|Warren Commission||Media Library||Articles||FAQ||Links||Feedback||Contact||About|
echo ""; ?>
|The John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage|
This section is closed, no more entries can be submitted. It seems to be impossible to establish a serious and neutral discussion, without any assaults, harrasments, blames etc. Interesting enough, 99 percentages of those disturbances were caused by defenders of the Lone Assassin Theory. I am tired of editing and filtering blames and accusations after 15 years.
Sorry for this. Keep asking questions! One day, they will be heard...
On 30-Dec-2009, Linda wrote: Since we are getting close to the end of the road here, lest the whole point of this thing get buried in trivia, I will again say........................Lee Harvey Oswald was never tried, convicted or sentenced in a court of law for the murder of John F. Kennedy. Every finding to date is theory and nothing more. No one, not anyone, knows the whole truth of this murder and probably no one ever will. It appears that much for sure was by design. Not one witness has ever been questioned or cross examined and not one piece of evidence has ever been entered into the court for scrutiny. No jury has ever been called. No verdict or sentence was ever rendered.There were no forensic scientists on the Warren Commission, no doctors, no coroners, ballistics experts, no physics experts, and no law enforcement officers.Absolutely no one but a court of law with a judge and a jury of 12 people has the right to find Mr.Oswald guilty or innocent, No One. But for anyone to call this case "simple" is quite frankly ridiculous. There is nothing simple about anything here. And what has happened to this nation since this tragedy is certainly not simple either. When one event changes the course of history in a nanosecond, completely reversing executive orders, taking a nation into a decade long war based on an event which the former Secretary of Defense admits NEVER happened, in which 58,000 young lives are destroyed, when a President has to stare down Soviet missiles and a nation is taken to the brink of nuclear war in which one wrong move could have meant the annihilation of our entire existence, anyone who would say the death of that President is a simple matter not only insults the office of the Presidency itself but insults this country and the principles on which it was founded.
On 30-Dec-2009, A. Saunders wrote: Now to address Jon's points.Jon wrote: "But, when "Conspiracy Theorists" don't immediately accept the WC findings, they are attcked personally."Oh really? I don't seem to recall ME attemptinig to investigate YOUR'S or Linda's private lives, your professions, or your teaching credential status. It was ME that was attacked by both you and Linda in a fruitless attempted to expose me as some sort of fraud. Therefore this comment of your's was not true. I couldn't care less what you, Linda, or any other conspiracy believer does for a living. I am only concerned with dispelling all of the nonsense floating around about one of the simplest murder cases in American history.Secondly, you implied that I don't want to give equal credence to all of the witnesses in this case. That comment is 100% correct. In ANY criminal investigation some witnesses are accurate in their comments and others are mistaken. Those that are mistaken are not necessarily liars (of course some are openly lying) but more often than not they are simply mistaken as to what they saw or what they THOUGHT they saw. Or, more commonly, their comments are misunderstood because they did not express their initial impressions clearly or accurately. Let me explain. In the Kennedy assassination several ear witnesses claimed they heard shots coming from the right front (the stockade fence or grassy knoll area.) MANY of these witnesses appeared before the Warren Commission/HSCA and gave their testimony to that effect. However the actual forensic evidence in this case revealed that they were mistaken as to the source of the shots. That doesn't mean that the government was attempting to cover up anything, it simply means that several people were mistaken. That is the way the real world works. When the World Trade Centers were attacked on September 11, 2001 some witnesses claimed the south tower was struck first by an airplane while others claimed it was the north tower to receive the first attack. Does that mean that there was a massive government cover-up and there is no way to harmonize these conflicting accounts? Of course not. Such a view is silly and groundless. Based on where some witnesses were standing it appeared to them that the first tower struck WAS on the south side, or the north side as the case may be. People are not perfect and witnesses get confused all the time. When people stated they heard shots coming from the right front of the president's car it merited investigation. This took place IMMEDIATELY after the assassination. A motorcycle patrolman raced up the grassy knoll moments after the shooting. He stated later under oath that he didn't have any reason to race up there he simply thought that IF a shot had been fired at the President's limousine that would be a likely place for a gunman to fire from. On the other side of the stockade fence there were hundreds and HUNDREDS of yards of wide open space. This officer and the others that followed him never saw ANYONE fleeing the scene; they didn't see anyone lurking about; they didn't see any cars speeding from the scene; no rifle casings were found; no forensic evidence of any kind was left behind; and therefore the search moved elsewhere. Those who raced up the grassy knoll hadn't seen any gunman firing from there--not one witness at the time stated they saw rifle fire come from that location, they were simply following the police officer who raced up there and even HE had no good reason to suspect shots were fired from there. Then when the medical evidence revealed that the President and Governor were both struck with shots fired from above and behind, then those witnesses who claimed shots came from the front were given less credence. Just as they should have been. The police can't give equal weight to eyewitnesses and earwitnesses whose testimony isn't backed up with hard evidence as they do with those whose testimony agrees with the hard evidence. For all the abuse Howard Brennan has been subjected to over the years we DO have to admit that he was mighty darn accurate with his testimony, don't we? He said the gunman was white--Oswald WAS white. He said the rifle was a bolt action--it WAS a bolt action. He said the gunman had black hair--Oswald DID have black hair. He said the shots came from the SE corner window of the TSBD--and ALL of the forensic evidence in the assassination WAS found there and ONLY there. Now by comparison, if I were to ask you, Jon, to give a description of me, I would be curious to see how close you would come having never seen me. You may assume I am White (you would be wrong), you may assume my age, you may assume my hair color, you may assume my height and weight, but the chances you would be as accurate as Howard Brennan was are astronomically remote. Therefore we have to give Howard Brennan a great amount of reliability in his testimony. learly what he SAID he witnessed he obviously DID witness. Of course he was wrong on some counts, but that is the way the real world operates. But for the most part he was pretty accurate in his description of Oswald. Therefore HIS testimony is given more credence than say Jean Hill who changed her testimony time and time again over the years to please various conspiracy authors who had paid her for her doctored testimony and altered memories. So you are incorrect when you say that I don't want to hear testimony from dissenters, but I certainly do NOT give the same level of credence or reliability to those witnesses that have absolutely NO forensic evidence supporting their claims.The Tippit murder is an excellent example. Jack Tatum, William Scoggins, Helen Markham, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, and Ted Calloway ALL identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw either shooting Officer Tippit or fleeinig the shooting of Officer Tippit. In addition Oswald actuallty WAS captured exactly where another witness (Johnny Brewer) saw him fleeing. Oswald WAS carrying a revolver similar to the one used in the Tippet murder and he HAD been wearing the jacket actually found where Ted Calloway saw him throw it as he fled. Now on the other side of the testimony list is Aquilla Clemons. An elderly woman sitting on an enclosed porch who stated to Mark Lane (never under oath) that the gunman SHE saw kill Tippit was short, stocky and with bushy hair. Then she said she saw TWO gunmen flee the scene. Not one other eyewitness to the shooting (some as close as twenty feet) agreed with her version of events. Therefore we are left to decide whom to believe. In order to believe Miss Clemons one has to be willing to accept the following:1. Two random men shot and killed a Dallas Police officer for no apparant reason in broad daylight in front of seven eyewitnesses yet only one of these witnesses sees the event take place. And these two men fled the scene yet not one person saw them fleeing the streets of Dallas except Aquilla Clemons sitting on her enclosed porch several dozen yards away from the scene.2. This random murder of a Dallas patrolman took place with 45 minutes of the assassination of the President at a time when the true assassin was on the run fleeing his crime on the streets of Dallas.3. These two gunmen just happened to fire the same caliber weapon that Oswald had on his person when he was arrested moments later in the Texas Theater.4. An innocent Oswald resisted arrest and attempted to murder a Dallas police (thes insuring the death penalty for himself) all because he sneaked into a movie theater without paying the 75 cent admission price.I find it incredulous that anyone would choose to accept the shaky testimony of Aquilla Clemons over the rock-solid testimony of those witnesses whose version agrees perfectly with the forensic evidence in this case.Now, of course being an historian, I am open to new information on any and all issues. For years I taught that Thomas Jefferson probably was NOT the father of Sally Hemings children because I didn't have any concrete evidence to support such a claim. However after the 1998 DNA test results were made public I immediately changed my lecture notes and have taught ever since that Jefferson WAS the father of at least one of Hemings' children (which is all the DNA tests were able to prove conclusively.) I have NO QUALMS changing my opinion of an issue when new evidence comes forth to support it. Sadly for the conspiracy supporters out there, there simply has not been any hard evidence produced in 46 years to support claims of multiple gunmen, frontal shots, or rear exit wounds to the President. But rest assured, if such evidence ever emerges I'll be the first to alter my lecture notes and begin teaching the new position.
On 30-Dec-2009, A. Saunders wrote: I'm glad Linda brought up the HSCA findings. Her statement, while true, is also misleading since it doesn't tell the whole story. While the HSCA did conclude that the assassination was the result of a probable conspiracy it is important for serious scholars of history to accept the results of a later review of the acoustics evidence and methods that totally discredited that conclusion. The ONLY reason for the HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy was the highly-questionable acoustics evidence that was added within the last week's of the HSCA's existence. By 1982 the National Academy of Science found a multitude of errors and ommissions in the acoustic evidence study and as a result totally discredited their findings. Therefore if the acoustics evidence was discredited (as it was) then there was NO BASIS to believe the assassination was a part of any conspiracy. Linda failed to mention that point. Later analysis by Dale Myers determined that the only motorcycle patrolman that the HSCA said could have had the stuck microphone was no where near the location he needed to be at the time of the assassination, thus further discrediting the findings of the acoustics committee for the HSCA. His findings are well documented in the Discovery Channel's special "Beyond the Magic Bullet." It is also interesting to note that the scientists behind the flawed acoustics findings refused to defend their study when asked by the Discovery Channel in preparation of this documentary. I don't blame them. Time has shown their findings were incorrect.Also please remember that among the findings of the HSCA were the following:1. The Single Bullet Theory was correct--one bullet struck BOTH men and inflicted all of the damage sustained to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Hence no second gunman needef rot ehf rist shot.2. The wound to President Kennedy's throat was an EXIT wound and showed no medical signs of being an entrance as Dr. Perry erroneously surmised in his Parkland press conference hours after the President's death. 3. ONLY Oswald's bullets struck the President and the Governor--no other bullets can be accounted for (which is exactly what I wrote last week in my list of evidence against Oswald.)4. There was absolutely NO DAMAGE to the left hemisphere of the President's brain, thus totally eliminating any shot from the right front, since such a bullet e ntering the right side of the Presiden't brain would HAVE to have traveled on to the left hemisphere. Even the darling of the conspiracy believers, Dr. Cyril Wecht, was forced to admit that no damage was found on the left side of the Presiden't brain.5. Oswald had PLENTY of time to successfully fire three shots (8.4 seconds)with the accuracy he demonstrated. Please keep in mind that Oswald only hit his target one in three shots since it is a given that he was firing at the president's head each time he pulled the trigger. For those who claim that Oswald's shooting was unbelievable one would be forced to ask if 33% was really unbelievable shooting. That percentage would be an "F" in either my or Linda's classes any day of the school year. 6. Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby had no prior connection of any kind prior to their meeting at the time of the shooting of Oswald at 11:21 Sunday morning November 24, 1963.7. Oswald had NO KNOWN accomplices involved with him in the assassination.8. If the acoustics evidence was correct (and we know know it wasn't correct at all) then anyone firing at the President from the right front not only missed the President, the Governor, the entire limousine, both wives, both Secret Service Agents, everyone on the opposite side of Elm street and all concrete and masonary structures on the opposide of Elm street but they also did not leave behind even one speck of forensic evidence that they were ever even there. As I tell my students, to believe in a front gunman is to simply believe in something for which there is NO forensic evidence of any kind. Of course people can believe whatever they choose to in life, but at least they should have the intellectual honesty to admit that they believe in something for which no forensic evidence exists.However those findings do NOT bolster the case for conspiracy at all, especially when recent scholarship is factored in to the equation and one admits that the very basis for belief in a conspiracy (acoustics) was flawed and without evidentiary merit.
On 29-Dec-2009, Linda wrote: To Students of Real History:Not only did the HSCA find that the JFK Assassination was the result of a probable conspiracy and recommend that the Justice Dept investigate further, they also concluded that there might have been a conspiracy involved in the killing of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.Go to history-matters.com. It's all there, the official documents of their findings.The only travesty here is that nothing has been done since to further the investigation. Well, not by the government anyway. There have been researchers such as the late Mary Ferrell who devoted their lives to uncovering the coverup and the lies, and to finding the truth. A Democracy is only as good as the people running it, and the people voting for the people running it. When truth and justice are sold out for political expediency and the almight dollar, the truth will remain buried. When dissenting witnesses and citizens are harrassed, intimated, and even murdered into silence, Democracy remains threatened. When 98 percent of the wealth of a nation is harbored by only 2 percent of same nation, Democracy remains threatened.When a nation's main sources of information, it's media are owned and controlled by just a few mega corporations, Democracy remains threatened.As it was once stated, history is written by the winners. Those who murdered, cheated, stole, and bribed their way into power are the winners. You have only to look at some of our leaders since JFK. Look at their history. Nixon, HW Bush, W Bush, Cheney, the list goes on.I am not stating that every President since or elected leader since has done this. But look at the results. We still have no followup investigation into the most notorious murder in our nation's history. What does that say about our leadership? What does that say about OUR safety?? If they can murder the leader of the free world in broad daylight in the middle of the street in front of thousands of witnesses and get away with it, they can get away with anything.All the terror alerts and precautions and safety measures in the world will not protect our people. What good is a strong Secret Service and a strong military when you have incidents like the murder of a President and 9/11 carried out with no resistance whatsoever??The torch will continue to be passed again and again to new generations. If we do not correct the mistakes of history, we are doomed to repeat them.
On 29-Dec-2009, Linda wrote: Mr. Saunders:Are you going to have those students that you were speaking to completely abandon and ignore the SECOND Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination? You are a professor of history right? The investigation did not end with the Warren Report, remember? The House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979 did more research and interviewed many new witnesses. Their finding?? PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS ASSASSINATED AS THE RESULT OF A PROBABLE CONSPIRACY. You cannot cherry pick historical facts to suit your own conclusions, you have to look at everything presented. By ignoring the second Congressional investigation, you are doing a dis-service to the very students you are attempting to educate.
On 29-Dec-2009, Jon wrote: Andrew Saunders, or Alan SIF, IF, you actually want to continue the free and open discussion, publish your email address and I would be happy to continue.The basic problem I have is that "WC Apologists" use the same justification for their view point that "Conspiracy Theorists" do. But, when "Conspiracy Theorists" don't immediately accept the WC findings, they are attcked personally.Either eye witnesses are viable sources or they are not. The WC can't pick and choose which witnesses to accept. All witnesses must be heard and their statements investigated completely.What shows up on the internet is that any witness that does not agree with the WC is deemed "mistaken". Yet if the witness agrees, no matter whether they have changed their story several times or not, then their statement is fact.How can 100's of credentialled, professional witnesses all be wrong?Anyway, publish your email, we'll talk.
On 29-Dec-2009, Linda wrote: Despite the question of identity, I must take issue with Mr.Saunders on his point number 5 in which he states "Oswald acted guilty and was dripping with guilt."By that does he mean the part where Oswald states on camera "I emphatically deny these charges"! or the part where he says "I need someone to come forward and provide me with legal counsel." This is not a man acting guilty, this is a man acting scared, and being denied basic civil rights such as the right to a phone call which he was not given for 24 hours after arrest, being forced to undergo interrogation for hours without legal counsel, and being forced to participate in a lineup where the participants looked nothing like him in either height, weight, hair color or anything. I am no law enforcement officer but the purpose of a lineup is to place people with similar characteristics together and try to get the witness(es) to identify the real guilty party. Oswald didn't even know what he was being charged with when they first brought him into the station. You can tell this by the comments he made to reporters.It also really concerns me that a so called professor of history would not know basic civil law better than that and would make statements like "dripping with guilt". You don't make judgements based on conjecture, you make them based on fact, especially in a court of law where someone could be on trial for their life.
On 29-Dec-2009, Linda wrote: Also checked California Teacher Credentialing, no such person certified to teach under that name.
On 28-Dec-2009, Andrew Saunders wrote: Ralph, To clarify yet another misleading statement made by Jon, visiting ASSOCIATE professors are not listed on any faculty Internet sites associated with ANY university. We do not have offices on campus, hence the term VISITING associate professors. Regular visiting professors DO recieve offices and hence are listed on university websites but not associate professors. It is clear that Jon either has never attended a university or is simply unaware of the differences between assistant professors, associate professors and tenured professors. I certainly do not need to prove my university status to Jon or anyone else. This appears to be a ruse to cast doubt on the points I have raised. Jon apparently is claiming, since the messenger cannot be trusted neither than should his message. I would be much MORE interested to read Jon's response to the points I raised. Those would be truely cogent thoughts I'm sure.Thank you for the chance to post on this website and I repeat my wishes that you will reconsider and keep the feedback option open. It is entirely possible that those previous posters who clogged up the system with venum have moved on elsewhere. I hate to see the chance for intellectual interchange gone from this (or any) website. P.S. I finish my time at UCLA December 31st and return to my home in upstate New York, but I would love to continue to raise and respond to points if you reconsider.Happy Holidays,A. Saunders
On 26-Dec-2009, Jon wrote: Ralph,Just so you know, I searched for Andrew Saunders @ UCLA. No such person exists.
On 23-Dec-2009, Andrew Saunders, UCLA wrote: Linda's comments prompted me to conclude my involvement with the feedback portion of this forum in a similar vein. I am sorry to see the feedback option discontinued on this (or any similar) site mainly because it is the feedback option that affords free and open discussion of any event. I too am an educator, I have taught Advanced Placement American History for thirty-one years and I currently am a visiting associate professor here in Los Angeles on the campus of UCLA. I would issue a rather different challenge to students of this or any historical event. Time is the great antiseptic when it comes to erroneous claims or suspicions. Research and scholarship tends to root out conspiracies rather quickly and bad guys leave behind hard evidence. In the Kennedy assassination we simply don't have this. While believing that the government was somehow involved in Kennedy's death can be fun and addicting there comes a time when one has to stand back and take stock of what has actually been revealed and take inventory of what we know for certain. This is generally a depressing task for the believers in an elaborate conspiracy. In the Kennedy assassination researchers have been unable to produce any credible evidence of any of the following claims:1. Another rifle was ever found in the TSBD or anywhere else that was in any way associated with the assassination. Early claims of a Mauser being found are easily explained. But as of today's date no other rifle has ever been produced.2. There is no bullet nor bullet fragment that cannot be traced conclusively to the Mannlicher-Carcano found in the TSBD and which was conclusively (in my opion) traced to Lee Harvey Oswald. Therefore if anyone else did fire at Kennedy, they certainly missed.3. No evidence of ANY of the photographs or films being altered in any way. I don't really take much time debunking the claims of the Zapruder films alterationists since none of them have produced any evidence of alteration--therefore there is nothing to debate. Simply stating that alteration is "obvious" is not evidence of any such alteration. Besides, those who argue for Zapruder film alteration have to ignore the testimony of Zapruder himself who stated that he saw the right front of the Presiden't head open up. And they must ignore Marina Oswald Porter repeated statements that she admits herself that she took the backyard photographs. Marina, someone who today believes her husband was innocent, STILL maintains she took the backyard photographs. As an historian who tries to remain open-minded this is unshakable testimony to me as to their authenticity.4. No name has even been linked to ANY gunman with accompanying evidence to place that gunman in Dealey Plaza with a rifle i ntheir hand at the time of the assassination. Upon close examination ALL claims of naming a gunman fall apart.5. No one has been able to successfully explain Oswald's actions leading up to the assassination nor immediately after, in my opinion. Simply stated, guilty people act guilty. O.J. Simpson was guilty and after the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman he ACTED guilty. John Wilkes Booth was guilty and after the muder of Lincoln and the attempted murder of Major General Rathbone he ACTED guilty. James Earl Ray was guilty of murdering Dr. King and after his crime he ACTED guilty. This is the way the real world operates. Following the assassination of Kennedy, everything and I mean EVERYTHING Oswald did dripped with guilt. So to students out there investigating the assassination of President Kennedy (or ANY historical event) don't let your skepticism override your common sense and intellectual honesty. There comes a time when one has to admit that when it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it swims like a duck....it IS a duck. As much fun as it might be to argue that it is really a horse; when the evidence doesn't tally up, it is time to admit the obvious. And my thirty-five years of studying the assassination of President Kennedy has led me to reach the only conclusion that I believe is supported by hard evidence: Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone was and is the sole assassin of President Kennedy.I would request that Ralph reconsider and possibly re-open the feedback forum so that honest questions can be asked and addressed by knowledgable contributors.Thank you and happy holidays.
On 21-Dec-2009, Jon wrote: Andrew,Just re-read your feed back.Gerald Ford admitted to altering the findings of the Autopsy to fit the WC's scenario. He did not change the WC report to reflect the actual autopsy findings.I will take the actual autopsy photo and JFK's personal physicians signature over any other "fact".Jon
On 21-Dec-2009, Jon wrote: Andrew,According to the Autopsy photos, and autopsy report signed by JFK's personal physician, the entry wound in the back was at the third thoracic vertebra.Either the autopsy photos are acceptable or they are not.Speculation on whether JFK's shirt was bunched is...speculation.I keep getting hammered about the "facts" from the WC and Senate Committee, yet when I site them someone objects.Whether or not the bullet wound was too high. The exit from the JFK dummies sternum area, and the totally incorrect height placement of the the two dummies shows that this test did not prove a single bullet from the 6th floor window did the deed.Jon
On 18-Dec-2009, Linda wrote: Since I am a teacher, I wanted to leave just one last post for any students who visit this site in the future. If you really want to know what JFK was all about please visit youtube and look for the video called JFK--MY BUSINESS WAS MANKIND. It is a compilation of speeches, many of which I had not heard until recently. It really gives you an insight into the man and what he was all about. I was a young girl when he was killed, and really just knew that we had lost a great leader, I had no idea how great until I listened to some of his speeches. You all hear the "Ask Not" speech but really the ones on youtube are some of the best.When you listen, you really begin to get the feeling that this President was far ahead of his time. He talks about things that are going on TODAY, and how we must be ever vigilant to protect our liberties. He served his nation honorably in wartime and because of nearly being killed in WWII in the Pacific, he was always reluctant as a Senator and as a President to commit young lives into far away conflicts. He understood the real price of war.I would also like to advise any students to continue to question everything that goes on in your country and in your government regardless of what country that may be. Do your own research, do not go with the popular consensus on any issue, take a step back and look at issues from a different perspective. To any young women reading here, please, we need more of you in high positions in both government and business, we have been under-represented far too long.Do volunteer work and get out and see how others live and what the less fortunate have to contend with, it will make you appreciate what you have. And don't forget that we also need good teachers, we don't do it for the pay, we do it to touch lives and touch the future.
On 15-Dec-2009, Andrew Saunders, UCLA wrote: I want to respond to some of the claims made by Jon. Jon falsely stated that the Discovery Channel special "Beyond the Magic Bullet" in fact supported the claim that two gunmen were firing at President Kennedy. In reality the documentary "Beyond the Magic Bullet" proved beyond any doubt that the entrance wound on Kennedy's back was much higher than his shirt would appear to be. Since Kennedy was sitting and his left arm was raised, the mark on Kennedy's shirt was misleadingly low. If Kennedy was standing the entrance would have been around the third thorasic vertebra, but he wasn't standing. When his arm was raised to duplicate his exact known position from the Zapruder film the bullet hole in the shirt shifts upwards nearly four inches to the lower neck upper back--exactly where Gerald Ford accurately changed the wording in the Warren Report. Exactly. Then when the exit wound on the throat is traced along with the back entrance wounds it reveals that a line is perfectly consistent with the Warren Report's analysis of a shot originating from the SE corner window of the TSBD. Thank you.
On 11-Dec-2009, Linda wrote: Hard to believe I had almost forgotten how the JFK assassination actually affected a member of my own family. A close relative of mine owns a restaurant in the French Quarter of New Orleans. It wasn't shared with me until just a few years ago, but during the Clay Shaw trial he received a phone call from an unnamed person in New Orleans advising him that it would be in his best interest to treat Jim Garrison with contempt if he came into his establishment for a meal. My relative told this unnamed individual that politics are checked at the door in his restaurant and he would do no such thing. He would have also treated Clay Shaw with dignity and respect regardless of his guilt or innocence in a conspiracy. This is a prime example of the atmosphere at the time of the assassination and its aftermath. Now, why would there be a need for anyone to conduct this type of witch hunt in the aftermath of the assassination of our President? There can be only one reason. Fear of people talking. One of the most glaring observations made in the years after was the large number of people associated with the killing who ended up dying of suicides and unnamed causes. It was a staggering number and the odds of something like that occurring with any other crime would probably be astronomical.
On 11-Dec-2009, Jon wrote: Ralph,Two things before you close down.I did find the Rant, Rave, and Call Names site alt.jfkconspiracy.com . Lot's of name calling and chest beating. "You better believe me or I'll beat you up". Pretty childish stuff.Can you recommend some other sites that have discussions between rational people?I would appreciate any suggestions from you.Linda,No one has yet put Oswald in the sixth floor window. Even Dallas PD said they had no hard evidence putting him there. No one saw Oswald carrying a paper wrapped package through the DSBD building. A 2 foot package seen by his neighbor has grown to 38+"'s. Why would someone intent on shooting the President as he passed the DSBD, wait until 40 minutes after JFK was to have driven through to head up to the 6th floor?No documentary that has "proven" Oswald did the deed has proven anything (except that the "badgeman" didn't hit JFK, and a head shot from the rear would have killed the limo driver). What these have done is shed more doubt on the WC's conclusions.The WC, Gerald Ford, arbitrarily changed the position of the back wound to a neck wound. They fabricated the single bullet solution. They moved the time of Tippet's shooting 10 minutes to make it plasible form Oswald to have walked into him. The shells in the Tippet shooting were not matched to Oswalds gun with ballistics.Marina has recanted her testimony about taking the backyard photos. The threat of deportation, whether real or imagined, has been lifted. A photo with the "Oswald" silhouette missing has been discovered. There are photo experts pointing out things that cast doubt on these photos.The point is there is doubt, and just screaming the WC findings doesn't answer the doubt. Beating someone into submission only makes them agree to stop the beating.So I will be sad to see this site shut down. A site where people can actually discuss things rationally.Thanks Ralph.
On 10-Dec-2009, Linda wrote: One more thing for the record, let it be remembered that OSWALD WAS NEVER TRIED FOR THIS CRIME. No evidence was ever presented in a court of law to try and convict Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of President John F. Kennedy.We have this thing in our country called innocence until proven guilty. He was never proven guilty of anything. So, basically, that means what the Warren Commission came up with was theory and nothing more.
On 10-Dec-2009, Linda wrote: Ralph,What is sad is that this type person who chooses harrassment over reason is the very type that is also probably running influential factions of the government and the media. It has been a controlled ongoing process to silence any form of dissent in our country. We may not be able to post here anymore, but you can rest assured we will not go away either. We seek only truth and accountability. One day the very same people who call us nuts may find themselves in a situation where their rights as citizens will be stripped from them. It is only a matter of time. By completely believing and allowing our elected leaders to run roughshod over our civil rights year after year we will get more of the same. WE THE PEOPLE pay our leaders salaries, they are there to serve US not the other way around. Through the years some of the most influential people in our history were branded nutcases by Congress, the media and others. Had they not stood up, acted out, and refused to accept the status quo we would not have many of the privileges we enjoy in this country today and we would still be seeing sweatshops, child labor, and the like. Questioning our leaders and our government is what we should be doing on a daily basis, it is our right and our responsibility. Thank you for affording us the privilege of stating our views publicly here.
On 10-Dec-2009, Jon wrote: Went to alt.jfkconspiracy.com. Looks like a link page to a variety of For Sale sites. Did not see any way to have a debate. So what's up with this guy? He blasts away then runs and hides referencing a site that doesn't have a way of expressing anything.
Found a Typo?Click here
|Copyright by www.jfk-assassination.com||Last Update: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 00:13:36 CET|