Peter McGuire

It seems others thought the same thing:: : Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary News blackout -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There won't be anything in the news about the assassinaton. They want people to forget about it. There are people still alive who know the real story. http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic....asc&start=0 Get this: Who is 'they'? I (mildly) resent your implication that the people on the Warren Commission didn't do their job properly.

Hong Kong Youtube video showing hill riding on the back of the limo. I have seen a still of him there but not this video. http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=UKB7QJZPfl4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part one and two of gdudes youtube links discuss the single bullet theory claiming Connally was hit around frame 236 to 238 of the Zapruder footage showing there was an extra bullet. An extra bullet Oswald would not have had time to fire, thus the belief in a second shooter. If you check out the video posted below it places the shot at frame 224 where you see Connally's jacket launch forward. This places the shot that entered Connally at around the same time as Kennedy's throat shot. Go to 4mins 20 on the video and you can see they react at the same time. So which is it 224 or 236/8? When was Connally hit? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVKLtBd6GY

Does anyone know about this. A certain Ken Rahn. I couldnt get anything on a search. Here is a website on the matter. It deals with the physics of the head shot. http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topi..._head_shot.html

Shanet: It is hard for a lot of people even here on this forum to come to grips with the fact that Kennedy, despite his outstanding performance during the Missile Crisis and other difficult situations where he actually disregarded the hawkish advise from the general staff and thus avoided war, was, in the eyes of the general staff a dangerous and unfit Chief Executive. I am not certain of the truth regarding what Kennedy was actually doing behind the scenes and in his personal life, but ironically, the information out there comes from the very people that want to smear his name and perpetuate the myth of JFK being killed in a random act of murder by a "deranged man". This is somewhat comforting to the public and what they are doing is hoping to persuade people into thinking that Kennedy was an amoral man and they shouldn’t fuss about this “senseless” murder. My position is that the unfavorable light that he is put into by these people is largely true, and forms the basis for his removal from office by some sort of official order and sanction. Like the behavior of the Secret Service that day, no one wants to come to grips with these awful facts. You don't kill United States Presidents to go to war (and it has not been proven Kennedy would not have escalated the situation in Vietnam), to seek revenge from various enemies or because of supposed softening in the relations with the enemy. That is called diplomacy and you are supposed to do things like that.

Thanks for this link. It is almost unbelievable that this was written so shortly after the assassination! And for some of us this is a little bit scary: "the assassination itself is probably a mere prelude to an historical tragedy the scope of which is not yet discernable. " Who Killed Whom and Why? Dark Thoughts About Dark Events M.S. Arnoni, The Minority of One, January 1964 All speculation about the forces behind the shocking murder of the late President John F. Kennedy and about its political repercussions suffers from a severe limitation; for while any analysis must aim to embrace the whole epos, the assassination itself is probably a mere prelude to an historical tragedy the scope of which is not yet discernable. Another problem for the analyst is the border line between the believable and the unbelievable in the mind of the public. This border line is set by national biases to a far greater extent than by actual objective judgment of facts, events and likelihoods. What Americans reject as inconceivable developments culminating in the assassination is largely based on mental preconditioning. The popular view of the American body politic as a free and democratic set-up responsive to the spontaneous wishes of the majority lulls many people into rejecting without examination any theory predicated on sinister schemes within the power structure. The distance and strangeness of foreign peoples enable Americans to recognize and even to exaggerate the degree of cynicism involved in the internal power struggles of other countries, especially if they happen to be hostile toward those countries. No tale of intrigue ever sounds too wicked to American ears if the setting is the Kremlin, or some Latin American palace. But when it comes to America, well, we know we are “basically” the most decent and democratic of nations, and that shadowy deeds probable elsewhere are impossible here; and that even if they do occur, they are exceptions, dark spots on an otherwise innocent national record. This prejudice is a virtual guarantee against penetrating popular inquiry into the facts behind the assassination of President Kennedy; yet it is probable that the truth here is in direct proportion to its unacceptability by the popular American mind, and that its sinister nature is far more marked than Americans can imagine of the American Establishment. It is no coincidence that the foreign press, including the friendly foreign press, was immeasurably more ready than newspapers here to treat the assassination as an outcome of a possible political plot within high echelons of effective American power. Hundreds of circumstances and details pertaining to the killing, the suspected assassin, the assassination of the assassin, the behavior of the Dallas police, etc., etc., will give rise to a whole new field of literature. Scores of books will be written over decades, pointing out the incompatibility of accounts which are now being taken at face value. This literature will be justified by the truism that the closer we are to historic events in place and time the more difficult it is to perceive the truth about them. In spite of all these disadvantages, the political observer cannot subdue his urge to theorize and speculate. Man’s intellect includes a blind stubbornness about admitting ignorance; and we often pretend to know best that about which we know least, as witness religion. Thus, on the assumption—not necessarily correct—that we can already discern some major implications of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, we can choose between the theory that the President fell victim to a lone maniac, and the theory that his murder was carried through by an organized conspiracy. The theory of the lone killer seems less feasible when one considers the perfectly smooth machinery of the assassination, plus the obvious glibness with which the authorities in Dallas came up with a quick and popularly acceptable solution of the case. Indeed the local head of police seemed eager to close the case in spite of the distinct possibility that it has not yet been opened. Serious questions arise. Why were the Dallas police so eager falsely to link Lee Harvey Oswald with leftist groups and causes? Why was it made possible for Jack Ruby to kill him? Did anyone help Oswald to establish a biography which would seem to link him both to the shooting and to an expedient political motive for it? Did anyone help him to get to Mexico when he went there in late September, and to apply there for both Cuban and Soviet visas? Under what circumstances was Oswald hired, so short a time before the Presidential visit, to work at the warehouse from which the fatal shots were allegedly fired? Was the trajectory of the fatal bullets consistent with the geographic relation between the target and the window from which the shots were allegedly fired? Did the public announcement of the route of the Presidential party give Oswald enough time to plan, prepare and place himself within the range of the target? If not, from whom did Oswald learn the route before it was publicly announced? Who knew the route before a public announcement was made of it? Why was Lee Oswald allowed to leave a building surrounded by police, and from which the U.S. President had been shot, merely upon establishing that he was employed in it? As it is now clear that Oswald was not connected with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, what motivated him to make statements prior to the assassination which would enable the police to link him with that organization after the shooting? Was Lee Harvey Oswald a walking corpse, a fall guy, doomed even before the assassination to die? And if so, did he die after fulfilling an assassin’s role, or only as a decoy? Was the assassin condemned to death by the very people who assigned him to shoot? If so, when did the execution take place—with the shooting of Lee Oswald, or with the shooting of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit? The first reports of the murder of Patrolman Tippit also related that a Secret Service man had been wounded; since then, nothing has been heard about that Secret Service man. What was his relation to Patrolman Tippit; and is it possible that the two were shot in a duel between them? These and many other questions remain unanswered; but this does not necessarily mean that the answers are not known in Washington’s upper echelons of power. On the contrary; if those in high circles had no answers at all, vigorous investigations would have been undertaken immediately, and many secrets exposed. The clues provided by the contradictions in the initial accounts are so voluminous that any swift and sincere investigation would undoubtedly penetrate the veil. If the assassin had acted all alone, or if he represented an insignificant group of fanatics, the formidable investigative machinery of the authorities could soon pick up the threads, without leaving us in the dark for even this long.

Tim Gratz wrote: "Now if you could show me that Kellerman had met with Johnny Rosselli a week before the assassination, even without knowing why, that would be the slimmest reed. Or if you could show that he suddenly purchased a very expensive house or car shortly after the assassination, again that might raise eyebrows." Is this more of your , the Mob did it nonsense?

It sure seems that negligence was implied to me .... "What kind of United States Secret Service Agent just sits there when there is clear and present danger? Shots have been fired. He can see the President of the United States is clutching his throat and is obviously in danger. Kellerman can see this. He looks back. He justs sits there." "However, United States Secret Service Agents simply DO NOT sit there when shots are being fired at the POTUS. And, the car carrying said President DOES NOT slow down and stop." "First of all , he had a lot of time. He could have hesitated , then reacted, and still made a difference by the fatal shot." Negligence is Gratz' word: "But a Kellerman suit against yiou would be a slam dunk since you have not a scintilla of evidence to demonstrate that his inaction for less than ten seconds was anything other than negligence or cowardice. " However do answer my questions please: Do Secret Service Agents usually just sit there when shots are being fired at the President? And are cars containing them supposed to slow down? If these comments are way out in left field, then EXCUSE ME. But we are never going to know what was going on in Kellerman's mind. And that is why he was given the benefit of the doubt. What else could anyone do , at the time. But now is the time to take a critical look at what he did. Is that too much to ask? To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence). I understand that mens rea could not be proven then and it obviously couldn't be proven now. But there was some very strange behaviour going on that afternoon. And a President died that day, let us not forget. Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious and recklessness of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of wilful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation (note that in the United States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for wilful blindness). The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable person standard. Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life" (see the discussion in corporate manslaughter). The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur. The three types of test are: subjective where the court attempts to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the actus reus was caused; objective where the court imputes mens rea elements on the basis that a reasonable person with the same general knowledge and abilities as the accused would have had those elements; or hybrid, i.e. the test is both subjective and objective. The most culpable mens rea elements will have both foresight and desire on a subjective basis. Negligence arises when, on a subjective test, an accused has not actually foreseen the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, and has gone ahead, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering injury or loss. The accused is a social danger because he or she has endangered the safety of others in circumstances where the reasonable person would have foreseen the injury and taken preventive measures. Hence, the test is hybrid. Kellerman was no ordinary person. It was his JOB to protect the President. What is the reasonable person standard? This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the ‘average person’ thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances. The more contentious debate has surround the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable.

Regarding your characterization of Kellerman, either of the two is fine with me. But remember Tim, they are your words, not mine. And lawsuits not withstanding, I have not not accused these people of anything. Even being negligent. You keep putting words into my mouth and you are are also intimidating me. Why Tim? Why do you have so much energy for this case and especially when it comes to the Secret Service? When do you have time to make a living? You seem to be on here 24/7. And as far as the your last paragraph: Sticks and Stones, Tim. Sticks and Stones.

First of all , he had a lot of time. He could have hesitated , then reacted, and still made a difference by the fatal shot. And I do not know how many times I need to repeat this: I am just asking questions. If YOU want to consider that an accusation, they are your words, not mine. It is just too bad people are not concerned about being sued by Oswalds heirs. Then the ill words might stop about him.

I think it is common sense that allows one to see the ugly truth here. And by your comments here Tim, are you taking charge of this forum now with this appeal to the other members? Higher education , including law school, is supposed to make critical thinkers of it's students and people willing to accept the truth, no matter how ugly it may be. What happened , Tim?

What in the world does Clint Eastwood have to do with this other than playing a Clint Hill in a movie? And as an attorney , you know darn well that certain professionals have a duty to do certain things in certain situations. And I am referring to situations where they are not on duty. The sole purpose of a SSA is to protect certain officials from harm. In this case the President of the United States. Answer my question: What kind of United States Secret Service Agent just sits there when there is clear and present danger? Shots have been fired. He can see the President of the United States is clutching his throat and is obviously in danger. Kellerman can see this. He looks back. He justs sits there. Explain that to me. FYI: I have not accoused him of anything and in my OP I stated that like Lee Oswald, Greer and Kellerman are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Since they are deceased, they will always be innocent. I am just asking for an explaination of their behaviour. You say: "Obviously if anyone should have jumped on JFK it was Kellerman." Yes, Tim. That is pretty obvious. And undefendable.

Tim Gratz wrote: If they are innocent (and they are) Greer and Kellerman had each pledged to die in the performance of their duties and they took a job that might well have required them to make the ultimate sacrifice. Of course they are not guilty since they ( Kellerman , Greer and Lee Oswald) have never been tried in a court of law, the proper way to determine such a thing. ( guilt or innocence) However, United States Secret Service Agents simply DO NOT sit there when shots are being fired at the POTUS. And, the car carrying said President DOES NOT slow down and stop. Period. End of story.

All you are doing, Paul is showing how witnesses can make errors as to what they recall seeing. Great Job!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZYmNsjnwRA...ted&search=

Alright Tim. Let's get back to the purpose of Mr. Black's thread. You have made your point elsewhere on this forum and we are perfectly aware of your ridiculous stance. This thread is about people like you. Smart people who promote implausable theories but tell us we are not acting with common sense or that we are out in left field. The point is , when you have a losing hand like yours, it takes real talent to keep a straight face and keep on playing. For that I salute you. Let's take a look at an Amazon review of Posner's Case Closed to get an idea of what I am trying to say: This book is not only tendentious garbage--it is dangerous as well. All of Posner's deceptive shaping of the evidence depends entirely on the reader not knowing a damn thing about the case. [He is a good writer--a genius worthy of Sammy Glick and Joseph Goebbels.] Read carefully, Posner's sources are revealed to be official ones--current or former members of governments, police forces, courts. And all sources that he attacks are citizens--and there are thousands of non-governmental sources in this case who provide a mountain of evidence for conspiracy. Posner trashes every one he can get his tricky hands on. So pro-conspiracy witnesses are not just mistaken, they are insane, drunkards, abusers, liars, publicity hounds ( unlike himself , of course) . grudge holders, folks with hidden agendas ( again, unlike all those intelligence agents he believes in so devoutly). Let the reader beware: This is State Propaganda at its most clever and diabolical, and the purpose of the book is to convince the reader that only losers believe in conspiracies, those who have not succeeded in this greatest of all possible societies. Sour Grapes , in other words. Once again Tim, I have to hand it to you, you sure know what you are doing. And you do it well.

Let's start with Dr. Wecht. I talked to him over the phone a couple of years ago around the time the charges were filed against him. He reiterated what he has always said: That the President was hit simultaneously with shots from in front and behind. Has Dr. Wecht changed his long term stance in light of these charges? What I would like you to do is enlighten us as to how you could make this statement. It doesn't matter anyway , he wasn't at Parkland on November 22, 1963. We have the Parkland Hospital doctors coming out with the truth and the Zapruder fillm and numerous eyewitness, including the Newmans. Clearly, trying to use this statement from Dr. Wecht shows your argument is weak , just as weak as the Secret Service defense. What they DIDN'T do when the shots rang out is perfectly clear to most people. And it is the smoking gun in this case that will not go away. Why didn't they move, Tim, when the shots rang out? This isn't rocket science Tim. And I am happy for you and your high IQ. But as you know, there are others on this forum who are pretty smart too. This is about critical thinking and the ability to accept the truth, no matter how awful it may be.

Well. If you could give me 44 years I could come up with something! And Tim. I want to know where you stand. Was the Kennedy assassination an "inside job" ? Or, did someone get in some lucky shots and manage to kill the President. It would have been pretty hard to accomplish what they did had the Secret Service been doing their job that day. A shot passing over Kennedy and hitting Connely would have been nothing compared to what would have happened had the situation ( the plaza ) not been controlled. Mrs. Kennedy, for example was right next to her husband's head at the time of the fatal shot. Now that takes accurate shooting to not hit her and I believe that was an order, that is not to harm Mrs. Kennedy in any way. And with the limousine at a virtual halt, that was not very hard to accomplish with a weapon with a scope shooting from the front.

No Tim. I think you and your "high IQ" and this post supports Charles case.

Wouldn't it be easier to list "who didn't do it? Exactly. Or narrow the list down to ONE. hint: ( a collective noun and not the people in this picture ) _____________________ "I shouted out, 'Who killed the Kennedys?,' and after all, it was you and me..." --Sympathy For The Devil by the Rolling Stones (is that "collective" enough?) --Thomas _____________________ Great answer , Thomas. The word ( collective noun) I was looking for was the Republic. Mick Jagger said - "We shouted out who killed the Kennedy's but after all, it was you and me". In our democracy, our government does things for us, as our representatives, not as our overlords. WE THE PEOPLE do the governing by proxy.

Wouldn't it be easier to list "who didn't do it? Exactly. Or narrow the list down to ONE. hint: ( a collective noun and not Pierre Salinger and the Cabinet) When JFK was assassinated, Salinger was on a plane flying with six Cabinet members going to Tokyo. Salinger's visit was to have been for an economic conference, and to start working on a visit JFK was going to take in February 1964 as the first American president to visit Japan since World War II.

Scary stuff. And well thought out and stated. And it fits into my feeling that in the minds of the "responsible parties" the Kennedys were unfit Presidents ( potential in the case of RFK) and were quite possible deemed enemies of the state. Thus , the public, state executions of the two brothers. Public and brutal in the case of JFK.

Weberman created a great website, filled with info. He keeps his speculation and conclusions separate from the info, for the most part, so that you don't have to think Sturgis, Hunt, or Hemming were conspirators to learn anything. . I use it from time to time. Someone correct me if wrong, but it was done [well] quite some time ago, and he has not updated it with some minor newer info....but it is good solid research. As in all, never take just one person's word or analysis on anything.......people make mistakes, were fed bad information, missed important other information, or just drew the wrong conclusions. He did a hell of a lot of work on that.......! He seems not to be active anymore, as many who 'burned-out' over this. Wasn't he forced to change his web address from coupdetatinamerica by the FBI or someone?And I recall there being bogus drug charges brought against him or a family member over this? "Burned out" , like so many including the two professors that I am sure you are all familiar with who finished with " Say goodbye to all that" , another example of someone throwing in the towel. Their reasoning was that unless there is a governmental body listening to , and taking action on this, it is useless to continue to take time on this matter.

I guess I shouldn't refer to the Secret Service Agents as friends. They were working and they SHOULD have protected Kennedy and they DID NOT. Don't start with me, Tim. Here in the Altgen's photo Johnson's follow up car door is open and his "men" are all over him. You can also see from the photo that the Agents are aware of the shots but are not moving to protect Kennedy.

Interesting comparison. Kennedy sure rode straight into his destiny. But with NO friends around.