Michael G. Smith
-
Posts
169 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael G. Smith
-
-
Are you kidding? You mean - you're saying - you're trying to tell me that Bonnie Ray's nickname of "Insinkerator" - pulverizing chicken bones - is - isn't - you mean - it's not - it's not true?!?Let's make one thing perfectly clear.The lunch did not consist of chicken bones.
The bones were left-over after the meat on the bones was consumed!
Oh ... My ... Gawd. This sheds a whole new light on things, doesn't it.
To imagine someone put whole chicken legs onto a couple of slices of bread - or peeled the meat off the bones before making a sandwich of it ... and here all this time, I'd thought the man was someone who bit soda bottles open (after all, no evidence of a church key, right?).
I'm devastated. Deflated. Derailed. Deranged. Debunked. But mostly just deranged ....
Where's that emoticon with the balloon flying around at when ya need it most?
This post started out to be something of value, and a subject that had been debated and discussed over the years many times. The chicken bones, bag lunch, the location of certain people in the building at the time prior to the shooting, after the shooting, and many other questions related to the events that day. This subject needed to be addressed concerning that part of the evidence found at the scene. But I have to say, where this post has gone, up to this point, has dropped to a new low. Certain things said in the past two replies here, certainly add nothing to the content of the subject at hand. They tend to do nothing but shine an "unjust" light on these employees being discussed here, and these men certainly do not deserve that, let alone the offending of others, including myself here on the Forum. Taking this post to this level is totally uncalled for, and certainly unprofessional. Im sure I can speak for others, and am not alone with this opinion concerning these last few replies. -MS
-
That's a very interesting angle Ron. Didn't Paul O'Connor mention that the body he saw at Bethesda was in a slate gray body bag inside a cheap shipping casket? If so, then this account obviously conflicts with the ornate casket, sans body bag, in which JFK's body left Parkland.
Supposing for a minute that this two body scenario was part of the deal, it then begs the question: Who set-up and managed this shell game at Bethesda? It would be interesting if we could determine if any military brass were at Bethesda prior to the body’s arrival and when they got there.
The whole Bethesda autopsy scenerio reeks of questions. The one presented here begs for answers. Another one that that needs to be addressed is that of Lt. Cmdr. William Bruce Pitzer, whose mysterious death on Oct. 29, 1966, has never been investigated. From what I gather, Mr. Pitzer photographed most of the autopsy while it was being conducted and ongoing. Performing this autopsy was Dr. James J. Humes, and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, both U. S. Naval Officers who conducted the autopsy on the evening of Nov. 22nd 1963. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, no one has been able to to interview these men concerning specific details of this autopsy under threat of court martial by the U.S. Navy, and other intimidating agencys. This serious unresolved mystery into Lt. Pitzers mysterious death that has gone unresolved for so many years, needs to be addressed. Why have no answers been giving concerning the autopsy on John F. Kennedy? To make matters worse, why have no answers been given into the death of Lt. Cmdr. Pitzer? His family to this point still has no closure into his horrific death of their husband and family man to this day. There are many other Doctors who have not been mentioned here, but they are all involved in the cover up into not only the falsifying of the bodies and autopsies at Bethesda, but also the cover up in the murder of Lt. Cmdr. William Bruce Pitzer. JMO FWIW -MS
-
Ford would then be the second Warren Commissioner to suggest that Oswald may have had some connection to the CIA that needed to be covered up, The first, it seems, was John J. McCloy during an intgerview with Edward Jay Epstein on June 7, 1965:
"I still believe it is possible some document will turn up showing Oswald may have been an agent. Not necessarily a conspiracy but an agent gone haywire."
McCloy leaves Oswald as the lone shooter with no conspiracy, CIA perhaps withholding documents. Seems Ford feels the same way. Seems their stories are very similiar!
3 points covered up by the Commission seem, in my opinion, to support this:
1) No passenger lists for Oswald's travel from London to Helsinki
2) No exhibit number given to the 3rd Hosty note that stated where Oswald was working before the parade route was decided
3) No information about Oswald's attempt to contact "John Hurt" while in custody after the assassination.
If both McCloy and Ford provided us with the same clue the other half of their cryptic message is that Oswald was the shooter. I do believe that a conspiracy did exist with Oswald as a shooter. I know that is not a popular view on this forum but I will suggest again that the greatest disinformation campaign that may have been done was to convice the American public that Oswald was not the shooter.
If my research is correct it may have been General Walker that was on an airplane with Oswald before Oswald arrived in Helsinki. Oswald did somehow have the information needed to show up at the only embassy in the world that could issue a visa into the Soviet Union within 24 hours, Oswald showed up with the necessary Intourist Vouchers that Ambassador Hickerson had told the State Department would be needed only the day before Oswald would arrive in Helsinki. Within two weeks of Oswald's arrivial we find that John Jay McCloy is expressing his concern that the Paris Summit will place the United States Arms negotiators in a bad position. That summit would never occur after Francis Gary Powers is shot down only days before it is scheduled to begin. Was Oswald's travel to Russia a controlled event?
The Belinn note suggests that the CIA could have predicted Oswald's assassination of JFk if they had known that Oswald had shot at Walker. If oswald had been duped into providing information to the Soviets about the U-2 and his travel to the Soviet Union had been orchestrated by a chance meeting with Walker as Oswald traveled in Europe, Oswald, who had returned to Dallas, would have a motive to attempt to murder Walker that only those that would have known that Walker had been given the assignment to help Oswald enter the Soviet Union. It is a fact that the FBI/CIA monitoring of Oswald only begins after the Walker assassiantion attempt.
An attempt on Walker's life is, to me, plausible based upon Oswald's own words. Oswald believed that Walker was the head of a large organization that wished to create friction between the Soviet Union and the US. Did he have first had knowledge of this? If Walker had provided information to Oswald it makes sense. The failure of the Paris Summit was very much on Oswald's mind in the days leading up to the assassination of JFK. His speech at Spring Hill College provides clear evidence of this. Was Oswald bitter of the role he had played in the events that led to the dowing of the U-2 on May 1, 1959? Before returning to the US Oswald did want assurances that he would not be charged with any crimes.
The last building to be passed upon the parade route was the TSBD Building. But we do not know who read the Hosty note that provided information to US Intelligence agencies stating that Oswald worked in that last building. Why is that note still missing to this day. I must admit that I would love to know exactly who had access to that information!
As I have shown the name of John Hurt is of importance to US Intelligence activities of the 1940's, 50's and 60's. John B. Hurt's work for the NSA is still classified to this day and of the 20,000 or so employees of the NSA in 1964 the NSA selected two men, Frank Rowlett and Merideth Gardner that were both closely associated with John Bartrum Hurt to assess Oswald's personal possessions for intelligence material. Coincidence?
I can put together a consistant story that would be supported by both the words of Ford and McCloy, who suggest that the CIA withheld information about Oswald and or, that Oswald had in fact been used (perhaps without his knowledge "Orchid Man") by US Intelligence to assure the failure of the Paris Summit in May of 1959.
The story goes on to support the suggestion that McCloy, who was bitter with Kennedy in June of 1963 over his change of position in arms negotiations with the Soviets, would be one of only perhaps two men who would know that Oswald would have been the man who shot at Walker and that Oswald, if he had the chance would, as the Belin note suggests, shot at the President. Only the men who understood and had access to the whole file on Oswald would know why he could be expected to shoot the President if only Oswald could be given the opportunity.
Jim Root
Thanks to all for these posts. I cant help but go back to when it was first known what Mr. Ford was doing behind everyones back. Here is a man who was selected to become part of an "unempeachable" group of select, impartial men who would get to the "bottom" of what truly happened from Nov. 22nd 63' onward, and before. How could a man of his stature, turn around and pass on sworn testimony to others who had no business of knowing what was transpiring behind closed doors? Can we say two-faced xxxx? How about traitor? Or even multiple organizational political conspirator? In my opinion, all these terms seem to fit this so called highly regarded elected political leader of our times. Did these goings on help push him up the political ladder later on in his carreer? It surely didnt hurt his career, knowing that he could be trusted by other like minded corrupt political allies later on in his career after reaching the position of Presidency. Not to mention how he even got into that position! Just look at his ties, and the pardon of RMN. We could continue with another post just on that subject alone. When you look at the farce of the WC, it is a shame that there were not more men, in my opinion, like Rep. Hale Boggs, and Sen. Richard Russell, who finally, after most of the facts were in, realized what a joke the Commission was, and actually spoke out concerning their suspicions. When requesting their views be noted, they were left out suspiciously, to say the least. No matter what commissions are formed {911?} and others, are only as good as the people choosing the respected members. Do you think they are just chosen at random? Or are they chosen to be closely tied to be what the outcome is to be desired? I would say the later. People who will stoop at nothing to make sure the outcome is what is desired from the very beginning. This continuing program of having commissions to solve all problems when serious problems arise is nothing more than a glorified WC, only in modern times. Needless to say, there will always be a Gerald Ford in place, along with all of the other "Holy Unimpeachables, to do the dirty work that was done in 63' Just my opinion. FWIW -MS
-
The takeover of the controlled media by the Oligarchy is now almost complete. Murdock was chosen by Ted Shackley to be a CIA Media asset worldwide and supplied with the funds [not originally his own] to do so. The other corporate media follow in lock-step. I think the coincidence of Thanksgiving is the minor part of it and 9/11, Patriot Act, the blooming policestate and controlled media the major factor. IMO
Thanks all for your input. Seems most are on the same page, and it is such a shame to have his death just become another forgotten milepost. Well, with all of our help we can keep this a part of our heritage, and not something to be forgotten about like so many other historical events that have shaped and formed our country. Im curious to see what next years 45th anniversary brings about. I am sure it should, I say it should, bring a better responce on our media mogols, but only time will tell. Thanks again, and keep on keeping on. MS
-
Is it me, or is everyone else seeing what im seeing? Every year it seems there is less and less coverage of the anniversary of our Presidents death. Is it because there are not enough people interested in this subject? I personally dont think so. I remember years ago, this date couldnt go by without several programs on all day, reliving those trajic events in 63', for not just those who were around then, but for our younger generation to learn more about their history. Could it be the government doesnt want these programs shown? Very possible. Look what they did with "The Men WHo Killed Kennedey". Gone, and not to be seen again, due to the fact of pressure from "certain" families. Talk about influence! I looked through the guide today, and I believe there is one short show on JFK on the "Discovery" channel tonight. Thats it. Channel 12 [PBS] had an hour program the other night about how the assassination was covered by the media during those 3-4 days. Other than that, nada, zip. Remeber several years ago.....TMWKK was shown every night for like 1-2 hours every night all week! Now those of you abroad, may be getting a whole lot more than we are. It wouldnt surprise me one bit, as it seems other countries seem to have more respect, and honor for our slain President than our own country does. Is this supposed to fade into oblivion? The anniversary has fallen on Thanksgiving this year, when families will be flocked around the televisions most of the day and night. What better exposure could you ask for. I love football, but I would surely change the channel to watch a program on JFK on his anniversary. [regardless of the concerns of my guests wanting the football!] What better exposure could the broadcasting stations ask for, or are they not concerned anymore. Do they consider it "done to death"? Personally I beleive that this subject needs to be kept alive, and in the forefronts of our minds for many years to come. Especially for our younger generations. I think you would be hard pressed to even find an article in the press concerning this day either. I hope that things get better, before they get worse. JMO thanks--MS
-
Looks like the 4th floor to me.
Oops. On seconds thoughts (and second look), I think you're right, Robin.
Maybe the guy got the country of manufacture of the rifle right, too?
Good find Lee. Looks like another person next to the [cop?] in the next east window, and one or two below on the far east 3rd floor window also. I agree, not worth a whole lot as far as any "evidence". It could have been taken at any time after the assassination. Could be it was taken after the 6th floor search, and they were checking the whole building over for more evidence. Im sure alot of people were taking photos after the fact that day, of the building, and other locations in DP. Deffinately not worth the asking price for sure, in my opinion. MS
-
Dawn,
He also represented Charles Harrelson and H.L. Hunt. Interesting clients.
John
John,
Indeed. Foreman also represented Peter Lazaros, George Parr, Dr. Harold Eidenoff and Melvin Lane Powers in their high profile cases. By the time he repped Ruby, it was claimed that Foreman had been involved with the defense of some 700 murder cases.
His relationship to the Hunt family was a most curious one. During the mid 1970's, Foreman found himself mixed up and charged in this bribery/wire-tapping case with the Hunt brothers.
The Hunt's were very vocal at the time saying they were being hounded by the Justice Department because they refused to allow the CIA to operate within their business.
As a curiosity, Foreman was jailed briefly in 1974 on a drunken driving charge.
James
Great photo James. Your right about the bushes. The worst parts is, from what I understand is that the very next morning, they had people out there clearing out all of the bushes. They cleaned the area of any evidence, so as not to have anything to go on if anybody came forward to say he was shot from those bushes.The Memphis Sanitation Dept. was supposedly ordered by the Memphis PD inspector to clear the area behind Jims Grill. Within hours, the crime scene was completely sanitized by orders of the police. You can find a very good account of this in "The Assassinations" by the authors of Probe Magazine. Very good book covering the assassinations of Malcom X, RFK, MLK, and JFK.
-
Does anyone have any information concerning the train parked behind the grassy knoll? It was the four car Kansas - Missouri train in the railyard as seen in all of the aftermath photos of the parking lot/railyard. Any information would help on the arrival/departure of this train, information on desitination, information on the man who was seen standing on the steps looking into the parking lot during the aftermath of the shooting.
-
Good to hear from you, Lee, and very interesting that Mr. Brownlow never mentioned the gunfire to you.
Premature to assume he made it up. For all we know the post I found was misquoting him. If I can find his number I shall try to call him and inquire.
Tim, I've met and talked to Brownlow on two separate occasions. I include him as a witness on my witness list at patspeer.com. He told me the same story each time. He was with his grandma in front of the Dal Tex. He heard four shots. He had NO IDEA where they came from, but, seeing people run towards the knoll, ASSUMED the shots came from the knoll.
He stands on the knoll with Groden, selling his videos. Brownlow has interviewed many of the Dallas citizens on the periphery of the assassination, and sells videos of his interviews.. In my opinion he is very knowledgeable. I am totally surprised by the allegation he claims to have seen a shooter, and doubt he said anything so wild. Both times I spoke to him, a year apart, he mentioned that he personally liked Jean Hill and Beverly Oliver, but had extreme doubts they'd seen any shooters on the knoll.
I, like others have met and talked to Mr. Brownlow at the pergolas end, where the steps start. He and Robert Groden set up several times a week selling Grodens books, and such, and swapping assassination stories. I talked to him several times, and he never mentioned seeing anything. All he had to ad was that he was there with his family. I dont know how old he is, but he cant be much older than me, so he couldnt have been that old. I was in the 3rd grade when the assassination took place. I dont think anyone that age would be that alert to notice these things and recall these events so clearly after all these years. Im not saying he didnt, but I find it hard to believe, as I cant recall much about anything about 3rd grade, let alone yesterday. I can believe that he heard what his family talked about for years, and has elaborated it to the point it has become today. [if he is saying what you say hes saying] No offense to Mike intended, as he seemed like a very nice guy. He is just working alongside of Bob Groden trying to inform people who come to the plaza. I have his # and mailing address. If you want it, contact me through the message board. thanks-smitty
-
This alleged "REPORT" sounds very interesting.
It is interesting because it would NOT agree with Weitzman's recorded testimony. Weitzman's alleged "Report" would contradict Weitzman's testimony. That's doesn't seem logical, at all.
Therefore, until it is found, the "Report" must be regarded as not existing.
Let's, however, hope that one day, somehow, the "Report" will happily turn up!
The report is in the 26 Volumes, which means that it does exist. Not having a set of the 26 volumes does not constitute the report not existing. And as I recall - the only difference I am seeing is that Weitzman asked the guy where did he see this "toss" take place and the guy had told him that it was over near the steam pipe.
Bill Miller
I have read most of Mr. Hoffmans testimony, and I have seen his interview for the film "The men who killed Kennedy". Which basically confirms his story that he saw someone shooting from the fence, turn and toss the "rifle" to the suppossed railroad man, who inturn took it to a switchbox, disassemble it and put it in a bag. then calmly walk away. Problem I have is that the switchbox in question is in full view of the group of r/r workers, pedestrians, and policeman standing on the overpass. By the time shots were fired, these people were on their way around the fence to see what had happened, as they were sure that shots had been fired from there. I dont believe there could have been time to pass it, disassemble the rifle, and not be seen by those people on the overpass, without being questioned or detained by the policemen. That has always been the glitch in the story for me. I have been there and seen for myself. At the time I believe he did have a clear look into the parking lot, before overgrown trees and the suppossed raised billboad. But for someone to take the gun away, and take it apart, and put it in a r/r bag, had to be done further away, or behind other cover than a switch box. Those switch boxes do not give you enough area to hide behind, not to be seen by those converging on the parking lot, as it is straight on the way to the lot. Just my popinion, FWIW-smitty
-
I read thru the thread but I cannot find anything bad about Garrison himself, so can someone explain to me where this anger is coming from?
PM me if you prefer.
Alan
I don't know if this answers your question, but I'll have a bash at it:
For some reason, the research community is often very polarized about Garrison. To some, he is a hero who, whatever shortcomings he may have had, had the guts to expose the conspiracy. To those people, any criticism of Garrison or his case elicits anger. To others, Garrison was a bad or confused person who mounted an ill-conceived prosecution and brought our community to disrespect. To those people, any praise of Garrison or his case elicits anger. Both sides seem incapable of discussing the case without resorting to sarcasm and/or accusations.
And then!
To some of us who know a little more than most regarding the political structure of New Orleans, LA, Garrison was a purely political entity who, completely unknowning to himself, was, not unlike many multiple assassin chasers, led down the merry ole rabbit hole and created a lot of diversionary smoke without really knowing exactly who it was that was either lit or was fueling the fire.
Rest assured, someone extremely "close to home" blew smoke up Big Jim's derriere and convinced him that he was in fact "On the Trail of the Assassin" and that he would no doubt be the first true American Hero to solve this little puzzle.
Plus the fact that he was not above making a buck or two off it with his "Garrison Intelligence Agency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Garrison
On March 1, 1967, Garrison had businessman Clay Shaw arrested, charging him with being part of a conspiracy in the John F. Kennedy assassination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Clay_Shaw
On January 29, 1969, Clay Shaw was brought to trial on these charges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: "GARRISON-INTELLIGENCE-AGENCY" (INCORPORATED)
File Date: 12/01/1967
Registered Agent (Appointed 12/01/1967): HON. JIM GARRISON, 4600 OWENS DR., NEW ORLEANS, LA 70122
Registered Agent (Appointed 12/01/1967): HON. THOMAS J. BAUMLER, JR., 611 ESPLANADE AVE., NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116
Registered Agent (Appointed 12/01/1967): J. S. MARTIN, 1836 ESPLANADE AVE., NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Clay_Shaw
Jack Martin — came forward the day after the assassination with a variety of tales about Dave Ferrie, such as the claim that Ferrie "may have hypnotized Oswald and planted a post-hypnotic suggestion that he kill the President." Martin, born Edward Stewart Suggs, was a diagnosed sociopath and admitted alcoholic with a rap sheet and a history of furnishing false information to the authorities, and he nursed a burning grudge against former pal Dave Ferrie. [13]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, one can assume quite correctly that Jack Martin/aka J.S. Martin/aka Edward S. Suggs, managed to secure employment for himself for a couple of years with this.
Name: TELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, WILLIAM
Type Entity: Business Corporation
Status: Not Active (Action by Secretary of State)
2006 Annual Report/Reinstatement form is required in order to reinstate Print Annual Report/Reinstatement Form For Filing
Mailing Address: 540 CAMP ST, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
Domicile Address: 540 CAMP ST, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
File Date: 09/15/1961
Registered Agent (Appointed 12/01/1967): J. S. MARTIN, 1836 1/2 ESPLANADE A, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116
Registered Agent (Appointed 12/01/1967): FLOSSIE L. CARTER, 112U EIGHTH ST, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70123
I loved the film aslo, but was stretched in areas. I recently got a copy of the "directors cut" version of JFK. This version goes into alot of areas, and explains alot of things that arent in the "released version" seen in theaters. Anyone who appreciates the film, needs to watch the "directors cut" version, to really appreciate what wasnt shown. One thing great about the film was that it renewed alot of interest in the case, back in '91, and got alot of people looking into the case that never had, and I believe that more was uncovered because of this. As I said, I beleive it was "stretched in areas", and there was alot in the movie which was incorrect. Another point is that Garrison never looked at Carlos Marcello, or took any significant interest in him. Anyone looking into the case, cannot overlook the fact of Marcellos involvement, not just in the case, but in the dealings in New "Awlens". Not much was ever done in or around N.O. in the underworld, without going through Marcello. To overlook his involvement, is very suspicious indeed. For Garrison to avoid him the way he did, as far as his case went, stinks of another conspiracy in my opinion. Just my opinion FWIW.-smitty
-
Guano-tanamo Bay -- how fitting is the sh***ing.
C
Very fitting act for the sh--head. Cheers for that bird where ever he is.
-
Doubt cast on JFK 'lone assassin' theory
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 18 May 2007
More than 40 years after he was fatally shot in Dallas, researchers have added fresh fuel to the speculation over who was involved in the assassination of President John F Kennedy by claiming the original bullet analysis was flawed and cannot rule out that a second gunman was involved.
Using new scientific techniques not available to previous researchers and analysing bullets from the same batch purportedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald, the team has argued that it cannot be assumed that Oswald was the only assassin involved. While they do not claim evidence to prove a second gunman participated, they say the original fragments of the bullets recovered from the scene of the shooting should be re-examined.
"Given the significance and impact of the JFK assassination, it is scientifically desirable for the evidentiary fragments to be reanalysed," the researchers write in the journal Annals of Applied Statistics.
Kennedy, the 35th US president, was fatally shot as his motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza in Dallas on 22 November 1963. The official Warren commission that investigated the killing concluded the following year that the president had been killed by two of three shots fired by Oswald - his first shot having missed - from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
The second shot - the so-called magic bullet - struck Kennedy in the back and exited through his neck before striking the Texas Governor John Connally, who was travelling in the same limousine. The third shot hit Kennedy in the head and killed him.
Despite the official conclusion that Oswald acted alone, there has been endless speculation other gunmen participated in the killing and that the authorities sought to cover up their participation. Grainy photographs and footage from a home movie, the Zapruder film, are examined for other possible assassins standing on the grassy knoll or else behind the white picket fence - locations surrounding Dealey Plaza that have entered conspiratorial lore.
The team arguing that five fragments of bullet recovered from Dealey Plaza be re-examined include William Tobin, the FBI's former chief metallurgy analyst, who examined evidence from cases such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 bombing of TWA Flight 800.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that after he retired, Mr Tobin drew national attention by questioning the FBI's methods of matching bullets to suspects based on their lead content. As a result of his questions, the bureau switched its methods.
The original analysis, based on lead content, concluded the five fragments came from just two bullets, traced to the same batch that Oswald bought. Mr Tobin and his colleagues purchased bullets from the same batch owned by Oswald - available on the internet as collectors' items - and used new techniques to analyse them. They found the science and statistical assumptions used by the original examination to conclude the fragments were from just two bullets was wrong.
"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers write. "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets than a second assassin is likely."
Conspiracists have received support from many areas, not least Oswald's background as a visitor to the Soviet Union and his interest in Cuba. The fact that he himself was shot just days after the assassination by a man with low-level links to the Mafia - and who himself died soon afterwards from cancer - have only added to speculation.
A 1979 report by the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded it was likely Oswald acted as part of a conspiracy and that a second gunman is likely to have fired at Kennedy but missed.
But for each point raised by the conspiracists, others have been able to offer a rebuttal. Just last month, former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi published an exhaustive 2,792-page book, Reclaiming History, that also concludes Oswald acted alone and seeks to knock down most, if not all, the surviving conspiracies.
Despite this, polls show that a majority of Americans still believe there was more to Kennedy's assassination and the official version is not complete. Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed, another convincing study that concludes Oswald acted alone, hits upon one reason why people cannot accept that Oswald, armed with a $12 rifle, could be responsible for such an epic event.
In the book he quotes the historian William Manchester: "Those who desperately want to believe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy have my sympathy. If you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of the scale and that wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it does not balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...icle2556467.ece
This is a perfect example as to why we were never able to get the remaining fragments out of Connally. Back then it was because there was too many fragments left in Connally to account for on the "magic" bullet. They were never going to let anyone get those fragments, as it would have blown the single shooter theory out of the water. Now if we had those fragments [from Connally] you would really have something to work with. I wouldnt be surprised to hear that after all these years, they "lost" the remaining fragments. Lol [i suppose they would have doctored all of the fragments by now to match] Just my opinion FWIW-smitty
-
Ed,Is this the same uniform cap as seen in DP?
It was my understanding that the white caps belonged to officers in the Traffic Division.
The difference I see in the picture below is the color of the bill - white vs black.
Perhaps the black bill was used by sergeants and above, or maybe had something to do with Love Field security.
Steve Thomas
[/quote
FWIW-My thoughts have been [through visuals and such] most police depts. of that era used white hats. Using differnet colored bills were used, I suppose for divisions as mentioned. But from what I have noticed,
airline pilots, state troppers, and military, seemed to use solid matching colored hats. The white hats, as mentioned, were used by local police depts, county depts, etc...... of that era. when this changed, I dont know. Just my opinion, FWIW -smitty
-
It might be of some interest to note as a sidebar that several "Oswald" sightings took place in Montreal in 1963, and that photographs were taken on at least two occasions. The photos might have disclosed whether it was Oswald or mistaken identity, yet in each case FBI fought against the photos being released. Photos taken by RCMP [at FBI's request] in late summer 1963 of a young man wearing a US Naval uniform and handing out pro-Castro literature on the streets of "Old" Montreal have never been released. (Robert Charles-Dunne)
I think this is a most interesting episode, Robert.
I believe the Oswald in Montreal was an impersonator. He was associating with the Committee for Non-Violent Action whose National Chairman at the time was A.J. Muste. There were several photos taken like you say and in one group shot we have several interesting characters. One being Russell McLarry who was arrested in Dallas a few days after the assassination for making threats against the President. He was eventually no-billed but his presence in Canada has never been fully explored.
Two other interesting characters were Bradford Lyttle and Scott Herrick. Both of these guys were involved in the October 1961 march into Moscow. In this image below, McLarry is the guy on the far right, Lyttle is the guy holding the 'Build Bridges Not Walls' sign and the alleged Oswald impersonator is the guy fifth from the left peeking over the sign. I don't know which one is Herrick but there was a rumor he was associated with ONI. Nothing provable there but interesting none-the-less.
FWIW.
James
FWIW. I posted this photo on my blog and received these comments:
Anonymous said...
Russell McLarry is my uncle and he is NOT in this picture.
10:55 AM
gary said...
Anonymous, what can you tell us about your uncle?
11:49 AM
Teresa Ravella said...
My Uncle Russell was a very outspoken man with a great sense of humor. He was also a wonderful machinist as well. And he made the best barbecue in Texas! He always said, "If you've got a good rub, no sauce needed." I miss him very much...he passed away in Nov. 2002. As far as him being in Canada with Oswald, you've got be kidding. I don't think he ever ventured out of the U.S. (but I'll check with my Mom on that).
My opinion, the guy in the picture is not Oswald. I know you cant see much, but what you can see, tells me no. Either its suppose to be someone else and they have it backwards, or its the 20th imposter. lol. FWIW
-
Gentlemen,
Thank you for your responses.
Bottom line here, something is amiss. I think there is some background on Harrelson which if confirmed might go some way to putting things into perspective. Like rumors of Harrelson and some mysterious Cuban exiles dealing illegal weapons and gun running from within Texas through to Miami.
I was wondering if John Geraghty in his communications with Harrelson was able to get any information that may lend credence to this second hand information?
One more thing which I have raised before, and that is the stain on the front of the Tall Tramp's trousers. It has been suggested it might be a shadow but I am just not convinced. Could it be blood?
James
James,
He said nothing in his letters about gun running, but I'm close to finding a concrete link. I can definitely link him with several of the main players in those operations. I'm trying to secure arrest records for him in Florida, which should prove interesting. I firmly believe that he was involved in the gun running. Given the close circle that he ran in it is very unlikely that he was not involved.
In two one weeks free time from college work I was able to find a mountain of material on Harrelson that has not yet been written about in any coherrent form. All I need now is to get funding to do this stuff. I wouldn't know if publishers would have an interest in this sort of stuff.
John
Thanks to all who posted. There had to be a post concerning Harrelson today, and Im glad I wasnt let down. Only through his kindness, and dedication to JFK research, have I been able to trade some books with one of the most respected, long time members here. I was able to fortunately recieve "The Man on the Grassy Knoll". I suggest it, as it is a very good read, even if it all may not be true. For those not familiar, it is about the theory of Charles Rogers, as the hitman, along with Harrelson, and Holt. If only half is true, it is still a very interesting book. Something on every turn of the page. Alot of speculation on the authors part, but it gets to the core of the relationship of the men, and their early life. Im not sold on the theory, but very good, none the less. Just my opinion FWIW.
thanks-smitty
-
Robert,
This is Franklin Pierce Wood Jr. below.
The family had strong ties to the oil and banking industries. Wood Sr. with connections that put him amongst the right-wing oil people.
Wood Jr. also gave many a lecture on human behavioral patterns.
FWIW.
James
Lee, Great post! To all who added, the same. Very revealing story, with many questions, and other events coming from this thread. One has to wonder what was really going on, and why more wasnt made of this a long time ago. [we know why! lol!] I dont have much to add, but wanted thank Lee for bringing this subject up, and what a good job he did of it, and to the rest of you who responded and added to the subject.
Thanks-smitty
-
Yes, great evidence , Wim. I hear so often, "site your evidence". What more do they want? There is a mountain of evidence, like this , that has been ignored. This guy, and many others, witnessed things that were not included in the "official report". The Orwellian nature of this matter is beyond comprehension.
Thanks Wim for the info. Great video, and Im going to watch them all. What is so nice is finally being able to actually see these peole, and the interviews Mark did with all of the people, and all of the "early" recorded videos of their eyewitness evidence. Im glad to call Mark my "neighbor". He did so much work on the case, and deserves alot of credit that alot of people dont want to give him. All of his books, and the Liberty Lobby winning verdict, disproving Hunts testimony, and proving him a skunk. A round of applause for Mark Lane! Just my opinion FWIW.
thanks-smitty
-
Recently, I have had more time to spend on a theory I had opined some time back ( I think it was in 2003 or 2004) that a bullet hit JFK in the throat from the front and he had tried to cough it up before the head shots got him.
After reviewing the Zapruder film more closely, I am more convinced today than ever, that this was the case.
I believe that a bullet entered his throat from the front and was lodged in it. Zapruder frames 225-237 show Kennedy pulling his tie away with his left hand and cupping his right hand over his mouth. He then moves his head FORWARD, a normal reaction when one is trying to dislodge something caught in the throat from a seated position.
He only does this once, then starts to slowly slump forward and to his left.
You can see for yourself at the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ
Some time ago, I thought that he was trying to push the bullet in with the thumb of the left hand while trying to cough it up. But upon closer observation, it appears that his left hand was pulling his tie towards Jackie.
At no time did I ever remotely suggest that he was "trying to dig it out with his thumb", as asserted by the LN idiots on alt.conspiracy.jfk.
I challenged them to cite my posting that said such nonsense. They could not.
It is obvious, however, that his right hand is cupped over his mouth, again a normal gesture for someone trying to dislodge something from his/her throat.
There are several significances of this observation.
Firstly, if there was a bullet lodged in the throat, it would once and for all destroy the Single Bullet Theory, for if a bullet was lodged in the throat, it could not have been the bullet that hit Governor Connally.
Secondly, if it were lodged in the throat, then the only bullet wound in the throat HAD to have been an entry wound, unless of course, the President tried to swallow a bullet sometime during the 9/10ths of a second he was behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.
Thirdly, if a bullet had been lodged in the throat, it would explain why there was no exit wound, why the throat wound was enlarged after the body left Dallas (to remove a bullet that had not visually exited), and would verify ALL of the Parkland witnesses' descriptions of the throat wound as a wound of entry.
Finally, and probably the most significant result of this observation is that if there was a bullet lodged in the President's throat, it had to have been fired from the front, which means a second shooter and a conspiracy.
Gil, great post. I believe he was hit as you do, and was reacting the way he did, I would assume, as anyone would after being hit in the troat by a supposed bullet. [ I surely wouldnt know as Ive never had it happen to me] But I beleive he was reacting that way because of the hit in the throat, and I beleive they did remove it, if I am correct, there was a signed "recieved from" receipt for a "missle" from one of the Agencies. I dont beleive the damage done on his throat was from the removal, but to "hide the obvious entrance wound" that was described by the doctors at Parkland. It all makes sense when you think about it, as he wasnt hit anywhere near it in the back to be the "exit " wound, and the doctors described it as an entrance wound, as they had probably seen huundreds of them at the Parkland emergency room over the years. So it only goes to show, and prove, there had to be the "second "gunman, to throw the SB Theory out the window from the very start! Just my opinion FWIW.
thanks-smitty
-
This is an interesting case well worth wide study.
A few hours before Medgar was shot (it has been described as the first modern political assassination in the area, different from the numerous murders and disapperances of black people occuring during these years) he had been at a meeting watching John F. Kennedys famous Civil Rights speech. People who spoke of him at that meeting spoke of a distracted, troubled man. There seems something more than usual to be troubling him. He was not a newcomer to mistreatment.
After the assassination, Robert F. Kennedy flew to Medgars brother Charles' side and they over time became close friends. Charles later was with Roberts retinue when Robert himself was assassinated.
A study of the treatment of the Medgar case is a study in contrast to the JFK assassination. Had the case against Oswald come to court and run in a similar manner, Oswald would have been aquitted. The Rifle abandoned at the site, the fingerprints, the cartridge cases, the rifles history, FBI testimonies, witness testimonies etc etc etc were dealt with by Byrons lawyers in such a way that the White jury could comfortably accept a not guilty verdict.
The Governor of Mississippi and General Walker, (the instigators and leaders of the Oxford insurrection) both turned up in court to offer moral support to Byron.
+++++++++++++++++
technically Emmett Till was not a civil rights worker, he was simply a boy who had grown up in a different climate where his normal young lad behaviour was seen by his murderers as a threat to their way of life, a bad 'uppity' example for the local 'niggers'.
extensive thread on Till : http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=39158
Another similarity here to the JFK asassination: His mother refused a closed casket over his mutilated body, saying 'let them see what they have done'. Words echoed nine years later by Jackie when refusing to change out of her blood/brain stained clothes.
Thanks all for the great posts here. This subject is something that really needs immediate, serious investigation, and prosecution where deemed nessessary. These horrible acts that took place during those turbulant years, are acts that are still ringing in our ears today. It doesnt matter if the guilty people are 90 years old today, they need to be sentenced to death immediately! These crimes were hate crimes, carried out by radical racists, that were supported by all of the same types in their respective areas. This is why they got away with these crimes so many years ago. Even most of the police were Klan, and helped in assisting in the crimes themselves! All of them, including the Sherriffs, Police, and Troopers involved should also have the needles put in their arms! I have always been friends with Negroes, and still have many today. I attended my best friends [white Pastor] ,basically black, church for several years. I was accepted by most all of the congregation, but there were some who were leary of me, as can be expected. There are some blacks today who still carry that hatred from those years today, which I cant blame them. [ I may have too, but I wasnt put in that position to know]. Anything that can be done today to solve these crimes from years ago, should be supported by all who are sympathetic to this problem. Personally, there are times I am ashamed to be white, when I think of all of the hateful, hidious, and disgusting things these radical scumbags did to the blacks during that period. Just think what this country might be today if Martin Luther King wast killed so many years ago? This country might be a much better place to live today. I live in an area that has a large black population, and for the most part, we all get along very well. But you will always have some racial people stirring up trouble no matter where you live. I just hope and pray, that these people are brought to justice, and these people who were killed so many years ago, never are forgotten for who they were, and what they were trying to do. I hope you all support any and all bills brought up, that will help continue this fight against these horrible crimes, and people connected with them. Just my opinion FWIW.
thanks-smitty
-
Hi R.J.
Have you ever read, where Penn Jones, showed Roger Craig his testimony from his WC copy, I believe in 67 or 68 around there.
Penn said when Roger read it he pointed out 14 changes within ....they had even changed the color of the station wagon
as well as the mans jacket, and re-worded, and deleted other information....sound familiar.....
Mrs. Craig also thought she was under threat...I believe around 70, she was followed and complained to the
Police this was after she had remarried...
There is a Video called ..Two Men in Dallas, which gives the stories of JFK that day as well as Roger Craig, and is
interesting.....
Could be they worked over time to make him appear just as you have implied.....off his head..lying and changing much information....
so no one would pay
any attention to his information..as they did with others.....could be...
BTW could you please relate where the info is ,about the Beers photo being taken on Nov 23rd, it would be appreciated...
I have some documentation as well as much on him but it is not ready for posting as yet, it continually seems to grow, as much does.
...but will
when compiled and ready, till then, I keep picking away when I find some time.....so that is about it....for now..
Thanks...for the thread....
B
Thanks Bernice! I forgot all about his statement about all of the changes they made in his statements. Great post. Im sure the Dept. was trying to discredit Roger, because of what he knew. It seemed they did that to alot of people, not just Roger. [also the FBI/CIA etc.....] Anybody who saw, heard, or knew too much, were either discredited, chased out of town, or maybe even eliminated! As you posted, his wife was also under constant pressure, and, as any married couple would admit, something of that magnitude like this going on, would certainly take its toll on any marriage. I cant remeber how many times they had to move, not only from pressure, but people would not rent to them, [because of who they were, and the pressure and stories put upon them] I really dont know how they could have gotten by, if not for the help of Penn Jones. Thanks again Bernice, you always seem to post some very good stuff! lol! I will be keeping my eye on this thread, but as I posted before, there is a seperate section of past posts about Roger Craig in our [archives?] here somewhere. Maybe John can post the correct title and location of those postings. [im not very good at that type of stuff! Im liucky I can even use this computer, let alone do something tricky!!] Just my opinion FWIW.
thanks-smitty
-
I dont believe he was lying, or trying to manufacture more into his story, than what it was, and what he saw. Im sure if you take just about anybodys testimonies who were witnesses [or where involved in anyway with the assassination] and look at them over the years, Im sure you will find some differences, and slight changes in their stories that I would think would happen to just about anybodies testimony. You hear it every day here on the Forum. [people claiming how people changed their stories over the years, and did so mostly for the glory of making themselves seem more important than they really were]. I truly dont beleive this was the case with Roger Craig.
Michael,
In Craig's case, the changes were more than just slight.
The Rambler:
Craig, WC testimony:
Mr. BELIN - Did it have a Texas license plate, or not?
Mr. CRAIG - It had the same color. I couldn't see the--uh--name with the numbers on it. I could just barely make them out. They were at an angle where I couldn't make the numbers of the--uh--any of the writing on it. But---uh---I'm sure it was a Texas plate.
Craig, Shaw trial testimony:
Q: Can you describe the station wagon in any great detail?
A: It was a light green Rambler station wagon with the luggage rack on the back portion and it had out-of-state plates on it and the reason I know this is they were not the same color as ours and I couldn't read them because of the angle of the car and the traffic movement.
The Rifle:
Craig, WC testimony:
Mr. CRAIG - Well, there was just--uh--of course, everybody stayed there, you know, and sort of mingled around and--uh--I then went back downstairs after the weapon was picked up. The identification man from the city of Dallas then, after he took his pictures, picked the weapon up and handed it to Will Fritz.
And I then went back downstairs and over to the sheriffs office.
Craig, Shaw trial testimony:
Q: While you were on the sixth floor and in your presence was any rifle found?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you personally find the rifle?
A: No, sir, I did not but I was about eight feet from the gentleman that found it.
Q: Did you ever get closer to the gentleman holding the rifle?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Approximately how far?
A: About one foot or one and a half foot. I was standing next to him.
Q: Do you recall the man who was there?
A: No, he was an ID man from the Dallas Police Department, however, he did not find the rifle, Eugene Boone, a Deputy Sheriff, he found the rifle.
Q: What do you mean an ID man?
A: An identification man from the Dallas Police Department.
Q: Approximately how long did you view the rifle at this time?
A: Just two or three minutes. They took it away immediately, they held lit up by the strap and then took it away from there.
Early reports said the rifle recovered on the 6th floor of the Depository was a Mauser, a British .303, and “foreign make”. Craig’s interview with the Los Angeles Free Press in March 1968 ."PJ" is Penn Jones.
FP: Did you handle that rifle?
RC: Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south.
But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon.
FP: A Mauser on the roof? Who found it?
PJ: I don't know who found it, but I do know that a police officer verified its existence.
In later years, however, Craig's account changed and he adopted the version that has the Mauser found on the 6th floor. In his manuscript, Craig says
"Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt. Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz agreed with him. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. The Mauser on the roof, which Craig didn't claim to have seen, had become the Mauser on the 6th floor. A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and saw the notation "7.65 Mauser."
The Rambler plates were Texas plates(or same color as Texas plates), then they weren't. He didn't handle the rifle, then he did. There are many instances of complete opposite statements, not slight changes. The only reason I would tend to believe the Rambler story is because it was corroborated by other witnesses.
Another BTW, the Jack Beers photo of Craig in the Homicide office was taken on Saturday the 23rd, not Friday the 22nd.
RJS
Very nice work Rich! Im impressed. Ive never heard those testimonies before. There was so much confusion those first few days, and if you have ever given a deposition, or have been ordered to tetify in a case such as this one, [ I have] there is alot of pressure. Im sure he made some mistakes, and you can find many in alot of peoples testimonies, [Helen Markham for example], but all in all, I do beleive he did the best he could under the circumstances. I think the point im making here is that he really didnt sway from his basic story of what happened. Many other officers , Im sure were ordered to change their stories or to keep their moths shut, and Roger didnt. Im not going to make excuses for Roger, or continue trying to defend him, but I truly beleive he stayed with his basic story and did his job [wasnt his fault Lummie lost maybe a very important witness that day- or maybe Lummie was told to lose her! who knows??] I dont think someone would have endured what he and his family did, all those years, if he wasnt just being an honest Deputy doing what he thought was right. Alot of people would have kept their mouths shut after being threatened, or shot at the first time. He never did. He endured all of the harrassment, ridicule, lose of county job, eventually his wife, and many jobs. But he still maintained his basic story of what happened that day. If it wasnt for Penn Jones helping the Craigs out over the years, who knows what may have happened. Thats all. I dont want to keep going back and forth on this subject. You did a good job making your point and I applaud you for that. That s what is nice about this Forum, we can discuss things in a gentlemanly way, and make our points and move on. Not argue and continue to drag things out into shouting matches as some seem to do here. Just may opinion FWIW.
thanks-smitty
-
[quote name='Michael G. Smith' post='95910' date='Mar 1 2007, 02:12 PM'
Roger always stuck to his truthful story over the years, and look what it got him. It is truely a shame that an honest man like him had to endure all of what he did, just for being honest, and sticking to his story!
Please do some research on Craig and his various statements and testimony before accepting everything he had to say. His stories changed drastically over the years, so he never "stuck to his truthful story".
Regarding "proof" that Craig was photographed in Fritz's office, he was not. He was photographed in the Homicide/Robbery office. LHO was questioned in Fritz's office, which is behind the H/R outer office. Fritz said Craig was never in his office, and when Craig showed up at Fritz's office door, he was referred to another officer in that outer office. This isn't a question of semantics concerning offices as some might say. Craig said he was in Fritz's office while LHO was being questioned. By all accounts other than Craig's, he was not. Craig is on the far right in the photo.
Richard, I have read most portions of his "book, but like I said, I haven't read the book as a whole. From what I have read, and what I do know of him, [his service record, his family life, hard work, and willingness to stick to his story] I dont believe he was lying, or trying to manufacture more into his story, than what it was, and what he saw. Im sure if you take just about anybodys testimonies who were witnesses [or where involved in anyway with the assassination] and look at them over the years, Im sure you will find some differences, and slight changes in their stories that I would think would happen to just about anybodies testimony. You hear it every day here on the Forum. [people claiming how people changed their stories over the years, and did so mostly for the glory of making themselves seem more important than they really were]. I truly dont beleive this was the case with Roger Craig. I beleive he was an honest Deputy, who was doing his best job possible, and did all he could to help solve JFK's killing. The man was set up by his own department, and let go, after years of honorable service, for just being honest about what happened. You are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else here, but I beleive his story. As I close all of my posts "just my opinion FWIW", means just that. Its my opinion, that all.
thanks-smitty
-
You can access the full manuscript of "When They Kill A President" at:
Hi all, I haven't read his whole book, but alot of portions of it. Roger Craig has always been a a very interesting character to me, and has always gotten my attention. I believe his story completely, and from what happened to him after the assassination [not only the attempts on his life, but being booted by the Department, after having years of commendable service], just leads me to beleive they knew he knew more than they wanted him too. I beleive there is a separate section [threads on Roger here on the Forum somewhere] where there are many good posts concerning him, his service, and what had happened to him years later. Penn Jones and he were very close from what I understand, and Penn helped the Craig family out over the years. It is hard to beleive what he endured over the years after the assassination. It is a very sad story when you look at it. He saw many things that day, and also stopped and detained the woman in the parking lot, only to have Lummie Lewis "somehow" lose her! I have also always beleived he was correct in the I.D. of the rifle [Mauser], as were the others there who I.D.'d it correctly. [one other a former gunsmith/shop owner!] I will check out that full story at that site myself, as I would like to read the full manuscript. Thanks for that info Don! Its sad that others like Roger, backed down, and changed their stories under pressure from above, because if they hadn't, maybe things might have come out a little differently. Roger always stuck to his truthful story over the years, and look what it got him. It is truely a shame that an honest man like him had to endure all of what he did, just for being honest, and sticking to his story! Just my opinion FWIW.
thanks -smitty
The Chicken Bone Lunch
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I have a great sense of humor, and joke around most of the time. But when it comes to these types of things, I dont have a choice but to be serious. To be honest, Ive looked at this subject at length before, and with others. My point wasnt about the post, but about your content of replies concerning these men. If you wont address that, and move right along continuing your posts, like it doesnt matter, fine. My opinion was made concerning what was posted about these men, and that is what matters to me. Im sure, as I stated earlier, that Im speaking for others also. Im sure your original question will remain unanswered. -MS