logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Were the Kennedy assasinations conspiracies?, Or is it as simple as it's made to look?
johnlocke
post Nov 22 2003, 06:13 AM
Post #1


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 683
Member No.: 709
Joined: May-4-03

From: To Your Right.
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Well I think that the question says it all.

I urge people to talk about what they believe happened and who was involved. Anything, just try and have some credible evidence.

I started this thread per Nighttimer's post in another thread and it seemed like something we should debate her because I read an ABC poll that said 81% of Americans don't buy the government's story.

I'll give a few pages to get started:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sites.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/jfkconspiracy.

http://jfkennedy.8m.com/

http://www.jfk-online.com/nbctranscript.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Hobbes
post Nov 22 2003, 06:26 AM
Post #2


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,338
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



The thing that most stikes in my mind about the Kennedy assasination is the head wound itself. The wound in the back of his head definitely strikes me as an EXIT wound. That places the shooter in front of him, not in back. Also, I find the whole Ruby thing very interesting--what would be his motive if there weren't some sort of conspiracy (he didn't strike me as someone that politically motivated)?

However, I heard an interesting story tonight from one of the reporters that originally covered the story. Apparently, all the reporters of the event got together a few years ago, and hashed over their stories--many had done years of research on the subject. It ended up with someone suggesting they do a secret ballot as to whether any of them supported the conspiracy theory. Not a single one of them did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 22 2003, 06:28 AM
Post #3


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I was ten years old when it happened. At the time, Dad was very suspicious of the Warren Commission Report, especially when Lyndon Johnson ordered the documents sealed until the year 2000, ostensibly to protect innocent people.

I remember seeing a report on television showing a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle. The expert who was examining it (I don't remember the name) pointed out that the shadows were wrong; the photograph had been "doctored."

I saw on CBS live television Jack Ruby come up to Lee Harvey Oswald and shoot him. Once again, scanty details to the public. It looked suspicious.

There were many possible organizations to suspect. Kennedy was Catholic; there was a segment of the population that believed that the Pope was going to be running things if Kennedy was elected. Robert F. Kennedy, as Attorney General, had incurred the wrath of J. Edgar Hoover. The mob was believed to be against the Kennedys. And Castro, against whom there had been unsuccessful assassination attempts by the CIA, was also suspected.

I don't know who finally did it or to what organization he was (they were?) tied. But it could have also been the angry husband or father of someone with whom Jack was playing around.

So many years have passed, and it still smells fishy...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
unabomber
post Nov 22 2003, 07:21 AM
Post #4


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 624
Member No.: 439
Joined: February-5-03

From: a little shack in colorado
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
So many years have passed, and it still smells fishy...


something like 70% of people believe the official story is a lie. I have done plenty of target shooting myself, and when ever I hit a target, it tends to fall away from me (oranges, watermelons, cans, etc...) this makes me convinced that kennedy was shot from the FRONT. (JFK's head falls back and to the left, indicating the fatal shot cam from the came from the front) I have also read (sorry no link) that ladybird johnson recorded in her diary that LBJ was calm when the shots were fired. (ladybird johnson was a 50% stock holder of companiess that provided ammo dumps and such. she was profiting of the vietnam war, which kennedy was trying to get out of by '65, johnson stode to make millions. ) it has also been shown that in the summer of '63, kennedy and castro were talking PEACE. (according to the discovery-times channel)

This post has been edited by unabomber: Nov 22 2003, 07:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 22 2003, 07:49 AM
Post #5


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



The gun Oswald supposedly used was a bolt action, Italian war surplus rifle, a Mannlicher Carcano, nicknamed (in Italian) "the Humanitarian" for its lack of accuracy in World War II.

There were reportedly 3 shots fired, "bam, bam, bam" quickly, according to reports. Except a bolt action rifle would take longer to shoot. Also, the accuracy factor has to be taken into consideration. That was literally a long shot, a very difficult one even for an expert marksman.

This adds to the suspiciousness of the Warren Commission's findings.

(Edited to say: My dad suspected Lyndon Johnson, too.)

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 22 2003, 07:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugo
post Nov 22 2003, 03:20 PM
Post #6


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,584
Member No.: 362
Joined: December-28-02

From: Houston
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Fact 1: The Kennedy's were responsible for Marilyn Monroe's death.

Fact 2: There has been documentation of possible mafia involvement in Kennedy's death. Think Italian.

Fact 3: Marilyn's ex-husband who obviously still loved her at the time of her death was Italian. In his baseball career he struck out a mere 381 times while hitting 369 home runs nearly a homer for every strike out. He had an excellent eye. It was an Italian rifle and he was famous enough that he could move about without drawing suspicion.

Now that Joe D. is dead the truth can come out.

The fact is every conspiracy theory I have ever read I have also seen refuted. The sime rifle has been tested and shown quite capable of getting off three accurate shots in the time period involved. Testing also showed that Kennedy's head movement was also, due to the whiplash effect, a natural reaction to a shot from behind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Nov 22 2003, 03:55 PM
Post #7


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



ABC News just did a two hour special on the JFK assassination (as I posted in that other thread...)

The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy

As Hugo said, every conspiracy theory has been disproven.

Not one credible evidence has come forth having first hand knowledge of any conspiracy.

The human body reacts to a gunshot in unpredictable ways. Ballistics experts will tell you that you cannot predict how someone is shot will react (due to muscle contractions and other factors). How can a person shot in the stomach fall toward the shooter? His stomach muscles contract, causing him to "hunch forward" and fall forward.

The autopsy, although poorly done, was consistent with an entrance wound in the back of the head.

The fact that people hated Kennedy does not mean that they would have him killed. Castro is on record as saying it would have been the stupidest thing to attempt, since the US military was itching for any excuse to invade Cuba. Why would he give them the excuse they needed? Castro did threaten US leaders for backing "terrorists who want to kill Cuban leaders" about a year before the assassination. But why would Castro use a known Cuban sympathizer (there was TV footage of Oswald handing out pro-Cuba propaganda on the streets), which would only allow the US military to flatten Cuba?

There have been hundreds of mobsters who rat on their bosses over the last 4 decades. However, not one has ever said that the mob was involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK.

If you believe it was the FBI or CIA, the question must be asked why subsequent administrations would not uncover the plot. Why would Nixon or Ford or the ever-so-honest Carter not expose such a heinous conspiracy? There is no evidence against the CIA or FBI and there never will be any (one way or the other). So to believe that, it must be on faith and not on hard evidence. There is no way to disprove an argument which has no evidence FOR it to begin with.

There is simply no evidence of a conspiracy in JFK's assassination. Now RFK, I haven't looked into as deeply.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NiteGuy
post Nov 22 2003, 06:14 PM
Post #8


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 962
Member No.: 930
Joined: July-26-03

From: Teardrop City
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(unabomber @ Nov 22 2003, 02:21 AM)
Something like 70% of people believe the official story is a lie.

Not surprising. A large percentage of people seem to find conspiracy theories of any kind convincing. This is from disinfo.com:
QUOTE
Who believes in conspiracy theories?
Most people do. According to polls, most Americans agree that the scenario posed by at least one conspiracy theory is very likely or somewhat likely. On June 25-29, 1997, a survey was conducted of 1,009 people nationwide, with participants from every state and the District of Columbia. Guido H. Stempel III, distinguished professor of the EW Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University and Thomas Hargrove of the Scripps Howard News Service conducted the survey. The results have a 4% margin of error with a 95% confidence interval, meaning that the results are projectable to all American households 95 times out of 100 plus or minus 4 percentage points. At that time:

More than half (51%) believe it is very likely or somewhat likely that government officials were "directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy."

More than half (60%) believe is likely that military officials covered up the dangers of the Agent Orange chemical.

Four-fifths (80%) believe it is likely that military officials are covering up information about American soldiers' exposure to nerve gas or germ warfare in the Gulf War.

More than one-third (40%) believe it is likely that the FBI burned down the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.

More than half (52%) believe it is likely that the CIA allowed drug dealers from Central America to sell crack cocaine to African-Americans in US inner cities.

More than one-third believe it is likely the Navy shot down TWA Flight 800 either intentionally or accidentally.

Nearly half (47%) believe it is very likely or somewhat likely that "The U.S. Air Force is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets."

Respondents were asked if the above situations were likely to some degree. The above responses included the "very likely" and "somewhat likely" answers. Note that believing that something is "somewhat likely" may be the admission of possibility, not a firm belief.


So, with something as controversial as this, of course some people believe in a consipracy. Doesn't mean it actually happened.

QUOTE
I have done plenty of target shooting myself, and when ever I hit a target, it tends to fall away from me (oranges, watermelons, cans, etc...) this makes me convinced that kennedy was shot from the FRONT. (JFK's head falls back and to the left, indicating the fatal shot cam from the came from the front)

I have also done a lot of target shooting (competitively). And my brother is a homocide cop for a fairly large city. What you are forgetting, is that your oranges and watermellons are not attached to anything, the way a skull is attached to the spinal column. This attachment provides a "pivot point" and a whiplash effect, that when combined with damage done to nerves and muscles, could absolutely cause the effect seen in the Zapruder film. Nothing seen here is inconsistant with being shot from behind.

The other thing I hear most often, is that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out, proving "the shot from the front" theory. This is incorrect. A look at the Zapruder film, again shows that this just isn't the case.

Oswald is shooting at a target car that is pointing "down", as the road they were on slants downward to go under the overpass they are approaching. Kennedy's head is already tilted down as well, chin almost to his chest, from the first shot. The second shot hits him in the back of the head, and actually exits the top right of his skull, between the top of his right ear, and the orbital socket of his right eye. Again, totally consistant with a shot from the rear. Proof of this can be seen in a loop of the Zapruder film here. NOTE: This film clip in NOT for the faint of heart. Note the last couple of frames before the film loops again, however, and you will see what I am talking about. The top right-hand side of the President's head is gone, indicating an exit wound, caused from a shot from behind. And at this point, of course the President is already dead, his body just doesn't know it yet.

Anyway, the point I am making is that all of the evidence, forensic and film, is completely consistant with a sole shooting from behind, and not from in front. No conspiracy need be involved at all. Add to that all of the bullets recovered came only from Oswald's gun, and it's "case closed", at least for me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
prof. odin
post Nov 22 2003, 08:44 PM
Post #9


*
New Member

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Member No.: 1,791
Joined: November-19-03

From: Atlanta, Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Other



For those of you who believe in primary source accounts, Lee Oswald's own brother has officially said on the Atlanta area news today that Lee did in fact committ the murder, and un-aided at that. He seemed one hudred percent confident that the clues in body language he received from his brother when he was first being held reveal that his attention starved brother Lee, put into an orphanage since age 3, was murdering the high-profile not for political reasons but for attention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phaedrus
post Nov 22 2003, 09:58 PM
Post #10


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 571
Member No.: 1,175
Joined: September-10-03

From: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Democrat



In Jim Garrison's book "On the Trail of the Assassins" he relates a meeting with a federal agent that got himself thrown into a Federal prison because he didn't want to be implicated in what he called 'project mongoose'. What he did was walk into a bank, fire a shot into the ceiling and walk outside and sat on the sidewalk. This was some kind of a paramilitary group planning to assassinate Castro, some think they ended up shooting Kennedy instead. There were two guns found at the school depository and at least one shot fired from the grassy knoll. Most of the wittnesses at the scene said that the shots came from there and there were two people arrested in the trainyard that look identical to Howard Hunt and Frank Struggis both of whom were key players in the Watergate scandle. Oswald was seen seconds after the shooting in a cafateria calmly drinking a coke.

There are good reasons why American's by and large do not believe the offical position of the Federal government, it just doesnt fit the facts. Lee Harvey Oswald not only didn't act alone, I doubt seriously that he even fired a shot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Nov 23 2003, 09:02 AM
Post #11


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I'm not sure where y'all have been for the past twenty-odd years, but is no one here familiar with the findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979???

The House Committee was established in 1977 to "conduct a full and complete investigation and study of the circumstances surrounding the assassination and death of Martin Luther King, Jr." with "a subcommittee on the assassination of President Kennedy". two years later, they found, in both cases, evidence of a probable conspiracy. The twelve member Committe reached their conclusions with a support staff of over one hundred attorneys, research attorneys, investigators, and administrative personnel and with more evidence and resources than were available to the Warren Commission - and without the pressure to rush to judgement. This - the findings of the US Congress - is now the "official" version.

From their Report:
QUOTE
I.B. Summary of the evidence Where it was available, the committee extensively employed scientific analysis to assist it in the resolution of numerous issues. The committee considered all the other evidence available to evaluate the scientific analysis. In conclusion, the committee found that the scientific acoustical evidence established a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John f. Kennedy...

I.C. Conclusion The committee concluded that it is probable that the President was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Nothing in the committee's investigation pointed to official involvement in that conspiracy. While the committee frankly acknowledged that its investigation was not able to identify the members of the conspiracy besides Oswald, or the extent of the conspiracy, the committee believed that it did not include the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or Central Intelligence Agency...

II.B. Conclusion The committee concluded that there was a likelihood of conspiracy in the assassination of Dr. King...

The committee found that there was substantial evidence to establish the existence of a St. Louis-based conspiracy to finance the assassination of Dr. King...

It is a matter on which reasonable people may legitimately differ, but the committee believed that the conspiracy that eventuated in Dr. King's death in 1968 could have been brought to justice in 1968.

The Committee also found that, in the JFK assassination, "Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties" and that, in the MLK assassination, "The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation performed with varying degrees of competency and legality in the fulfillment of their duties".

Having read their report in full, the real "official version" is good enough for me. Yes, there were conspiracies in at least these two assassinations. How anyone can doubt the evidence - or have any faith whatsoever in the thoroughly discredited Warren Report at this point in history is beyond me. wacko.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NiteGuy
post Nov 23 2003, 03:09 PM
Post #12


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 962
Member No.: 930
Joined: July-26-03

From: Teardrop City
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 23 2003, 04:02 AM)
I'm not sure where y'all have been for the past twenty-odd years, but is no one here familiar with the findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979???

The House Committee was established in 1977 to "conduct a full and complete investigation and study of the circumstances surrounding the assassination and death of Martin Luther King, Jr." with "a subcommittee on the assassination of President Kennedy". two years later, they found, in both cases, evidence of a probable conspiracy. The twelve member Committe reached their conclusions with a support staff of over one hundred attorneys, research attorneys, investigators, and administrative personnel and with more evidence and resources than were available to the Warren Commission - and without the pressure to rush to judgement. This - the findings of the US Congress - is now the "official" version.

From their Report:
QUOTE
[color=#AA0000][SIZE=3]I.B. Summary of the evidence Where it was available, the committee extensively employed scientific analysis to assist it in the resolution of numerous issues. The committee considered all the other evidence available to evaluate the scientific analysis. In conclusion, the committee found that the scientific acoustical evidence established a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John f. Kennedy...

The "accoustical" evidence has since been debunked. It was based on the fact that a motorcycle cop with an open radio microphone was in a particular place at a particular time. It has since been proved that he was not at the location specified by the accoustics "experts". The difference in locations puts him out of the range needed for the mic to have picked up the shots correctly, as well as a glitch in the dictabelt that recorded the sounds. That story (and the backing evidence) is here.
QUOTE(phaedrus Posted on Nov 22 2003 @ 04:58 PM)

In Jim Garrison's book "On the Trail of the Assassins" he relates a meeting with a federal agent that got himself thrown into a Federal prison because he didn't want to be implicated in what he called 'project mongoose'. What he did was walk into a bank, fire a shot into the ceiling and walk outside and sat on the sidewalk. This was some kind of a paramilitary group planning to assassinate Castro, some think they ended up shooting Kennedy instead.

Jim Garrison was a delusional crackpot who saw conspiracies in just about everything. That story is found here. For proof of this assertion, here is a listing of all the people and organizations he considered part of the "plot" to kill JFK. He names practically everyone but me in this list (and probably would have named me, except that I was only 7 years old at the time).

And if Jim Garrison's evidence was so hot, why with everyone he implicated, was he only able to prosecute only one man, Clay Shaw, only to have a jury aquit him in less than an hour? Don't tell me, let me guess. The jury was in on the cover up too.

QUOTE(phaedrus Posted on Nov 22 2003 @ 04:58 PM)
There were two guns found at the school depository

No, these stories, too, have been debunked. See here.
QUOTE
1.  The Classic Version this version begins with reports that the rifle discovered in the Depository was not a Mannlicher-Carcano, but a Mauser. All of these reports had a common origin: the identification of the rifle as a Mauser by Sheriff's Deputy Seymour Weitzman, who glanced at the gun as it lay on the floor amid a pile of boxes. This identification was repeated by other officers such as Eugene Boone, and picked up by the media. But J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Identification Bureau announced that the rifle was in fact a Mannlicher-Carcano. Was the Mannlicher-Carcano substituted for the Mauser in the chain of evidence?

2.  The LaFontaine Version In their book Oswald Talked, the Ray and Mary LaFontaine accept the "6th floor Mauser" story, and then up the ante by concluding that two rifles were found in the Depository: a Mauser on the 6th floor, and a Mannlicher-Carcano on the 4th or 5th floor. Their sole source of the "lower floor" theory is a single witness. According to the La Fontaines:
Former AFT agent Frank Ellsworth, who participated in a second search of the book depository conducted after 1:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963, according to a Secret Service document, confirms that the Mannlicher-Carcano was found by a DPD detective on the fourth or fifth floor of the building, "not on the same floor as the cartridges." He adds: "I remember we talked about it, and figured that he must have run out from the stairwell and dropped it as he was running downstairs." (p. 374)

3.  The Groden Version This theory, featured in Robert Groden's book The Killing of a President, is based on amateur movie footage shot by Ernest Charles Mentesana on the day of the assassination. The Mentesana film shows a brief scene of a cop with a long gun on a fire escape outside an upper floor of the Depository, and then cuts to a scene of several police officers huddled in a discussion. One of the officers has a long gun on his shoulder. Groden tells his readers that the film shows a rifle that was "reportedly handed down . . . from the roof to the seventh floor fire escape, and examined . . . on the street" (p. 66). Groden adds "this gun is not a Carcano, and has never been placed into evidence."

Of course, believing any of these accounts requires ignoring a lot of evidence. The rifle discovered on the sixth floor of the Depository was photographed in place by Officer Studebaker, and then its recovery was photographed on 16 mm. film by TV cameraman Tom Alyea. The rifle shown in the films is a Mannlicher-Carcano. Frank Ellsworth's story is admitted hearsay and is contradicted by literally every witness who testified about the recovery of the rifle. And Groden's "second rifle" is actually a shotgun of the kind that numerous cops had in Dealey Plaza. The officers are not "examining" it, but are merely gathered together having a discussion, with one officer holding the gun on his shoulder.


QUOTE(phaedrus Posted on Nov 22 2003 @ 04:58 PM)
Lee Harvey Oswald not only didn't act alone, I doubt seriously that he even fired a shot.

Then why were his the only fingerprints found on the rifle, including in spots that only he would have gotten them, like inside assembly points? Why only his fingerprints on the cartridges?

And if there were so many other shots being fired from different places that day, where is the evidence? No other casings were ever found, no other bullet fragments, other than from his rifle, anywhere in the car or persons shot?

Nothing whatsoever except the contention by a half dozen or so witnesses that shots were fired from the grassy knoll. Contentions that were disputed by others standing in the same area. And yet, they are to be believed above all the empirical evidence, because we know that eyewitness testimony is so accurate.

About the only "conspiracy theory" I have yet to see seriously proposed is that Abraham Zapruder, who filmed the assassination, was himself the shooter. But I'm sure someone out there will eventually try to prove this true, as well. Doesn't mean that it is, though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 23 2003, 04:57 PM
Post #13


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,355
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Nov 23 2003, 08:09 AM)
Nothing whatsoever except the contention by a half dozen or so witnesses that shots were fired from the grassy knoll.  Contentions that were disputed by others standing in the same area.   And yet, they are to be believed above all the empirical evidence, because we know that eyewitness testimony is so accurate.  


Just to add to your excellent post....Here's a link for a bit about the eyewitness testimony.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phaedrus
post Nov 23 2003, 06:26 PM
Post #14


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 571
Member No.: 1,175
Joined: September-10-03

From: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
1. The Classic Version this version begins with reports that the rifle discovered in the Depository was not a Mannlicher-Carcano, but a Mauser. All of these reports had a common origin: the identification of the rifle as a Mauser by Sheriff's Deputy Seymour Weitzman, who glanced at the gun as it lay on the floor amid a pile of boxes. This identification was repeated by other officers such as Eugene Boone, and picked up by the media. But J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Identification Bureau announced that the rifle was in fact a Mannlicher-Carcano. Was the Mannlicher-Carcano substituted for the Mauser in the chain of evidence?


The Mauser was described in testimony to the Warren Report.

QUOTE
Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt. Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz agreed with him. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. They did replace it even if the replacement was made in a different country. (See Warren Report for Italian Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 Caliber).


Of course Weitzman was questioned about this but it was off the record. This is typical of the JFK inverstigation and the Carcano may well have been substituted for the Mauser.

QUOTE
Mr. Ball.
In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. Weitzman.
In a glance, that's what it looked like.
Mr. Ball.
That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
Mr. Weitzman.
No; I said that. I thought it was one. 


Wietzman testimony

The conspiricy Garrison was trying to establish between Perry Raymond Russo, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. Russo identifies Shaw as Clem Bertrem which was an alias Clay Shaw admitted to having used but the admission was thrown out. However he was positively identified by Russo.

QUOTE
Q. Clem Bertrand?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you see the man you knew as Bertrand in the Courtroom?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you point to him?

A. (Witness pointing to the defendant.)

Raymond Russo testimony

Its important to realize that he did prove a conspiricy and the crucial evidence that implicated Clay Shaw was never heard by the jury. The case against Shaw hinged on this fact and on the rare occasions that a jury disagrees with a judge in a criminal trial is usually over evidence that the judge threw out.

This post has been edited by phaedrus: Nov 23 2003, 06:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NiteGuy
post Nov 23 2003, 07:40 PM
Post #15


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 962
Member No.: 930
Joined: July-26-03

From: Teardrop City
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



phaedrus,

Look at your own quotes a moment, concerning the rifle, will you? According to the first quote, Weitzman looked at the rifle closely. But I don't know who's saying this, because you don't give us the name of the person testifying.

Even so, look at the second quote, from Weitzman. He says it looked like a Mauser on first glance, and says nothing of inspecting the rifle closely. Nothing at all. Every time he talks about the rifle or the scope, he talks about what it looked like "at a glance". And this is from his original testimony link you provided:

QUOTE
Mr. Ball:  In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. Weitzman:  In a glance , that's what it looked like.
Mr. Ball:  That's what it looked like, did you say that or someone else say that?
Mr. Weitzman:  No; I said that. I thought it was one.


QUOTE
Mr. Ball: I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. Weitzman:  I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. Ball:  Mauser bolt action.
Mr. Weitzman:  And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.


QUOTE
Mr. Ball:  And it was equipped with a scope?
Mr. Weitzman:  Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball:  Was it of Japanese manufacture?
Mr. Weitzman:  I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it ; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.


So, since he was just seeing it "at a glance", and was also positive of the scope on it at the time, and turned out incorrect on that identification, isn't it also possible he got the exact make of the rifle wrong too? After all, the two weapons, if you've ever seen them, are remarkably similar, and the Mannlicher does use a Mauser-style bolt action.

So, who are you going to believe? Somebody else at the scene, or the guy who actually "glanced" at it?

Also, you say that this was all off the record? I think you are reading the transcript wrong. Anything said by them in the transcript is on the record. Anytime the court reporter stops their machine for "off the record" comments or discussions, it must be noted, to account for the fact that the court reporter was not taking testimony.

The questioner was required to account for the obvious stoppage in questioning to clarify a point, or whatever. You will note that there are two times that this is done in the transcript you provided. It's not the author telling you that these questions were off the record, but that other comments or whatever, were made off the record. Everything else you see there, is on the record, by the fact that they ask him to either wait for him to sign it, after it's transcribed, or to waive his signature, and let it go, as-is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phaedrus
post Nov 23 2003, 11:29 PM
Post #16


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 571
Member No.: 1,175
Joined: September-10-03

From: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Look at your own quotes a moment, concerning the rifle, will you? According to the first quote, Weitzman looked at the rifle closely. But I don't know who's saying this, because you don't give us the name of the person testifying.


Your absolutly right, I forgot to cite the source of that qoute, my apologies. The qoute is from Roger Craig, Dallas Deputy Sheriff who was on the scence immediatly following the shooting. He was the subject of the Mark Lane documentary "Two Men in Dallas". You may be more familar with his documentary "Rush to Judgment". The source of the quote is from "When They Kill A President" by Roger Craig

Unpublished transcript of a man who did not change his story

He there with Weitzman when the rifle was discovered and identified it as a 7.65 German Mauser this was confirmed by one Capt. Fritz who examined the weapon as well. At this point an unknown officer came in and reported that Officer Tippit had been murdered and he places the time at 1:08 which would have only given Olwald a few minutes to cover the 10 blocks between the Depository and the murder scene. He also investigated the area around the grassy knoll and after wittnesses told him they believed the shots to came from there. In the parking lot beyond the picket fence he found a women in a parking lot that was reserved for Dallas Deputies. The parking lot was closed with a bar, chain and a lock that only Deputies authorized to park there had. He arrested her and had her car impounded. Later he found that her and her car could not be found and never had a explanation how the Dallas Sheriffs dept had lost both the woman and the car without so much as a search or even getting her name.

There is a great deal more to be learned from Roger Craig in this transcript, the investigation, the conspiricy, cover-up and the Garrison investigation. He is by far the most credible wittness from the actual shooting to the New Orleans investigation that eventually got him fired from the Dallas Sherriff's dept.. Between him and the Russco testimony in the trial of Clay Shaw I find the official position of the Federal Government and the Warren Commision to be completely unbeliveable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NiteGuy
post Nov 24 2003, 12:59 AM
Post #17


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 962
Member No.: 930
Joined: July-26-03

From: Teardrop City
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(phaedrus @ Nov 23 2003, 06:29 PM)
QUOTE
Look at your own quotes a moment, concerning the rifle, will you? According to the first quote, Weitzman looked at the rifle closely. But I don't know who's saying this, because you don't give us the name of the person testifying.


Your absolutly right, I forgot to cite the source of that qoute, my apologies. The qoute is from Roger Craig, Dallas Deputy Sheriff who was on the scence immediatly following the shooting.

And you still ignore the fact that Weitzman says he never looked at it closely. Why is that? Doesn't fit into the theory?

These people saying this and that is all fine, but when it doesn't jive with what other witnesses, like Weitzman say, who's to say who is actually right? In my mind, Craig is no more credible witness than Weitzman. Maybe less so, since Weitzman, whom everyone agrees saw the weapon, says he only had a quick glance at it. He never says anywhere in his testimony, at any time, that he inspected the weapon closely. So, he never changed his testimony either.

As for Tippit, according to the timelines I've seen, Oswald leaves the Depository building at 12:36 to 12:38pm. Tippit is shot and killed anywhere between 1:08 and 1:15pm, which gives Oswald 30 to 37 minutes to get to where Tippit was. Hardly a major chore. He walked seven blocks, got on a bus. It's only 12:42pm. When he realized the bus, because of the traffic jams caused by the shooting, was jammed up, he gets off the bus, and is seen doing so by his landlady.

He walks 4 blocks, and hails a taxi. Time now is 12:58pm. Oswald arrives at his rooming house at 1:02pm. Oswald leaves the rooming house a couple of minutes later. Tippit arrives on post. A few minutes later, he spots Oswald, as Oswald approaches the police car, and Tippit exits the vehicle. Oswald, identified by witnesses, is seen shooting Tippit. He then runs, leaving the scene. He ducks into a shoe store entrance, and then into the Texas theater. When he is captured there, he has the revolver on him that was used to kill Tippit.

It's absurd to say he couldn't have gotten that far in 30 minutes, when he obviously could. And then to have all kinds of witnesses see him arrive at his rooming house, leave again quickly, and shoot Tippit, follow him, and notify police, who capture him.

The timeline is totally doable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phaedrus
post Nov 24 2003, 02:34 AM
Post #18


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 571
Member No.: 1,175
Joined: September-10-03

From: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
The affidavit by Police Office Weitzman, who entered the book depository building, stated that he found the alleged murder rifle on the sixth floor. (It was first announced that the rifle had been found on the fifth floor, but this was soon altered.) It was a German 7.65 mm. Mauser. Late the following day, the F.B.I. issued its first proclamation. Oswald had purchased in March 1963 an Italian 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. D.A. Wade immediately altered the nationality and size of the weapon to conform to the F.B.I. statement.


Questions of the JFK Assassination by Bertrand Russell

Mauser affidavit, news conference and announcement...etc

Weitzman did change his story, and his ambiguise answer to the Warren commission was probable due to pressure to tow the party line. You may want to consider Craig's take on the events. Craig does not insist that Oswald did not shoot Tippit he simple contends that he had a get away car that Craig had seen earlier and reported, his main contention is that this by definition is a conspiracy.

QUOTE
According to Officer Baker, Dallas Police, he talked to Oswald at 12:35 p.m. in the lunch room of the Texas School Book Depository. This would give Oswald 30 minutes or less to finish his coke, leave the building, walk four blocks east on Elm Street, catch a bus and ride it back west in heavy traffic for two blocks, get off the bus and walk two more blocks west and turn south on Lamar Street, walk four blocks and have a conversation with a cab driver and a woman over the use of Whaley's (the cab driver) cab, get into the cab and ride to 500 North Beckley Street, get out and walk to 1026 North Beckley where his (Oswald's) room was located, pick up something (?); and if that is not enough, Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper where Oswald lived, testified that at 1:05 p.m. Oswald was waiting for a bus in front of his rooming house and finally, to make him the fastest man on Earth, he walked to East Tenth Street and Patton Street, several blocks away and killed J. D. Tippit between 1:05 and 1:08 p.m. If he had not been arrested when he was, it is my belief that Earl Warren and his Commission would have had Lee Harvey Oswald eating dinner in Havana!


Craig investigated the Grassy Knoll, Depository, arrested a woman who subsequently disappeared, was fired during the Garrison investigation, suggested that the Mauser was deliberately lost under sworn testimony and never changed his story once. I consider his credibility unimpeachable and Weitzman's questionable at best.

This post has been edited by phaedrus: Nov 24 2003, 02:42 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GoAmerica
post Nov 24 2003, 04:21 AM
Post #19



Newbie

Group: BANNED
Posts: 0
Member No.: 381
Joined: January-12-03

From: Illinois, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Republican



I was watching a documentary on The History Channel about LBJ and the Vietnam war. I go to the part where it was talking about the events that led up to the catalysm that started the war. Suddenly, the narrator said that LBJ was impatient and wanted to go to war in Vietnam and so on while Bobby Kennedy kept trying to tell him not to.

Anyways, i think LBJ was somehow part of the assassination of JFK because JFK really didn't want a war in Vietnam but LBJ did
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Nov 24 2003, 06:36 AM
Post #20


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I have always thought that it was Oswald acting alone; I think conspiracies about this are easy to come by - for one, conspiracy theories by nature are easy, because life is messy, and there are aways strange happenings, coincidences, and anomalies, and secondly, many people want to believe that there was something more, that this beloved figure couldn't have just been killed by one man, without some significant conspiracy.

Of course, now I know the truth - and I'm surprised no one has brought this up, because it's there in full color film: it was the Cigarette Smoking Man, shooting from that storm drain by the grassy knoll. Duh. whistling.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: May 29th, 2020 - 01:04 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.