Why Do We Care?

[Tim Gratz]

Paul, the CIA can be (should be blamed) for plotting the murders of Fidel Castro, Trujillo, Mulumba. IMO, it was equally as illegal and immoral for the CIA to plot those deaths as if they had plotted the death of JFK.

This does not mean, however, that I would have opposed an up-front invasion of Cuba to replace Fidel with the type of democrat he claimed to be before the U.S. handed Cuba to him (which we did),

The important query is whether the attempted assassinations of the foreign leaders were approved by the Presidents in office at the time (Eisenhower and Kennedy.) Johnson turned off those plots. So unless Johnson killed Kennedy, he was a crook but not an assassin.

By the way, I think it is possible that one of the reasons the CIA/Mafia plots came to light was because of the gin rummy scam at the Hollywood Friars Club.

[Ron Ecker]

But you are wrong in an important point.  The House Select Committee on Assassinations did conclude there was more than one shooter because of the famous motorcycle dictabelt recording.  But as you know, that conclusion was debunked after an amateur investigator proved the recording was not done at the time of the assassination.

I don't "know" that at all. I've been reading quite a bit on the acoustic evidence, though it's hard to get through it because some of the argument gets very technical and is over my head. I think Bowles and McLain have certainly posed a problem for those who believe the acoustic evidence. When I get through reading all the material (as much as I can understand), maybe I can form a final opinion, but I still don't think I will "know."

There are just too many theories.

That may be true, but there is at least one theory we know we can eliminate (there's that word "know" again, but here I use it confidently), and that's the lone gunman theory. When a lone nutter explains to me how Oswald gave JFK that large hole in the right rear of his head, the hole seen by a long list of credible witnesses who not only viewed but handled the body, I will sit up and take note. That would be some kind of feat. In the meantime I will continue to feel confident that someone shot JFK through the head from the front.

Ron

[Ron Ecker]

Might you be referring to Carl Oglesby's comments on the media? If so there are three chapters in Carl's book " The JFK Assassination The Facts and the Theories".

Dawn,

Thanks, I checked my bookshelf and there it was, I had forgotten that I have this book! I promptly found the passage I was trying to recall about apathy following the HSCA's finding of conspiracy (and its suspicion that the Mafia did it). It's on page 256:

"Some Warren critics had thought . . . that this country cared enough about JFK's office, if not about the entire man, to extirpate in sheer moral outrage any group that would dare to take a President's life. If a Mafia hand in Dealey Plaza could be demonstrated at the congressional level, then surely the days of the Mafia would be numbered.

"When no such swell of outrage emerged in 1978, after the committee first displayed its major findings; when the editorial pages greeted the conspiracy finding with a hostility to the issue even icier than before; when indeed the very appearance of what seemed at the time a serious scientific argument for conspiracy, incongruously, acted to shut the debate down rather than to open it up; then one had to admit that one had been wrong about this case. One had missed something in the American temperament, or in the situation. With the silence that swallowed up the committee's claims even more deeply than the subsequent technical refutation, the JFK question had become, perhaps forever, a purely historical, speculative conundrum."

Ron

[Paul Troglia]

But you are wrong in an important point.  The House Select Committee on Assassinations did conclude there was more than one shooter because of the famous motorcycle dictabelt recording.  But as you know, that conclusion was debunked after an amateur investigator proved the recording was not done at the time of the assassination.

I don't "know" that at all. I've been reading quite a bit on the acoustic evidence, though it's hard to get through it because some of the argument gets very technical and is over my head. I think Bowles and McLain have certainly posed a problem for those who believe the acoustic evidence. When I get through reading all the material (as much as I can understand), maybe I can form a final opinion, but I still don't think I will "know."

There are just too many theories.

That may be true, but there is at least one theory we know we can eliminate (there's that word "know" again, but here I use it confidently), and that's the lone gunman theory. When a lone nutter explains to me how Oswald gave JFK that large hole in the right rear of his head, the hole seen by a long list of credible witnesses who not only viewed but handled the body, I will sit up and take note. That would be some kind of feat. In the meantime I will continue to feel confident that someone shot JFK through the head from the front.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Ron,

I agree with you about the technical detail of much of the scientific evidence. It is hard to understand and I "know" the devil is in the details, but let's forget about that evidence for the moment. Look at the more blunt stuff. Kennedy's autopsy pictures are on the internet. His face is whole. As he was falling forward from the shot to the neck, the final shot hit him in the right rear and exited the top front Brain matter and bullet fragments went forward. People on the 5th floor of the Depository heard the shell casings hit the floor. The bullets were proven to have come from the rifle found on the 6th floor. Numerous recreations have confirmed the shot from above and behind. Add to that the behavior of Oswald immediately after the assassination and you have a pretty solid case for his guilt. I can't dismiss the lone assassin theory. Evolution is a theory, too, but overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

Let mer ask you this: In your view, did Oswald kill anybody on Nov 22, 1963?

[Ron Ecker]

As he was falling forward from the shot to the neck, the final shot hit him in the right rear and exited the top front

The only shot to the neck was from the front. There was no shot in the back of the neck.

Let mer ask you this: In your view, did Oswald kill anybody on Nov 22, 1963?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't look like it. And you haven't explained the large hole in the right rear of JFK's head, talking instead about a shot to (the back of) the neck. Don't believe what Arlen Specter or Robert Dallek tells you. They're liars.

Ron

[Nic Martin]

I had this feeling in my stomach before I even picked up my first pro-conspiracy book that Oswald was innocent - but believe me, if we had die-hard evidence, I would admit otherwise. Feelings can be wrong.

I have this drive to do the best I can for this case, even if it's not much. I want to help one more researcher in the generation after mine to get one step closer to the truth of why such a charismatic young man had to be killed in such a brutal, public display.

I plan on being a Presidential historian with emphasis on the Kennedy administration, and one of my main views is if it's happened once, and we don't know why or how, it can and will happen again.

When I was much younger, I wanted to be a detective. But here, at 17, the only case I spend any length of time researching is this one. I don't think you can choose to be a part of this case, I think it chooses you. But that's just me.

[Antti Hynonen]

Ron Ecker Posted Yesterday, 08:17 PM

QUOTE(Paul Troglia @ Jan 18 2005, 08:05 PM)

As he was falling forward from the shot to the neck, the final shot hit him in the right rear and exited the top front

The only shot to the neck was from the front. There was no shot in the back of the neck.

QUOTE

Let mer ask you this: In your view, did Oswald kill anybody on Nov 22, 1963?

It doesn't look like it. And you haven't explained the large hole in the right rear of JFK's head, talking instead about a shot to (the back of) the neck. Don't believe what Arlen Specter or Robert Dallek tells you. They're liars.

Ron

QUOTE OFF

Paul, Ron, others. I have to say that the shot to the neck from behind is a hard theory to sell, I'll have to agree with Ron on that. If you look at the autopsy photos, you will realize that the holes in Kennedy's back were some 5 inches lower than in the Rydberg drawings and also 5 inches lower than what the Warren Report concludes.

Also President Ford's later confession re: the Warren Report supports this fact.

President Ford has said something to the effect that: "we decided to say that the back wound was higher so it would be easier for the general public to understand what had happened".

To me that is tampering with evidence.

Since the wound in the back was some 5-6 inches below the neck, how could it exit at a higher location in the front of the neck, as it is determined by the WC that all bullets were fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD?

If you add the fact that the wound in the front of Kennedy's neck was measured smaller than the wound observed in this back, it would indicate that the wound in the front of the neck was an entry, and the wound in the back was an exit. Besides I don't think that anyone, as a first reaction, would clutch for an exit wound...

...as you can tell, in my view the single bullet theory, is a total load of baloney.

As to whether Oswald killed anyone on 11/22/1963, I don't know. There is a lot of disputed evidence and a lot of poorly investigated evidence. If he did kill someone on that day, it is more likely that he killed Tippit than Kennedy. On the other hand, I doubt he was totally unaware of what was going to happen on that day.

Edited January 19, 2005 by Antti Hynonen

[Dawn Meredith]

I had this feeling in my stomach before I even picked up my first pro-conspiracy book that Oswald was innocent - but believe me, if we had die-hard evidence, I would admit otherwise. Feelings can be wrong.

I have this drive to do the best I can for this case, even if it's not much. I want to help one more researcher in the generation after mine to get one step closer to the truth of why such a charismatic young man had to be killed in such a brutal, public display.

I plan on being a Presidential historian with emphasis on the Kennedy administration, and one of my main views is if it's happened once, and we don't know why or how, it can and will happen again.

When I was much younger, I wanted to be a detective. But here, at 17, the only case I spend any length of time researching is this one. I don't think you can choose to be a part of this case, I think it chooses you. But that's just me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________

Nic,

I totally agree with you. You are one smart 17 year old. You will be a brilliant historian. Great instincts, as well as research abilities. You're education is serving you well. (Says a lot about our school system, doen't it?) ))

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

I had this feeling in my stomach before I even picked up my first pro-conspiracy book that Oswald was innocent - but believe me, if we had die-hard evidence, I would admit otherwise. Feelings can be wrong.

I have this drive to do the best I can for this case, even if it's not much. I want to help one more researcher in the generation after mine to get one step closer to the truth of why such a charismatic young man had to be killed in such a brutal, public display.

I plan on being a Presidential historian with emphasis on the Kennedy administration, and one of my main views is if it's happened once, and we don't know why or how, it can and will happen again.

When I was much younger, I wanted to be a detective. But here, at 17, the only case I spend any length of time researching is this one. I don't think you can choose to be a part of this case, I think it chooses you. But that's just me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________

Nic,

I totally agree with you. You are one smart 17 year old. You will be a brilliant historian. Great instincts, as well as research abilities. You're education is serving you well. (Says a lot about our school system, doen't it?) ))

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ps Ron and Anitti: Good posts, gives Paul a LOT to think about. I believe LHO fired no shots that day. The print they later found on the gun was put there after he was in the morgue. There was no nitrate on his face, an impossibility if one fires a rifle. The MC is not an assassina's weapon of choice, hardly and the SBT is pure lunacy. Paul, the autopsy pics are FAKES. I know asking you to read David Lifton's book Best Evidence is too much to ask (it's soooo long) but this proof of fake autopsy photos is all in the Bob Groden video you said you would rent.

Dawn

[Paul Troglia]

I had this feeling in my stomach before I even picked up my first pro-conspiracy book that Oswald was innocent - but believe me, if we had die-hard evidence, I would admit otherwise. Feelings can be wrong.

I have this drive to do the best I can for this case, even if it's not much. I want to help one more researcher in the generation after mine to get one step closer to the truth of why such a charismatic young man had to be killed in such a brutal, public display.

I plan on being a Presidential historian with emphasis on the Kennedy administration, and one of my main views is if it's happened once, and we don't know why or how, it can and will happen again.

When I was much younger, I wanted to be a detective. But here, at 17, the only case I spend any length of time researching is this one. I don't think you can choose to be a part of this case, I think it chooses you. But that's just me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________

Nic,

I totally agree with you. You are one smart 17 year old. You will be a brilliant historian. Great instincts, as well as research abilities. You're education is serving you well. (Says a lot about our school system, doen't it?) ))

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ps Ron and Anitti: Good posts, gives Paul a LOT to think about. I believe LHO fired no shots that day. The print they later found on the gun was put there after he was in the morgue. There was no nitrate on his face, an impossibility if one fires a rifle. The MC is not an assassina's weapon of choice, hardly and the SBT is pure lunacy. Paul, the autopsy pics are FAKES. I know asking you to read David Lifton's book Best Evidence is too much to ask (it's soooo long) but this proof of fake autopsy photos is all in the Bob Groden video you said you would rent.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, ok, I'll rent it. But jeez, now fake photos?

[Jim Root]

Paul

"Evolution is a theory, too, but overwhelmingly supported by the evidence."

But if an "all powerful God" does in fact exist could that God not create a history that is the evidence that supports evolution? Or would you place limits upon what an that "all powerful God" can do?

Jim Root

[Nic Martin]

I had this feeling in my stomach before I even picked up my first pro-conspiracy book that Oswald was innocent - but believe me, if we had die-hard evidence, I would admit otherwise. Feelings can be wrong.

I have this drive to do the best I can for this case, even if it's not much. I want to help one more researcher in the generation after mine to get one step closer to the truth of why such a charismatic young man had to be killed in such a brutal, public display.

I plan on being a Presidential historian with emphasis on the Kennedy administration, and one of my main views is if it's happened once, and we don't know why or how, it can and will happen again.

When I was much younger, I wanted to be a detective. But here, at 17, the only case I spend any length of time researching is this one. I don't think you can choose to be a part of this case, I think it chooses you. But that's just me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________

Nic,

I totally agree with you. You are one smart 17 year old. You will be a brilliant historian. Great instincts, as well as research abilities. You're education is serving you well. (Says a lot about our school system, doen't it?) ))

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, thank you. I'm home schooled ( got sick of teasing because I was reading books on the history of the mafia when everyone else was going to the local football games - you can only take so much of that ), and now I think I'm learning more because I get to pursue more of my own interests without electives, extra homework, etc.

[Richard J. Smith]

But jeez, now fake photos?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul,

Please read this:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2349

RJS

[Richard J. Smith]

The print they later found on the gun was put there after he was in the morgue.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please specify if this is opinion or if you have a reference for this. Thanks.

There is enough evidence to suggest that Lee ordered the rifle, received the rifle, and possessed the rifle. Marina has never wavered in her testimonies and statements that she saw the rifle, and while in New Orleans, saw Lee cleaning the rifle. Whether he fired the rifle on November 22 is another matter.

RJS

[Frank Agbat]

I plan on being a Presidential historian with emphasis on the Kennedy administration, and one of my main views is if it's happened once, and we don't know why or how, it can and will happen again.

Nic --

Very well said.

People ask me about my fascination with history. I always tell them that history repeats itself for several reasons:

1) The planet doesn't change very much or very quickly

2) People don't learn from their own history

3) People don't change very much or very quickly

Add these three together and we see why history is destined to repeat itself...

In this case, we are actively being *prevented* from learning, thus the repetition of history is all but assured. If one doubts, consider the fates of MLK and RFK, just to name a few.

I, for one, want to learn from our history and not see it repeated.

Regards,

Frank