JFK

[SlyPokerDog]

Answering dozens of scholarly books with some show, what was it called, "TV for Nonreaders" or something, isn't moving public opinion.

My advice is to dumb it down further. Create a Saturday morning cartoon show called "CaseClosedMan, Ace Conspiracy-Killing Sophist."

Nova is one of the few big budget true science shows out there. You can criticize all you want but I'm sure you've enjoyed more than just a few episodes.

Now about these books and experts, while I have never read any of them I have listened to the 2 or 3 yearly conspiracy specials that Coast to Coast AM has every year. They give an hour to an expert and let them explain their take on the assassination. The show is 4 hours long so you get a pretty good variety of theories about the assassination. And before you go there, C2CAM is very pro conspiracy.

So, like you say there are many experts and theories out there, they can't all be right. Do you have one author or theory that you believe in more than the others? And please, don't just say something vague like the CIA did it. I'm truly interested in why you so strenuously don't believe one person can do something so horrible. What exactly do you think happened that day?

 

[MARIS61]

The House investigation is a good place to start for anyone actually interested in separating fact from fiction.

 

[Denny Crane]

Answering dozens of scholarly books with some show, what was it called, "TV for Nonreaders" or something, isn't moving public opinion.

My advice is to dumb it down further. Create a Saturday morning cartoon show called "CaseClosedMan, Ace Conspiracy-Killing Sophist."

Tell me why the books about the moon landing hoax are scholarly.

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's your expert, jlprk

 

[jlprk]

Nova is one of the few big budget true science shows out there. You can criticize all you want but I'm sure you've enjoyed more than just a few episodes.

Now about these books and experts, while I have never read any of them I have listened to the 2 or 3 yearly conspiracy specials that Coast to Coast AM has every year. They give an hour to an expert and let them explain their take on the assassination. The show is 4 hours long so you get a pretty good variety of theories about the assassination. And before you go there, C2CAM is very pro conspiracy.

So, like you say there are many experts and theories out there, they can't all be right. Do you have one author or theory that you believe in more than the others? And please, don't just say something vague like the CIA did it. I'm truly interested in why you so strenuously don't believe one person can do something so horrible. What exactly do you think happened that day?

If you move above TV and radio, which are so well-funded by the conservatives in power, you will find that books, written by experts who spend years studying it, are 50 to 1 against Lone Gunman. Each book goes into a hundred times as much detail as any documentary. (Most documentaries conclude against Lone Gunman, too. But not in the last few conservative years.)

In some ways, it's just like the Climate Change issue. With rationality running against them, conservatives must resort to ridicule.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Däniken

This expert wrote 8 books about ancient astronauts. 8 books! Must be true.

There's even pictures in the books.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk5...heories-abound-despite-a-lack-of-evidence.ece

It’s time to accept that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy all by himself, according to a growing consensus of historians, journalists and legal scholars who have investigated the case for decades.

The 50th anniversary of the assassination on Friday seems the perfect occasion to settle the historical facts once and for all. But that would require an emphatic rejection of fanciful conspiracy theories. And that’s not likely. Most Americans still believe Oswald did not act alone, according to public opinion polls.

“People cannot believe someone as inconsequential as Oswald could kill someone as consequential as an American president,” said historian Robert Dallek, author of An Unfinished Life, a 2003 JFK biography. “The city of Dallas would be well-served by accepting and supporting the proposition that Oswald was the only killer.”

The lone-gunman theory, however, is pretty boring compared to a good murder mystery starring conspiratorial characters lurking through myriad subplots played out in dark corners.

...

Problems arose when so-called assassination researchers went too far, connecting dots and publishing conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up. Who Really Killed JFK? became a cottage industry.

Lawrence Wright, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, grew up in Dallas during the 1960s and has written extensively about the assassination’s impact on him, his family and his East Dallas community. He is among those who believe acceptance of Oswald as the lone gunman is long overdue.

“Conspiracy theories, like flies, they gather around big dead things,” said Wright, a staff writer at The New Yorker. “Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. There is so much evidence, it’s ridiculous to think there is another explanation.”

 

[HailBlazers]

Why was Lee Harvey Oswald killed so quickly, and who was the man that shot him?

 

[Denny Crane]

Cashing in on a remarkable litany of falsehoods and misrepresentations and exaggerations and omissions. 205 million $reasons to perpetuate the fraud.

http://www.timescall.com/ci_24446673/50-years-finding-profit-truth-jfk-case

One film, critics say, has done more than anything to shape the public's perception of the assassination: That's Oliver Stone's 1991 drama, “JFK.”

“He made this kind of paranoid conspiracy theory respectable,” says New York writer Arthur Goldwag, author of “Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies.”

The movie tells the story of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, played by Kevin Costner. Garrison remains the only prosecutor to bring someone to trial for an alleged conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

The film is “a remarkable litany of falsehoods and misrepresentations and exaggerations and omissions,” Posner says. “The reason that I'm so hard on Stone is because he's such a good filmmaker. If he was a schlocky filmmaker, it wouldn't matter.”

Shermer, of the Skeptics Society, agrees that Stone's role in stirring the conspiracy pot is “huge.”

“You tell somebody a good story, that's more powerful than tons of data, charts and graphs and statistics,” he says. “And Oliver Stone's a good storyteller. He's biased and he's very deceptive, and I don't trust him at all. But the movie's great.”

Stone's publicist said the director had “chosen to pass on this opportunity” to comment.

“JFK” took in more than $205 million at the box office, nearly two-thirds of that overseas, and has since raked in untold millions more in television royalties, pay-per-view, and videocassette and DVD rentals. The film is returning for brief re-runs in some New York and Los Angeles theaters.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why was Lee Harvey Oswald killed so quickly, and who was the man that shot him?

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/jfk_assassination_conspiracy_j.html

Because Oswald's killing, captured live on television, destroyed the chance to hear any testimony he might have provided, it opened the floodgates to a tsunami of speculation about Kennedy's murder. It also gave rise to questions about Ruby.

Who was he? How did he get into the the Dallas Police Department basement headquarters with a gun? Why did he do it? Was it because, as he originally stated, he wanted to spare the president's widow the agony of testifying against the man accused of killing her husband? Or was Ruby part of a conspiracy to ensure that Oswald never talked?

This much is known: Jack Ruby, born Jacob Rubenstein in Chicago in 1911, moved to Dallas in 1947 and managed a series of nightclubs and strip clubs. At the time of the assassination, he owned the Carousel Club in downtown Dallas and the Vegas Club in the city's Oak Lawn district.

Because of Ruby's years in the netherworld of Dallas nightlife, there were allegations that he had dealt with organized-crime figures, but the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations both concluded that he was not involved in mob activities.

On the other side of the law, Ruby had no shortage of friends on the police force, who were treated royally when they visited his clubs. One officer even called Ruby by name as the nightclub owner stepped forward to pull the trigger.

On the night of the president's assassination, Ruby stood in the middle of a group of reporters at a news conference at Dallas Police headquarters. According to an FBI report, Ruby told agents that he was carrying a loaded snub-nosed Colt Cobra .38 revolver in his right-hand pocket that night.

He was toting the weapon again two days later as he made his way into the basement of police headquarters, just as officers were getting ready to transfer Oswald from the building to the county jail.

Even though Ruby may have counted on his friendships with police officers to be able to gain access to that part of the building, he apparently didn't need to do so. In its report, the House Select Committee on Assassinations said it was "troubled by the apparently unlocked doors along the stairway route and the removal of security guards from the area of the garage nearest the stairway shortly before the shooting."

...

In a post-conviction news conference, Ruby said unnamed, high-ranking individuals were responsible for his plight and would suppress the truth about Oswald's slaying. According to The (London) Sunday Times, Ruby told a psychiatrist that he had been framed to kill Oswald and that he knew who ordered Kennedy's killing.

But people who knew Ruby knew better. In an interview Gerald Posner conducted for his book "Case Closed," Tony Zoppi, a Dallas reporter, said anyone "would have to be crazy" to make Ruby part of a conspiracy because he "couldn't keep a secret for five minutes. Jack ... just plain talked too much."

After more than two years of maintaining that others were involved in killing Oswald, Ruby reversed his position in December 1966 -- less than a month before his death -- in an interview with The Associated Press that he granted as he lay in his hospital bed.

"There is nothing to hide," Ruby was quoted as saying. "There was no one else."

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If you move above TV and radio, which are so well-funded by the conservatives in power, you will find that books, written by experts who spend years studying it, are 50 to 1 against Lone Gunman. Each book goes into a hundred times as much detail as any documentary. (Most documentaries conclude against Lone Gunman, too. But not in the last few conservative years.)

In some ways, it's just like the Climate Change issue. With rationality running against them, conservatives must resort to ridicule.

I didn't ridicule you, I asked out of all of the experts, books and theories out there about the assassination which one specifically do you believe.

 

[jlprk]

I didn't ridicule you, I asked out of all of the experts, books and theories out there about the assassination which one specifically do you believe.

I was referring to the 2 posts immediately above mine. You should ask a religious person what he "believes." What I observe is a veritable encyclopedia--tens of thousands of pages of books--with little overlap over each other, overwhelming the Warren Commission Report with facts, not opinions. The quality of information is much more interesting.

For example, in Denny's post right above yours, the only new information dug up is that some reporter accuses anyone disagreeing with him of being crazy. This is typical of the "substance" of the conservative books. They just pull authority on the reader, demanding compliance.

Tony Zoppi, a Dallas reporter, said anyone "would have to be crazy" to make Ruby part of a conspiracy because he "couldn't keep a secret for five minutes. Jack ... just plain talked too much."

 

[jlprk]

Future NBA Commissioner Larry O'Brien, in the middle of the pictures with black glasses, Opening Day at Griffith Stadium, Washington, D.C.
4/9/62 Senators vs. Tigers

4/8/63 Senators vs. Orioles

Peoples Drug Stores made out pretty well in those pictures.

 

[Denny Crane]

I was referring to the 2 posts immediately above mine. You should ask a religious person what he "believes." What I observe is a veritable encyclopedia--tens of thousands of pages of books--with little overlap over each other, overwhelming the Warren Commission Report with facts, not opinions. The quality of information is much more interesting.

For example, in Denny's post right above yours, the only new information dug up is that some reporter accuses anyone disagreeing with him of being crazy. This is typical of the "substance" of the conservative books. They just pull authority on the reader, demanding compliance.

Right. No overlap.

One book says it was the Cubans.

Another book says it was the Mafia.

Another book says it was the CIA.

Another book says it was LBJ.

Well, there is overlap. Some books pick some combination of the above.

But carry on.

 

[jlprk]

By overlap, I meant that they don't parrot each other, repeating the same set of facts, as your few books do, all saying the same thing. Each book against the lone gunman theory is an original creation of new research, full of hundreds of new discoveries.

Ted Williams, Eddie Pellagrini, and Hank Greenberg at Fenway Park before a Red Sox game in 1946, with a fan campaigning to enter politics.

 

[Denny Crane]

LOL

There's only the facts that actually are. As few as they may be.

When you want to make a conspiracy theory, you have to make stuff up. You know, like they burned the autopsy report (that was parroted here by someone, no?)

 

[jlprk]

I haven't read the thread, but if someone posted that the doctors at the autopsy say they were ordered to stop and not complete the job, and there's a contradiction between a small rear entrance wound and all witnesses saying half his head was blown off, well, that's been known for at least 45 years. No controversy there. Anyway, 50 years ago today was a big day, so I've been trying to post sports pictures in remembrance.

 

[Denny Crane]

There are autopsy photos.

Anyhow, JFK would be a conservative by today's measures. Religious, anti-abortion, pro tax cut, anti communist, etc.

 

[jlprk]

Yes, a conservative nowadays would say, "I will tear the CIA into a thousand pieces" a few months before being killed. A conservative would create the Freedom Rider movement in the South.

 

[Denny Crane]

Freedom riders?

JFK and RFK sat on their asses for weeks while those guys got their asses kicked in those southern towns.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey, who was Stansfield Turner?

How come nobody put a bullet in Jimmy?

 

[jlprk]

Kennedy sent Katzenbach to protect them. Kennedy took on George Wallace and enrolled James Meredith. My cousin was a Freedom Rider, then lieutenant in Vietnam, then wrote a hit antiwar song, the died mysteriously. He wasn't hurt as a Freedom Rider. Very few were. It was the 70s-80s, not the 60s, that were dangerous.

 

[Sinobas]

Here is an interesting interview of Governor Connally, describing the event. His recollection matches very well with the Zapruder film, and totally undermines the "magic bullet theory"

[video=youtube;4svgOqQmS3o]
Notice how when he says he turned around because of the shot, Kennedy had already long been hit, then he turns around and feels the hit. 2 bullets.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Recognizing the fallibility of witness memories, then, is especially important to participants in the judicial process, since many trials revolve around factual determinations of whom to believe. Rarely will a factual question result in a successful appeal—effectively giving many parties only one chance at justice. Arriving at a just result and a correct determination of truth is difficult enough without the added possibility that witnesses themselves may not be aware of inaccuracies in their testimony.

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.

 

[jlprk]

That was a post of a desperate man. I propose that everyone bookmark that and post it in reply to Denny when he refers to any Republican memory of any political history.

 

[Denny Crane]

That was a post of a desperate man. I propose that everyone bookmark that and post it in reply to Denny when he refers to any Republican memory of any political history.

What, that eye witness testimony isn't reliable? It's desperate to deny the science and jurisprudence. You win that prize.

What's really funny is your "experts" use a lot of eyewitness testimony. A woman says she saw Castro pull the trigger himself. Then you see photos or film of the woman (who was there) looking at her shoes.

 

[Stevenson]

Alone. Ha!

I have a good friend who is making a movie about the Warren Commission. One day I was at his house and he asked me if I wanted to see proof of the Kennedy conspiracy. 'Of course,' I said. He then showed me a big-screen, slo-mo version of the Zapruder film. When you watch it, it is obvious that the president gets hit from two different angles - once from the back (where Oswald was - you can see the president slump forward after the first shot) and then again from the front (this is the grassy knoll. You can then see how he ricochets backwards after getting hit a second time, in the forehead.).

Forward, backward. Two different shots, two different people, two different angles, one conspiracy.

I found a version of the film online. Warning - it is very graphic and grusome when he gets hit from the front. But if you are interested, it is proof that it was a conspiracy that killed the president.

Slo Mo Zapruder Film

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

That was a post of a desperate man. I propose that everyone bookmark that and post it in reply to Denny when he refers to any Republican memory of any political history.

Remember, Denny is an independent.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your buddy has a forensics related degree?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/re...sassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Dr. Peter Cummings, a forensic neuropathologist from Beverly, had a front-row seat to history when he examined the former president’s clothing, along with X-rays and autopsy photographs, for “Cold Case JFK,’’ a special episode of the PBS science show “Nova.”

“The gravity of the situation just really hit me,” Cummings, 42, said of his experience. “The president’s suit, right there in front of me — I wasn’t just walking through a museum, seeing a display. I was participating in history.”

“Nova’’ arranged for researchers to apply modern forensic science and ballistic testing to try to answer questions that still fuel conspiracy theories a half-century after that fateful day — Nov. 22, 1963 — in Dallas.

From which direction was the fatal shot fired? Where did it strike the president?

“It was a single gunshot wound to the back of his head,” Cummings said without hesitation. “It was right where the autopsy doctors said it had happened.”

The president’s clothes provided valuable clues.

“I was mostly interested in the shirt and tie,” said Cummings, who specializes in gunshot wounds to the head. “I wanted to see the location of a hole in the shirt, to see if it was consistent with a gunshot wound. It was.”

Cummings made his conclusions after spending eight months poring over thousands of pages of hearing transcripts, medical testimony, and other materials available online from the national archives.

In September, he traveled to Maryland to examine the slain president’s clothing and original autopsy materials. Access is limited to federal government officials and qualified researchers, who must be approved by the Kennedy family.

The restriction aims to “prevent the undignified or sensational use of the materials or any other use which would . . . dishonor the memory of the late president, or cause unnecessary grief or suffering to members of his family,” the National Archives said in a statement to the Globe.

Cummings had a strict limit on how long he would be able to examine the materials, he said.

“When the door closed, I knew I only had two hours. I just sat down and looked at the photographs,” he said. “I treated it like any other gunshot wound case.”

The president’s clothing has been kept in a deep cold storage, Cummings said.

“It looks pristine. I could not believe it was 50 years old. It’s so well-preserved, “ he said.

With the X-rays and photos spread before him on a table, Cummings wrote notes about fracture patterns, lacerations, bruising, and other injuries to the skull.

“The quality is fantastic. Once I saw those photographs, it became very clear what had happened to President Kennedy . . . It was a single gunshot wound to the back of the head. Based on the fracture pattern, we can say there was no shot from the side or the front.”

(more at the link, detailing the procedures these highly trained forensic specialists went through to come to their conclusion, as well as their qualifications and work history)

 

[Stevenson]

All you have to do Denny is watch it and decide for yourself. To me, and anyone I know who has seen this version, it is obvious he gets hit from the front.

Who are you going to believe, some forensic pathologist, or your own eyes?

SloMo Video