bus and taxi then one of his claims was untrue,...necessarily! Unless that is, he got into the station wagon then got out and went to the bus then the taxi. For argument's sake, I'll ignore that possibility.
He originally admitted to getting into the station wagon. If that had been untrue, which he later claimed, why agree to it's truth at the outset? Why not deny the seemingly unimportant mistake by Craig? Could there be a reason? Could it be that between 4:45 and 6:39 he had not yet decided that his cover had been blown, that it had been Lee, not Harvey(himself) that Roger Craig had seen in the station wagon and he saw no necessity as yet to distance himself from Lee and the Rambler crew? By 7:55 his mind had changed and the bus and taxi story took over. He couldn't seem to get his right to an attorney and it was therefore time for him to believe that he was being hung out to dry.
It has been claimed that an imposter had gotten on the bus and taxi. One simple question if that is true;
How from jail would he know that an imposter had travelled by bus and taxi? Unless he knew the imposter and had spoken to him after the assassination, and after their individual flights from DP.
"Hey imposter, let's talk about how you got out of DP after the shooting?"...I don't think so!!!
Lee got in the station wagon, Harvey got on the bus and taxi, and by 7:55 he realised that he was working for assholes who would sell their mothers for the right proposition...For national security OF COURSE!
Again...HOW..WOULD..HE..KNOW how another person had travelled?
ST
-
What an interesting spectacle we witness unfolding here daily. We have one Forum member who presumes to know more about current events than all other members combined, and continually screams that we must open up our eyes, as though we refuse to see the truth that lays before us. And yet, it is the screamer who is most resolutely determined to see nothing that might trouble his own preconceptions.
The topic of this thread is the death of Kenneth Lay, the timing of whose demise is cause for suspicion. In the absense of instant prima facie proof positive that Lay's death was the result of natural causes, the first thing any homicide cop would do is consider possible suspects based upon who stood to gain the most from that death. It is a perfectly reasonable and sane working assumption, utilized by police departments around the world. Yet, the very fact that the same questions are raised here is sufficient to reduce our resident screamer to a lather. Oddly, those here who raised the very same fundamental questions that would be among the first posed by police, are assailed as delusional Bush-haters. Apparently, our resident screamer couldn't find a movite for suspicion if it bit him. How bizarre.
From there, this thread has degenerated even further, with remarkable assertions made, all against the evidence rather than in concert with it. To judge by the screamer's posts, it is as though Halliburton is merely a patriotic bunch of chaps who grudgingly accept difficult missions and preposterous profits as part of their thankless business tasks. No mention of no-bid contracts; no mention of Dick Cheney's deferred profits from stock holdings [which the screamer insists do not exist]; no mention of the pattern of Halliburton's over-charging the Pentagon, which has already been established; no mention of the refunding of millions of dollars where that over-charging has come to light; and certainly no mention of the nearly 9 billions dollars [yes, that BILLION with a "b"] of US taxpayers' money that seems to have evaportated in Iraq. Again, the screamer seems incapable of detecting ulterior motives. How bizarre.
As for the insistence that "Islamofascists" are fighting in a "clash of civilizations," it is again remarkable to note that our resident screamer ignores any and all signs of US roles in creating this situation. It is as though US political interference and support for Middle Eastern despots never took place. It is as though the US played no role in creating the House of Saud, overthrowing the Iranian government and installing the brutal Shah, establishing the inhuman regime of Saddam Hussein, grooming the terrorist Osama bin Laden and all those who currently labour as his minions, et al. Among the most effective means of dealing with monsters is not to create them in the first place, a fact that seems to have escaped our resident screamer's notice. But, were he to consider what has led his nation to this sorry state, he would have to consider the motives of the US government in consorting with such human scum in years gone by. That would mean addressing the US government's motives, and, as we've seen repeatedly, assessing "motive" is not his strong suit.
How is it that he cannot grasp this simple fact: the "Islamofascists" he rails against are all - to a man - not just former friends and proxies of the US, but in fact are creations of US foreign policy? One notes that nuance of any sort is lost upon our resident screamer, so let me hasten to add that this was not merely Republican or Democratic foreign policy, but a life-long bipartisan pursuit. Hence, perhaps he will refrain from asserting that my current observation of the costs of former policy blunders cannot simply be dismissed as "Bush-bashing." Without that disingenuous feint, what is left to him? One wonders if he will take the brave option of clearly analyzing the mistakes of the past that have led to today's carnage, or continue to deny that there was any motive for the US to create what has come to pass, and thereby cowardly discount any US responsibility for it.
Our resident screamer has stated clearly that he doesn't intend to be a lamb led to the slaughter. Presumably, the current slaughter suits him just fine, so long as he is not wearing the uniform that will lead to his own death. In that, he has much in common with all the administration members - Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al - who were absent without explanation when it was their turn to serve - during the draft years when service was compulsory - but who are now prepared to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood. Beware the braying of patriots unwilling to make a sacrifice, but insistent that others make that ultimate sacrifice on their behalf. They are not mere hypocrites, but murderers who dress themselves and tbeir craven wickedness in the guise of noble causes.
That our resident screamer seems singularly unaware of any of the above might be the result of a rather shoddy educational system, yet others who graduated from the same system don't seem to suffer from this same myopia. Perhaps, then, it is the result of the fast food faux news provided by the "liberal" media he so derides. If so, it might profit our resident screamer to read more than he does, and to seek out media sources less divisively partisan than are his current choice.
Or, perhaps it is the result of being so blindly obedient to the propaganda of one administration, that all else is cavalierly dismissed as being "unpatriotic." If so, our screamer will soon no doubt be kicking in the front doors of other Forum members, executing a warrant that is no longer deemed necessary, to lay charges of "thought crimes" against those who disagree with those whom he so loyally, but foolishly, serves. I'm sure he'll look quite fetching in a smartly tailored brown shirt.
It would all be rather funny, if it weren't so truly, sadly pathetic. For what is the point of having the freedom to choose, the freedom to think, if one doesn't exercise it?
Thank you! That was structurally beautiful. Poetic I would suggest. Why poetic? I don't know! But I feel it would be beneficial to me to break it down and analyse what and why it held me from beginning to end. It wasn't the content, although sharp as a knife, but it's formation. Damn it! I envy that ability. Excellent!
ST
-
I have wondered about this for years. Tell me how it is possible.
Jack
You wrote, "...how is this possible?"
This is how the 'thumb' is possible, and I believe probable:
If a verticle line were drawn through the thumb knuckle of Jackie's hand (the intersection being 0,0,0,), the line of the thumb would follow (I'm very rusty on maths, but you should get the point) a vector basically x=y=z (Should that be -x=y=z). The direction of the thumb would, at 4 points, around a 360 degree viewing, be pointing in the same direction, although progressively seeing around the white gloved thumb. The frontal Altgen view and the side-on Zapruder view being two of those points. Shove a stick in the ground at the appropriate angle and walk around it.
The other part of her hand, with a little variation, follows the same principal, but if my thumb explanation is denied there seems little point in expanding on it.
ST
-
When the whole group comes out of the lift/elevator and toward the fatal moment, Fritz is definitely moving himself away from the main group. This could obviously be explained as professional practice as opposed to getting his behind out of the line of fire, but when he turns the corner and the shot is fired, his reaction and turn is extremely slow. Like a bad actor.
Bad actor or old age?
Does anybody have that film to put on the forum. It's an awfully slow reaction to a gunshot.
ST
-
Tom, I must admit a fascination with your scenario. John Canal's as well. You both believe that Oswald acted alone, but that the government told a bunch of lies and blew a bunch of smoke anyhow. If you could please refresh my memory as to why the WC did this, I'd appreciate it. Was it to cover up that Oswald had a motive? Canal, if memory serves, believes Oswald acted alone but the Government didn't believe it, and created a bunch of fake evidence even though they didn't need to. Why, in your opinion, did they find it necessary to tell so many lies, and refuse to look at the autopsy photos, etc? Who benefitted from their lack of action?
>>>1. There was a "LONE ASSASSIN".
And, to a relative high degree of probability, this assassin was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald!<<<
"A" LONE ASSASSIN (SHOOTER) Semantics and Circumstance.
1) An assassin working alone. No other shooters. Therefore also 'the' lone assassin.
2) An assassin working alone. Other known or unknown shooter/s, whether lone shooter/s or part of a group.
"THE" LONE ASSASSIN
1) As (1) above.
2) As (2) above, as long as other shooter or shooters, known or unknown, are part of group or groups.
>>>2. There was, by all available evidence, a CONSPIRACY to assassinate.
And, to a relatively high degree of probability, this conspiracy centered around the issues of Civil Rights and loss of monies and property, primarily in Cuba. As well as the potentially feelings of "betrayal" in regards to the Bay of Pigs episode.<<<
CONSPIRACY (Conspire - To Breath Together)
1) Mind controlled (by others) shooter believing he's doing 'this' all by himself. (One-sided conspiracy)
2) Anything other than a single shooter or multiple single shooters each believing working alone.
"A/THE" LONE ASSASSIN AND CONSPIRACY
This gets too wordy so just connect the above things together to cause the semantic and circumstantial confusion that is there.
ST
-
Deleted.
-
Is there even a remote possibility that this could explain why it looks like JFK was hit from the front?
I'm asking because if this is not plausible then, at least to me, there is no other explanation (jet effect aside) but that the head shot came from the front.
Thanks
Mark, I don't see any evidence of Jackie causing JFK's reaction to being hit. It appears that Jackie turns her head away towards the the front of the car/her right arm following in a forward direction, while JFK is rifled backwards.
Bill
This ""appears"" to be as 2 images in 3 parts. Image 1, then image 1 + 2, then image 2.
Image 1 shows no injury. Image 2 shows a star shaped injury, but JFK's head is already back (although blurred). The star shape does not move so can only come from one image, which must be the second image, when his head is already back.
ST
-
I'm curious if anyone else is having this problem:
You go to the Education Forum login page and suddenly a new instance of your browser is showing up with an address of snipernet.com. When you close it, a System Doctor ad pops up. If you attempt to close out any of the windows or dialogs, SystemDoctor attempts to scan your system.
If that isn't PITA enough, I always have on a full suite of blocking tools including McAfee Internet Security (I don't use pop-up blockers, for a very specific reason). I have even BANNED the addresses these ads come from, and they have apparently managed to figure out how to disable my McAfee.
Is this sanctioned by Ed Forum? Are y'all even aware of it? Am I the only one having this problem?
Yesterday morning, for the first time ever, I found myself already connected to the internet, when I normally have to sign in.
I actually sent myself a letter today mentioning this in case anything dodgey (from wherever) appeared from that date on my computer. Better than nothing?
ST
-
Sorry! Just realised I'm off topic. My apologies!
ST
-
LBJ wanted his enemy Yarborough to sit in that seat in
case of a miss. He did not want his longtime friend
JBC in the line of fire. Connally was worried all morning
after LBJ failed to get Smilin' Ralph in the line of fire.
Jack
Where in God's name do you come up with this stuff? LBJ didn't want his good friend to be in the line of fire, but allowed it anyway ... give me a break! It was reported that JBJ wanted he and Kennedy to ride together on that trip, but JFK felt that it was Connally's state, so the two must ride in the same car. Now if LBJ wanted to ride with the President - it hardly seems that Johnson was thinking about gunfire.
Bill Miller
All a person has to come back with is that it was reported, by organised media or witness (the same type of report yours must be), that a different seat allocation drama actually took place, then you simply have a case of 'papers(pistols) at dawn'.
If the reports came prior to the 21nd then Johnson either didn't know about the assassination and wanted to or give the impression of wanting to ride with JFK, or knew about the assassination all along and just wanted to create a good alibi(?), as long as he knew that Kennedy would sideline Johnson's supposed seating desire. The third and my favourite option (if he ever had prior knowledge), that Johnson found out the night before, but not about the whole thing. As long as HE wasn't sitting next to JFK would be his main concern, with prior reports of seating talk via organised media or witness becoming irrelevant to the central question. His political/judicial problems would go away and he only had a relative few hours to think about it, and become or show nerves/ous(?)
If the report came on or after the 22nd and Johnson knew about the assassination then it becomes more important to know the source of the story as it would be helping to indicate his innocence in the aftermath
The only 2 reasons I have to think reasonable to suspect Johnson are his 'supposed' comment to Madelaine Brown, something like, "Those s.o.b. Kennedys won't laugh at me any more after tomorrow" and reading that he 'supposedly' was ducking down somewhat in his seat before the shooting had even started. His questionable involvement in past activities doesn't help much either. There and after becomes very circumstantial.
Sorry, but I need to bring this back directly to Connally.
If Connally was shot either to get his hat out of the way or as an intended target then Johnson's team or the team/s Johnson knew about (if any) probably weren't there for Connally. Unless Connally's death would have helped him immensely. I've not heard that one...Yet!
ST
-
LBJ wanted his enemy Yarborough to sit in that seat in
case of a miss. He did not want his longtime friend
JBC in the line of fire. Connally was worried all morning
after LBJ failed to get Smilin' Ralph in the line of fire.
Jack
.....which 'could' and has been used to explain, "My God! They're gonna kill us ALL!" (As opposed to just "...the guy behind me")
It is though quite a natural progression from seeing the guy behind you shot, to you yourself being shot, to mentally question then verbally express the possibility of multiple intended or unintended victims.
Is there a most obvious example of Connally's expression of worry during the morning, that would imply foreknowledge? Something that separates itself from him just being generally worried because he's sat near to a supposed 'hated man in nut country'.
I doubt that he would have been aware of multiple gunmen (if any). It would be really dumb, to sit in a moving car and believe that multiple gunmen would all hit their target.
ST
-
ST
um...thanks but that made very little sense in respect to my question. it made little sense at all.
cheers
Dobson
You did happen to mention the possibility of Connally being shot on the spur of the moment due to necessity. To take out the 'spur of the moment' idea doesn't seem unfair or highly off point as the same questions (location and who there) would remain and become more informative. But, to suggest that the highest level plotters/organisers (rules out Mafia or Cubans) organised or allowed it to happen, without the other separate or collective plotters' knowledge makes no sense, ignores the obvious advantages of, the others having no knowledge of your presence, and maybe not even having to shoot. It's more acceptable (to me) with only three teams with one of them shooting at Connally.
I do admit to crap, disorganised writing! Never been able to bring about and organise writing (why I rarely do it) to conspire like a thought.
But 'it', the words I typed denoting a possible reality, with a little perceptive licence(sic?), does/do make sense. As long as by 'make sense' leans toward 'reasonable' (able to be reasoned) and not 'necessarily probable'.
It's a good idea, but not necessarily the truth.
ST
-
quick question,
It occurs to me more and more, the question that connelly may have been shot to stop him from waving his "redneck cowboy hat / I.Q. Slicer " in front of kennedy for a front shot.
supposing this is the case, it would have had to have been decided quickly and by spotter/then radioman/then shooter.
because of the wound in his thigh, i suspect this may have come from the roof of the TSDB or an uppermost window opposite to where the snipers nest/lone nut/posner was right position was...(dealey plaza webcam perch as it is now known)
any thoughts on this?
I just find it hard as candy to think that the connally thigh shot came from a lateral direction and bounced down...
It would also occur to me if i were a shooter and knew not only the route but the "dinner seating arrangements" in advance, one would want connelly out of the picture pretty quickly, and from all accounts he was kinda disposable politically.
Perhaps the throat shot was meant for connelly?
Just a thought.
any thoughts would be appreciated
by the way, nice work in this thread everyone.
getting different views of the plaza for poeple who have never been there opens up a whole new way of looking at things.
most are used to 2D and the ten main pics from moorman, altgens etc..
when you see the scope of the plaza in terms of size etc, it makes one wonder why the warren ommision didnt give a better representation of it in the first place...
thanks again all..
Cheers
Dobson
I have pondered for many years on the possibility that Connally was a target for one of the possibly independent teams. This team or possibily one of the other teams wasn't aware of everybody else. I remember reading about a man (French sounding name) in a Canadian airport who overheard I think David Ferrie, or was it in the Carousel Club?(punctuate at your leisure) trying to hire someone to shoot Connally because he wouldn't work with them(?) on...'something'. It doesn't make the overheard conversation true but Connally being a particular target would give it the right to airtime.
It is quite possible that only one team (or single gunman) was aware of everybody else, this team or person being logically most connected to the 'organisers', only to become involved if no successful (= probable death) headshot,
therefore probably shot from the middle to the end of the barrage out of perceived necessity.
It is not beyond reason that the Mafia, anti-Castro Cubans, Intelligence (therefore also Presidential protection) and the greedy ones' single gunman using others' spotters, were all there in the plaza.
Team 1,2,3 and 4 in possible shooting order. 3 knows about 2 and 1, and 4 knows about 3,2,and 1. Sadly, although they shouldn't have been there in the first place, 2 and 1 are at a disadvantage and will be evidentially connected if and when necessary.
Remember! It isn't necessary to assassinate a President...Just let it happen! Sadly this doesn't get rid of, "If you want a job doing properly, do it yourself." The former gives you deniability, the latter gives you more certainty, so bring about both!
Just jiggle it around a bit. If it's true then everyone's (within reason) right:
Who organised JFK's murder?
Mafia, Cubans, Intel, Far Right (The greedy ones). But not all together.
Who murdered/shot JFK and/or shot Connally?
Mafia, Cubans, Intel, Far Right.
Who intended to shoot Connally? ("They" didn't necessarily hit him)
I don't have an intuition.
ST
-
didn't Groden say somewhere thet the license number on this car was once visible and then altered later? does anyone know what it was or might have been? (Blair Dobson)
This blow-up shows the photograph itself before it was altered. No details unfortunately.
James
It would seem greatly against logic 'and' probability for the outline of a somewhat irregular alteration to be easily visible before said alteration.
For protection of that statement, there is another possibility. The picture did have a hole which was 'filled in' on purpose to create a false lead by whomever. A bad job though that doesn't suggest expertise, something I would fairly expect.
ST
-
And, of course, the one undeniable fact is that the Kennedy family itself, and principally Robert Kennedy Sr., aided and abetted the Warren Commission fantasy. That's undeniable. As mere examples, Robert Sr.
1. Restricted JFK's autopsy;
2. At LBJ's bidding, unsuccessfully sought to enlist CJ Warren to head the Comm'n. He failed to persuade Earl Warren, and LBJ had to bludgeon the CJ into it ... We know what became of this misadventure;
3. Impeded Jim Garrison's investigation; and, most imporantly,
4. For 4 years after its publication, fully endorsed publicly the WC findings when he was privately telling others that they were utter fantasy. Ted, of course, has continued in this vein for 43 years.
If your brother was blown away, why proceed in this fashion? The answer is pretty simple -- protect his image, continue the myth. A full investigation would have unearthed a lot of ugliness.
It has been claimed that RFK was aware of?/part of?/in control of? a supposedly tightknit band of people who continued plans to kill Castro, after this endeavour had supposed to have ceased. This is a possibility, not an impossibility! I believe it claimed that were this type of action discovered by the Cubans, turned around (the practice, not the participants) and a US official was murdered instead, it was deemed necessary (desired) to scupper any investigation that could lead back to this (singular) 'Castro murdering' plan. The mind only needs one reason, however ridiculous, self-serving or self-protective to initially deny truth or seeking of the truth. This generally leads to farce.
This could be absolute rubbish, but if it isn't , it would answer why RFK publicly (maybe tricked into having to) would go along with the Warren abortion.
ST
Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Steven Tomlinson
If I want to do something but can't be seen as responsible, I put the idea to someone with the ability to make 'it' happen. If it is true that RFK was involved with the Castro assassination attempts and he believed that people from these attempts were involved in JFK's death, he would have great reason to hamper a broad enquiry, starting with an idea of multiple assassins, provable by a strict examination of wounds. If RFK did act, I can now say without lieing that RFK wanted it doing. I, having the idea originally doesn't come into it.
I would prefer for this not to be the case, but it only requires a very powerful and well connected man (RFK) to feel cornered.