Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

We don't know who these people who I suspect are assassins (Tramps and Police officers) really are.  They have not been thoroughly investigated.  All I really know of Harold and John is that they were both in the Army and that they are both dead.  Who are their known associates?  As for Wise, all we know is he worked as a police officer for the DPD.  Does he have a military record?  Does he or did he have CIA/Mob connections?  Don't get me wrong, I want to exclude all these people as possible suspects from my list.  I need the proof to do so.

It's probably a better idea to look for proof to put them on your list of perpetrators. Until you accomplish that, they should be on your list of suspects.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

On 5/2/2017 at 7:54 PM, George Sawtelle said:

Jim

Thanks for the advice.

I've always believed that proof is what one can prove in court and that proof trumps evidence.

Can anyone, perhaps George, make some sense of this? It's meaning eludes me.

[George Sawtelle]

Michael

I believe what Plumlee said about his trip to Dealey Plaza. He said it was an abort mission. You can find his quotes on what he said on the internet. I have read what he said on thr internet so I know that his quotes are there. I meant no disrepect to Plumlee.

And since I believe Plumlee, it follows that he was sent there by the CIA to abort the assassination. That is what he said. It's on the internet look it up.

Now it's possible the CIA decided to abort their own mission, i.e., the CIA planned the assassination and then at the last minute decided to stop it but that's not what Plumlee said. It's common knowledge what he said look it up. But if you are not interested enough to find out what he said I'm don't believe I should have to do the research for you.

Plumlee said the CIA found out about the assassination and sent an abort team to Dallas. Plumlee said he was the pilot on the plane which carried the abort team to Dallas.

James Files basically backs up what Plumlee said about the abort team. If you want to know what Files said it's on youtube. If you don't think Files is credible and you don't want to see and listen to the video on youtube I can't help you.

[George Sawtelle]

 Michael

It's not what you know it's what you can prove in court. So you may know something but it's not proof until it can be proven in court.

[George Sawtelle]

Michael

I believe Allen Dulles had Kennedy killed. At the time of the assassination Dulles did not work for the CIA. So he could not have been the leader of or part of a rogue unit within the CIA that killed Kennedy.

I believe two CIA agents helped with the planning and execution of the assassination. But I don't believe they were working under the direction of their CIA bosses when they helped plan the assassination. They were working under the direction of Allen Dulles.

The above theme was the topic of my thread and I used Plumlee's trip to Dealey Plaza to bolster my belief that the CIA as an agency did not plan and execute the assassination of Kennedy.

I thought I had made that clear but apparently you got hung up on innuendo and missed the point.

[Michael Clark]

22 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Michael

I believe Allen Dulles had Kennedy killed. At the time of the assassination Dulles did not work for the CIA. So he could not have been the leader of or part of a rogue unit within the CIA that killed Kennedy.

George, I have seen polite attempts to point out the logical emptiness of your initial and subsequent posts on this thread. I have seen knowledgeable people post that they aren't even going to bother with it, or elements of it. "Clarifications", like the above, just fill the room with more smoke. Your logic, when mapped-out, looks like an Escher drawing. I am quite convinced, finally, that you are unaware of the flaws in your premises, consequentials, and the paths to your conclusions. 

You may be right; you may have found ground-zero for the conspiracy, but your roadmap to ground zero should be discretely stored away or destroyed; it is incoherent, IMO.

[James DiEugenio]

4 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jim

Anyone who believes that proving Oswald innocent is good enough, IMO, is not credible.

That is what you said in a recent interview and you left it at that.

You have given up or so it seems. I don't respect that attitude.

You cannot be serious, and the above quote shows you are not.  You have not even read my last two books.

Destiny Betrayed, second edition, is the book that more or less states my view of what happened to Kennedy, that is, how the plot worked.  I will match what I did there with anyone as per a Gestalt view of the crime that is backed up by evidence.

You may want to read it some time if you want to see what I think.

 

Edited July 15, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Keyvan Shahrdar asks: "Have his statements been verified?  Have you verified them?  Are there any records verifying his statements?  He has his HSCA and FBI testimony, have they been verified?"

You are the one who put forward Officer Wise's HSCA statement as evidence of his involvement in the assassination. I was just pointing out that nothing in the statement supports your claim. If you don't believe his statement, why did you cite it?

You claimed earlier that "A shadow that I believe is him can be seen in the sprocket area of the Zapruder film on the roof top of the records building shooting." You believe it's him, do you? And the evidence to support that belief is ... what, exactly? Perhaps you could show us the relevant frame or frames of the Zapruder film and tell us what makes you believe that the shadow is that of Officer Wise.

Until you are able to show (a) that the shadow is that of someone firing a gun, and (b) that that person is Marvin Wise, there is no reason to doubt the HSCA statement you cited, in which Officer Wise claimed that during the assassination he was "at the far end of South Dallas", several miles from Dealey Plaza.

Is it true that, as Mathias has claimed, you didn't even think up this nonsense by yourself, but instead you just got it from some guy on YouTube?

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Keyvan Shahrdar asks: "Have his statements been verified?  Have you verified them?  Are there any records verifying his statements?  He has his HSCA and FBI testimony, have they been verified?"

You are the one who put forward Officer Wise's HSCA statement as evidence of his involvement in the assassination. I was just pointing out that nothing in the statement supports your claim. If you don't believe his statement, why did you cite it?Keyvan>> I am glad you asked. The HSCA testimony (14 years after the fact) and the FBI testimony( 29 years after the fact) by Officer Wise, in my opinion, is quite detailed for someone who testified 14 and 29 years later, as if he had notes and 14 years to write his alibi.  But that is not what you asked.  Why did I cite that he was asked about Cotton in his ears and why did he have different shoes than police issued shoes by HSCA investigators?  Well, because I believe those investigators had questions after seeing a photograph of an officer with gravel on his pants and shoes and cotton in his ears while parading a tramp, Harold Doyle, with what appears to be an imprint of a rifle butt on his left lapel.  Is that a good enough answer for you as to why I cited the HSCA testimony?

You claimed earlier that "A shadow that I believe is him can be seen in the sprocket area of the Zapruder film on the roof top of the records building shooting." You believe it's him, do you? And the evidence to support that belief is ... what, exactly? Perhaps you could show us the relevant frame or frames of the Zapruder film and tell us what makes you believe that the shadow is that of Officer Wise. Keyvan>>From your questions, you seem to have a lack of knowledge of criminality.  I say this respectfully as many people lack this knowledge.  You ask about evidence. There are two types of evidence, direct evidence and indirect evidence.  For example, if a witness states, I saw Jeremy shoot his neighbor, that is direct evidence.  If a witness states, I saw Jeremy go into the neighbors house at 12pm on Sunday, and I heard a loud pop, and the neighbor is found dead on Monday morning, that is circumstantial evidence.  For this crime, the assassination of JFK, there is no direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence. In criminal justice, It is necessary to inference when there is a lack of a obvious conclusion.  By using a standard instruction to a jury at a criminal trial, as referenced here, https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/200/224.html.  Can we draw a reasonable conclusion that a person photographed with gravel in his pants and shoes, carrying a rifle and with cotton in his ears near the scene of a crime at or near the time of the crime with a film depicting a shadow of a person shooting  from the rooftop of a building near to the scene of the crime is guilty of shooting at the victim?  The answer is probably not for most, but if the suspect is fully investigated and has ties to organized crime, has a history violence, it is shown that he has lied in his testimony.  Then most will reach a reasonable conclusion of guilt by inference in the totality of the evidence presented.

Until you are able to show (a) that the shadow is that of someone firing a gun, and (b) that that person is Marvin Wise, there is no reason to doubt the HSCA statement you cited, in which Officer Wise claimed that during the assassination he was "at the far end of South Dallas", several miles from Dealey Plaza. (a) Keyvan>> Here is a YouTube video of some guy that shows a shadow of a gunman on the sprocket area of the Zapruder film. (b) Depending on an thorough investigation of  Marvin Wise HSCA, FBI statements and past history and the totality of the circumstantial evidence most people by inference will reach a reasonable conclusion of quilt or innocence.

From the above statements, you lack knowledge of criminality, you are only interested in direct evidence, there is none for this case. Please read up about criminal law.

It is your opinion that there is no reason to doubt the HSCA statement cited.  I would like for you to expand on (c)  your opinion why "there is no reason to doubt the HSCA statement I cited" as it relates to Officer Wise.  The reason I ask is because I want those HSCA and FBI statements to be verified to see if Officer Wise is telling the truth.  I am here laughing at how you believe everything you read, specially when it comes to the JFK assassination.

 

Is it true that, as Mathias has claimed, you didn't even think up this nonsense by yourself, but instead you just got it from some guy on YouTube?  Keyvan>> What does this statement have to do with this thread?  Is this your bad attempt at a red herring?

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Keyvan Shahrdar

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

 

For reference, the frame that the Youtuber uses to point-out the sprocket-area anomaly is frame 399. The YouTube poster claims to explain how that is a reflection of a CRB shooter. He explains nothing.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Keyvan>> Here is a YouTube video of some guy that shows a shadow of a gunman on the sprocket area of the Zapruder film.

Keyvan, you posted that YouTube video. You say nothing about the video except the above. Are you saying that you believe what the video says; that the sprocket area shows a reflection of a Dallas Records Building gunman?

I did some searching and that anomaly can be seen on many z-frames, from at least z050 to z484. That would be a very persistent reflection picked-up in the lense and film of a moving camera. It's a ridiculous assertion. Are you backing-up that assertion?

 

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

Just now, Michael Clark said:

Keyvan, you posted that YouTube video. You say nothing about the video except the above. Are you saying that you believe what the video says; that the sprocket area shows a reflection of a Dallas Records Building gunman?

I did some searching and that anomaly can be seen on many z-frames, from at least z050 to z484. That would be a very persistent reflection picked-up in the lense and film of a moving camera. It's a ridiculous assertion. Are you backing-up that assertion? Keyvan>> I am backing up that "ridiculous" assertion and doubling down on it.  This gunman is cover for his "Troops" on the ground.  In Military Science this is known as "Suppressive fire".  His job is to provide cover or diversionary shots to mislead.  He may have taken a shot/s to make people drop to the ground or move to another area away from the snipers on the ground.  You can read more about military tactic by searching online.

The reason he is shown for the duration of the film is because he did not try to hide, he had not reason to do so and he was cover, his job is to be the eyes on top and divert.  Why would he hide if his job is to be cover?

Let's set the scene, there are (a) twelve (12) Harley Davidson two wheel motorcycles in the JFK motorcade. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/M Disk/Motorcade Route/Item 15.pdf . One Harley Davidson motorcycles is loud enough, imagine twelve of them in close proximity.  (b) A shooter's rifle shot/s from the roof top of the collections building would be difficult to be heard by anyone on the ground with twelve Harley Davidson motorcycles in close proximity and other shooters shooting from other locations.  No body knew he was there.

 

 

 

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

For reference, the frame that the Youtuber uses to point-out the sprocket-area anomaly is frame 399. The YouTube poster claims to explain how that is a reflection of a CRB shooter. He explains nothing.

Keyvan>> Wrong!  The shadow of the CRB shooter is in just about every frame in the Zapruder film.

[Michael Clark]

14 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Keyvan, you posted that YouTube video. You say nothing about the video except the above. Are you saying that you believe what the video says; that the sprocket area shows a reflection of a Dallas Records Building gunman?

I did some searching and that anomaly can be seen on many z-frames, from at least z050 to z484. That would be a very persistent reflection picked-up in the lense and film of a moving camera. It's a ridiculous assertion. Are you backing-up that assertion? Keyvan>> I am backing up that "ridiculous" assertion and doubling down on it.  This gunman is cover for his "Troops" on the ground.  In Military Science this is known as "Suppressive fire".  His job is to provide cover or diversionary shots to mislead.  He may have taken a shot/s to make people drop to the ground or move to another area away from the snipers on the ground.  You can read more about military tactic by searching online.

The reason he is shown for the duration of the film is because he did not try to hide, he had not reason to do so and he was cover, his job is to be the eyes on top and divert.  Why would he hide if his job is to be cover?

Let's set the scene, there are (a) twelve (12) Harley Davidson two wheel motorcycles in the JFK motorcade. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/M Disk/Motorcade Route/Item 15.pdf . One Harley Davidson motorcycles is loud enough, imagine twelve of them in close proximity.  (b) A shooter's rifle shot/s from the roof top of the collections building would be difficult to be heard by anyone on the ground with twelve Harley Davidson motorcycles in close proximity and other shooters shooting from other locations.  No body knew he was there.

"Nobody knew he was there...."

 

Oh dear!

What can the matter be?

Keyvan pulled a vid

Straight from the lavatry,

Pics of an assassins

From Z1 to 470

"and nobody knew they were there!"

 

lol!

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

8 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Keyvan>> Wrong!  The shadow of the CRB shooter is in just about every frame in the Zapruder film.

Yeah Keyvan, nice try, I am the one who just pointed that out to you. The frame used in the video that you posted uses z399 for an example.