Mr. Oswald did it, in the TSBD, with a carbine

[Paul Kerrigan]

I forgot to add. I have no idea who John McAdams is, but I will find out and then try to understand why you would think I am one of his "cronies." I own nearly 120 books on the Kennedy assassination and he didn't write any book I own. However, from your paranoia I can safely assume that he is also convinced of Oswald's guilt, therefore ANYONE who has reached the same conclusion MUST be influenced by John McAdams, otherwise they could not have EVER reached an intellectual conclusion on their own. Is that your position? Could it be that I reached my opinion of Oswald's guilt after observing you conspiracy nuts chasing each other's tails for forty years, chasing after every hare-brained theory to come down the pike? Could it be that I reached my conclusion of Oswald's guilt after watching so called conspiracy "researchers" look for bullets that have never turned up, seek fingerprints that have never been produced, study photographs with magnifying glasses and microscopes for hidden gunmen that never appear, invent imaginary meetings between Oswald, and Ruby, Tippit, and who knows who, that never took place? Could it be that I learned that Oswald was guilty after seeing the conspiracy nuts waste forty years and not produce a single suspect besides Oswald that fits with the available evidence? If the conspiracy "research" community had produced even a single speck of evidence wouldn't NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, BBC, or any news organization jump at the chance to be the first to reveal this earth-shattering news? Oh wait, let me guess...the conspirators are in control of ALL news outlets so they don't dare reveal the conspiracy news. Is that it? Whoever John McAdams is, rest assured he has played no role in my understanding of the Kennedy assassination. It is the failure of the conspiracy "researchers" that has convinced me more than anything else that Oswald acted alone. I have read garbage by Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, Henry Hurt, Anthony Summers, Jimmy Fetzer, Robert Groden, Harold Livinstone, Dick Russell, Harold Weisberg (with whom I spent an afternoon in 1991 at his home in Maryland looking through many of his voluminous files) Jack White, Cyril Wecht, Edward Epstein, Walt Brown, and others and still haven't seen a single one of them answer all the evidence in the case. Now I have to go, I need to see who the famous John McAdams is and find out why conspiracy nuts fear I am one of his "cronies."

I'd be very careful when calling anything from Josiah Thompson "garbage." His book Six Seconds in Dallas is one of the best and most unbiased books on the case. If you really want to read a distorted and biased account, read Case Closed.

[T. Folsom]

Unbiased, then please point out the arguments Thompson conceded are weaknesses for the conspiracy side and strengths for the lone assassin side. If his book is unbiased as you claim he should present both sides shouldn't he?

[Paul Kerrigan]

He does present both sides. Have you read the book? He takes an honest look at eyewitness testimony and physical evidence, determining for himself what is accurate.

[T. Folsom]

Yes I have read the book, have you. You dodged my question, you did not specific mention any examples. Please mention them with page number so we can both enjoy them. I don't think Thompson is unbiased at all. And if you think a conspiracy writer or a lone nut writer is unbiased then you don't read much. I will await your examples.

[Paul Kerrigan]

He has no firm conviction about Oswald's guilt, he acknowledges the fact that the Mannlicher-Carcano was used in the killing. He also believes that some shots came from the Book Depostitory. He is also the one of the biggest critics of Zapruder film tampering.

If he was not an open-minded researcher, he would not have dispelled the myth about Oswald in the doorway

[T. Folsom]

Being open minded and not making a total fool out oneself are two different things. There is no way Thompson could write a book and claim the man in the doorway was Oswald, he would laughed out of the research community. You guys tried that once and when it didn't hold water you quickly discarded it. But no where does Thompson imply that Oswald was guilty. That is exactly the point I was making. He doesn't believe that the shots could have been fired in the time allowed, (which in 1967 was inccorectly thought to be 5.6 seconds--today we know it was closer to 8.3) The only real voice Thompson has now is with his ongoing feud with Jimmy Fitzer, Jack White and the lunatics that claim the Zapruder film was tampered with. Thompson is very selective in wghat he writes about Oswald. For instance, Thompson knows that the New York period of Oswald's life reveals some very telling details about his personality and anti-social behavior, hence he skips that part of the Oswald story entirely. Thompson also conviently skips all reference to Dr. Renatus Hartogs, who talked with Oswald extensivey when Lee was a child. No mention of him either in Thompson's book. Thompson even shots himself in the foot when he admits that over 80% of all witnesses who expressed an opinion as to the number of shots said they heard three. And only 2% said they came from more than one location--a key element to Thompson's unprovable theory of shooters on top of the Records Building and the TSBD and behind the grassy knoll. Of course not a single witness that day said they heard shots come from three different locations--but why let that stand in the way of a good theory? Thompson is very selective in which witnesses he refers to also. Concerning the location of the head wound, only tow doctors of those that treated the President in Dallas still claim they saw a wound in the rear of the Presiden't head. Thompson only quotes from one of those two, Robert McClelland, he ignores the testimony of the doctors who don't agree with his theory. Gerald Posner on the other hand refers to the statements of ALL of the doctors and then evaluates their relative merit and validity in light of other evidence.

[ville huoponen]

Out of 216 known witnesses: (source 26 volumes of WC)

-54 said the shots came from the grassy knoll

-45 referred to Texas school book depository

-71 people were not asked

-35 couldn´t tell where the shots originated from

-6 said shots came from both GK & TSBD

-5 said the shots came from elsewhere

Well I guess this definitely settles our ultimate question. Oswald did it alone - case closed mofos!

Or.. ..should we perhaps use here some common sense and conclude that shots came from at least two places and propably from three or four? The fact that someone can put a spin on this table is just beyond my imagination unless of course one is an allmighty spook.

[Justin Martell]

The following information comes from Michael T. Griffith's web site. I have been there numerous times and enjoy it because it makes no accusations or wild theories. HERE ARE SOME FACTS: Over forty witnesses, many of them trained medical personnel, who saw President Kennedy's head wounds, said the large defect was in the right rear part of the head, in the right occipital-parietal region. A large wound in the back of the head indicates a shot from the front.

* Two federal agents who attended the autopsy told the ARRB that the autopsy photos of the back of the head were not accurate, and that they recalled seeing a large defect in the right rear part of the skull. The agents suggested a flap of scalp was pulled over the right-rear defect before the photos were taken.

* Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the autopsy pathologists, told HSCA investigators that the rear entry wound was right next to the external occipital protuberance and that part of that wound was contained in a fragment of bone that did not arrive from Dallas until late that night.

* During an interview with HSCA investigators, Dr. Finck questioned how one of the alleged autopsy photos of the back of the head had been established as having been taken at the autopsy.

* Dr. George Burkley, the President's personal doctor, communicated through his attorney to the HSCA's chief counsel that he was aware of information that proved there must have been more than one person involved in the assassination. Dr. Burkley volunteered to disclose this information to the Committee. Dr. Burkley saw the President's body at Parkland Hospital in Dallas and during the autopsy. The letter that Dr. Burkley's attorney sent to the HSCA at Dr. Burkley's request was released by the ARRB. To date no record has been found that the HSCA sought to obtain the information Dr. Burkley offered to provide.

* The WC said the wound in President Kennedy's back was at the base of the neck. Dr. Humes placed the wound in this location, at the base of the neck, in the Rydberg Navy medical drawing. The HSCA, on the other hand, placed the wound nearly two inches lower than where it appears in the Rydberg drawing. The President's death certificate, which is marked "verified," places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra (T3). On the night of the autopsy, Dr. Boswell prepared an autopsy face sheet diagram in which he placed the wound at or near T3. The bullet holes in the back of the President's shirt and coat place the wound at or near T3. Several witnesses who saw the body said the back wound was well below the neck. One of those witnesses was Dr. Ebersole, who said the wound was at T4. Three federal agents who saw the body drew wound diagrams for the HSCA. Those diagrams were recently released, and all three place the back wound near T3. The current single-bullet theory, which is the cornerstone of the lone-gunman scenario, is based on the assumption that the back wound was no lower than where the HSCA placed it, that is, no lower than T1, and that Kennedy was leaning 20-25 degrees forward. If the single-bullet theory is invalid, then there had to be more than one gunman.

I would like to thank Michael T. Griffith for his site where this info came from.

[Paul Kerrigan]

Being open minded and not making a total fool out oneself are two different things. There is no way Thompson could write a book and claim the man in the doorway was Oswald, he would laughed out of the research community. You guys tried that once and when it didn't hold water you quickly discarded it. But no where does Thompson imply that Oswald was guilty. That is exactly the point I was making. He doesn't believe that the shots could have been fired in the time allowed, (which in 1967 was inccorectly thought to be 5.6 seconds--today we know it was closer to 8.3) The only real voice Thompson has now is with his ongoing feud with Jimmy Fitzer, Jack White and the lunatics that claim the Zapruder film was tampered with. Thompson is very selective in wghat he writes about Oswald. For instance, Thompson knows that the New York period of Oswald's life reveals some very telling details about his personality and anti-social behavior, hence he skips that part of the Oswald story entirely. Thompson also conviently skips all reference to Dr. Renatus Hartogs, who talked with Oswald extensivey when Lee was a child. No mention of him either in Thompson's book. Thompson even shots himself in the foot when he admits that over 80% of all witnesses who expressed an opinion as to the number of shots said they heard three. And only 2% said they came from more than one location--a key element to Thompson's unprovable theory of shooters on top of the Records Building and the TSBD and behind the grassy knoll. Of course not a single witness that day said they heard shots come from three different locations--but why let that stand in the way of a good theory? Thompson is very selective in which witnesses he refers to also. Concerning the location of the head wound, only tow doctors of those that treated the President in Dallas still claim they saw a wound in the rear of the Presiden't head. Thompson only quotes from one of those two, Robert McClelland, he ignores the testimony of the doctors who don't agree with his theory. Gerald Posner on the other hand refers to the statements of ALL of the doctors and then evaluates their relative merit and validity in light of other evidence.

You mean the new testimony of the Dallas doctors? You of all people should know that original testimony is far more reliable then testimony many years later. And all the original testimony of the Dallas doctors says that the wound was in the right back part of the head.

[Wim Dankbaar]

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm

Seems to me the testimony of these doctors has been pretty consistent over the years.

Wim

[Anderson_109]

My belief on why Oswald was involved in the assassination is, that by killing the President of the United States, he would prove himself "worthy" of becoming a Soviet citizen. Is anyone in this forum of the same opinion as me?

[Antti Hynonen]

Anderson 109:

Interesting theory. You may have something there - then again maybe not. Based on what I have read and heard, I would consider Lee Oswald to be of at least average intellect (probably above average). Have you taken your idea further? If your theory is realistic and if you have given it more thought, maybe you can comment on the questions below?

I came up with the following issues as I put myself in Lee Oswald's shoes in 1963, just before I am about to assasinate the US President:

- How will I successfully escape the scene and then be able to travel to the USSR to live happily? I love my children (and wife?), how will they be able to join me there safely after what I have done?

- Do my Russian comrades really want to "harbor" me, the killer of a US President who actually was thought to have been "soft on communism"?

- I was already once accepted into Russia, given permission to work and reside there. I didn't like it then. Why will I like it if I return?

Thanks.

Antti

[Anthony Frank]

Out of 216 known witnesses: (source 26 volumes of WC)

-54 said the shots came from the grassy knoll

-45 referred to Texas school book depository

-71 people were not asked

-35 couldn´t tell where the shots originated from

-6 said shots came from both GK & TSBD

-5 said the shots came from elsewhere

While we are looking at statistics, let's look at these statistics:

>No one in Congress has died in a traffic “accident” since 1965, but three Members of Congress died in traffic “accidents” in 1957, 1959, and 1965.

>In the final traffic “accident” in 1965, a truck driver ran down a Congressman with his tractor-trailer, allegedly because he had cataracts on both of his eyes, suffered from high blood pressure and asthma, and had exceeded the ICC limit on maximum hours of service.

>The traffic “accidents” of 1957 and 1959 took place in the Congressman’s hometown, but no one in Congress has died while driving in their hometown since 1959.

>In 1957, a train engine (just an engine; not a train) smashed into a Congressman’s car.

>In 1959, a Congressman crashed into an elevated train pillar “early” one day and police said that he “had apparently fallen asleep at the wheel or had been cut off by another car.” (Just like the truck driver who exceeded the ICC limit on maximum hours of service and ran down a Member of Congress had a "need for sleep.")

>In each of the three traffic “accidents,” the Member of Congress was the only one killed.

The deaths of Members of Congress via a train engine in 1957, an elevated train pillar in 1959, and a tractor-trailer in 1965 were perpetrated by the same conspirators who killed President Kennedy.

Edited July 7, 2004 by Anthony Frank

[John Simkin]

The deaths of Members of Congress via a train engine in 1957, an elevated train pillar in 1959, and a tractor-trailer in 1965 were perpetrated by the same conspirators who killed President Kennedy. (Anthony Frank, Jul 7 2004, 02:53 PM)

Could you give the names of these people and explain why it was so important that they were murdered. What was the link with JFK?

You have said several times that Barry Goldwater and John McCone were both KGB agents. Have you any evidence for these claims? What was their overall strategy? If Goldwater had gained power in 1964 what would he had done that was so different from the actions of LBJ?

[Anthony Frank]

John,

I'm glad you're asking questions.

I'll first address the Members of Congress who were killed. The information is as follows:

In the last traffic “accident” on July 1, 1965, Louisiana Congressman T. Ashton Thompson was killed in North Carolina after a state trooper had him pull over onto the apron of a highway, allegedly for speeding. (New York Times, 7-2-65, pg.15)

“As Mr. Thompson got out of the car, a truck veered onto the apron. It struck the Congressman, crushing him against his car and then hurling him over it . . . Mr. Thompson and his family were returning to Louisiana for the Fourth of July weekend.”

“The impact sent the Congressman’s car crashing into the rear of the patrol car.”

The Congressman’s wife, along with his 7-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter, “were taken to a hospital for treatment of shock and bruises.”

The state trooper “said the truck overturned about fifty yards away,” after which the driver of the truck “was taken to a hospital with internal injuries.”

Four months later, in November 1965, the Interstate Commerce Commission issued a report recommending “a review of physical standards for truck drivers,” a report allegedly prompted by the killing of Congressman Thompson. (New York Times, 11-19-65, pg.29)

The report alleged that an examination of the truck driver’s eyes in August 1965 showed that “cataracts existed in both of the driver’s eyes,” and it alleged that his physician reported that he was “being treated for asthma and high blood pressure.” It further alleged that he “had been exceeding the ICC limit on maximum hours of service,” and that he killed Congressman Thompson when he allegedly lost control of his tractor-trailer due to “vision impairment” as Congressman Thompson was “talking to a state trooper who had stopped him for alleged speeding.”

The Justice Department charged the truck driver with violating the Interstate Commerce Act.

High blood pressure is something that a hospital would invariably determine when treating a man with internal injuries and they would certainly need to know if he suffered from asthma. Having just killed a Member of Congress would also have instantaneously qualified the truck driver for an eye examination on July 1, 1965, but the Federal report from a Federal agency said that the alleged eye examination which allegedly found cataracts on both of his eyes was in August, and it was allegedly his physician who said the truck driver had asthma and high blood pressure, not the hospital report.

The ICC also said the truck driver had exceeded their limit on maximum hours of service and ostensibly, everything culminated in the “vision impairment” that caused the “accident” that tragically killed Congressman Thompson.

This “cover story” includes the premise that people who were affected by Congressman Thompson’s death were surprised to learn, at least a month later, that the truck driver who killed him had cataracts on both of his eyes, and the premise that the truck driver offered no explanation for how he happened to “accidentally” kill a member of Congress, which would explain why his eyes weren’t examined for a month, if they were examined at all.

And since the truck “overturned about fifty yards away,” it’s obvious that the truck driver didn’t plan on sticking around after he “veered onto the apron” and ran down the Congressman with his tractor-trailer.

In the traffic “accident” which preceded Congressman Thompson’s murder there was another “need for sleep.”

“Early” on November 4, 1959, Congressman Charles A. Boyle was killed when his car “smashed into an elevated train pillar” in Chicago.

“The police said he had apparently fallen asleep at the wheel or had been cut off by another car . . . He was alone at the time of the accident.” (New York Times, 11-5-59, pg.27)

The “accident” was early enough on November 4th to be front page news in the late edition of the Chicago Tribune on that day, and the fact is, if Congressman Boyle hadn’t been a victim of homicide, killed by another driver who ran him into a pillar, it would appear that he simply hadn’t gotten enough sleep or that he had been awake for too long and thus “had apparently fallen asleep at the wheel.”

This “need for sleep” was no different than the truck driver who ran down Congressman Thompson with his tractor-trailer six years later. The “sickly” truck driver not only had “cataracts on both of his eyes,” he also had a “need for sleep” because he “had been exceeding the ICC limit on maximum hours of service.”

The ensuing question of who is at fault in a traffic accident had to be what deterred the KGB officers in the CIA from continuing to use this as a way of killing Members of Congress, and these two “need for sleep” traffic “accidents” were the last two traffic “accidents” to kill Members of Congress.

They must have seen the problem with continuing to put forth premises like: “Congressman Boyle wasn’t murdered. He just didn’t get enough sleep,” and “Congressman Thompson wasn’t murdered. The sickly truck driver who killed him with his tractor-trailer just didn’t get enough sleep.”

In the 1957 traffic “accident,” Congressman Henderson Lanham “was killed instantly” when a switch engine (a train engine used to switch train cars) struck his car as he was “en route to a speaking engagement before a PTA group” in his hometown of Rome, Georgia, on November 10, 1957. (Atlanta Constitution, 11-12-57, pg.1)

This first killing in 1957 seemed overtly accidental, but it was quite easy for the KGB to simply kill Congressman Lanham as he was crossing the railroad tracks while on his way to the PTA meeting. The first killing was obviously a huge success for the KGB.

It wasn't important that these particular Members of Congress be killed. The KGB was simply manifesting their hatred for our democratic system, a hatred that was further made manifest when they killed President Kennedy as part of a two-pronged assassination plan to get Goldwater into office.

Now for the second issue.

McCone was the KGB officer. Goldwater was one of the American intelligence officers that were targeted for political office by the KGB officers who had infiltrated the CIA. He was fanatical. You yourself had said he was radical. He and his ego were easy to exploit.

Summers of violence followed the advent of growth in the civil rights movement in the early 1960s, due in large part to the fact that KGB officers who had infiltrated the CIA saw racial strife and polarization of society as a means of inciting the masses in the United States. They were responsible for much of the violence that targeted African-Americans, including a Ku Klux Klan church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama, which killed four African-American schoolgirls in September 1963.

Civil rights and integration were a paramount issue during the 1960s. By promoting vehement opposition to it and by promoting violence against African-Americans, the KGB officers made it the “central domestic issue,” which is what Daniel Patrick Moynihan called it when, as an official in the Nixon Administration, he made his contribution to the effort, undoubtedly because it was the KGB officers’ “central domestic issue.”

The biggest asset in the effort to create racial strife and polarization would have been the election of segregationist Senator Barry Goldwater to the Office of President of the United States at the crucial juncture of 1964, which was not only the year that civil rights legislation was passed, it was prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 1964 was also the year that the 24th Amendment, which outlawed the poll tax that kept impoverished African-Americans from voting, became part of the Constitution.

A Goldwater litmus test for appointing Supreme Court Justices who supported segregation would have been horrific. Even without confirmation to the Supreme Court, such nominations would cause anger in the civil rights movement, anger that could be exploited, and anger that could mask the intentions of individuals bent on sabotaging the peaceful drive towards equality.

Goldwater also supported the right-wing dictatorships in third world countries that fostered Communist insurgencies.

Johnson did not voice support for those dictatorships, although he did send troops to the Dominican Republic in 1965 when a civil war broke out after the right-wing civilian junta installed by military leaders in September 1963 renigged on their promise to hold elections, a promise they made 4 days after Kennedy was assassinated. The American troops, however, did not install democracy and elections were not held.

Tony