Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More proof of JFK film fakery

[Lefty]

“The second she jumped up was the second that everyone there knew something horrible had happened,” Dr. Glover said. “This was the most sophisticated woman in the world, and she was climbing out of the back seat in a skirt and she was sliding across the trunk. You couldn’t say, ‘OK, he’s dead,’ but you knew it was horrible. It was beyond unimaginable.”–Toni Glover, Ph.D.

Toni Glover, Ph.D., JFK witness

 

The alteration of the home movies of the assassination of JFK is among the most powerful proofs of government complicity in the assassination.  We know when and where the Zapruder was faked: the original was taken to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) on Saturday, 23 November 1963.  It was an 8mm already split film that had been developed in Dallas. The substitute was brought to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 November 1963. 

It was a 16mm unsplit film developed in Rochester at a secret CIA photo lab, “Hawkeyeworks”, adjacent to Kodak Headquarters. The Zapruder camera uses a 16mm role of celluloid, where you film one side (“Side A”) and then have to take it out and flip it over to film the other (“Side B”), where to show the whole it would be necessary to develop the film, split it and splice it to run as a single strip.

Doug Horne, Senior Analyst for Military Records for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), has been the source of the most important information about this, some of which I originally published in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), but where I have published more since:

“US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication” (7 April 2010)

“The Two NPIC Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration” (24 May 2012)

“The Two NPIC Events: Analysis and Implications” (29 May 2012)

So we know when and where it was altered and by whom, which makes the resistance to film alteration by such “experts” as Robert Groden and Josiah Thompson completely absurd, unless they are maintaining that stance, not because they believe it, but to maintain the JFK cover-up...

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/03/nix-film-contradicts-zapruder-more-proof-of-jfk-film-fakery/

[deepthroat]

Nonsense.

[azza33]

**

[JaiDee]

Nonsense.

 

  Any theory -and that's all they are, and dozens of them at that - which doesn't start and end with some crazy loner who simply wanted attention by shooting the president is pure nonsense.

 

   What's more amazing than any nonsensical chatter about Cubans and Russians and Mobsters and 4th, 5th, 6th bullets, etc....is the fact that conspiracy theories are still even discussed at this late date.

 

It was all settled and done with a few hours after Oswald killed the Prez and then J.D. Tippet; people need to let these fantasies go once and for all.

[pacman]

There's no smoke without fire.

 

I don't deny that Oswald shot the President. He may have even killed him. By that I mean, it may have been his bullet that delivered the 'coup de grace', but what I won't accept is that he wasn't put up to it so as to take the blame. Whoever you believe was behind it, LHO was the fall guy necessary to divert attention.

 

A little history about Oswald is most informative. He tried to defect to Russia when he was there. An ex-marine rolling up to the Russian authorities in the middle of the Cold War wanting to join their side caused much suspicion. Rather than kicking him out, he was told to return to the US where he would be called on if needed. When Castro asked Khrushchev for help, the Russians remembered Oswald but he still hadn't proved his reliability. He was asked to shoot a retired General as a test as to where his sympathies lay. Oswald followed his orders just as he was asked. In the middle of the night he went to the General's house & fired. He only just missed the guy but the KGB knew they had someone useful.

 

We know Oswald was on the 6th floor of the Book Depository, we know he fired at the President, we know he was a crack shot, we know he was mentally unstable, we know he was involved with demonstrations supporting Cuba & handed out propaganda leaflets. But whatever he wanted to say after the shooting, he was never allowed to say because he would have revealed his connections to whoever put him up to it.

 

All these competing conspiracy theories have achieved the one goal they were designed to do. They have muddied the waters so much that anybody who declares they believe one or the other is held up to ridicule. But I firmly believe that the one theory that doesn't stand up to scrutiny is that Lee Harvey Oswald went off by himself & killed the President. As stated above, his bullet may well have been the one to do the damage but he didn't act alone. Others have drawn a different conclusion but the more evidence that comes to light, the more it is apparent that there was a second gunman.

[Lefty]

The kill shot on JFK entered from a frontward angle, exited out the back of his head. That shot would have been impossible to make from a rearward angle, which is where Oswald in the Book Depository was located. 

 

The Arlen Spector magic bullet theory was the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever heard. 

[JaiDee]

Pick up Vincent Bugliosi's book on the subject and you may change your mind; but not very likely, conspiricists hate it when those damn pesky things called facts are put up in their way.

 

 

             "Everything pointed towards Oswald's guilt. All the physical evidence, all the scientific evidence. Everything he said, everything he did.  I put forth 53 separate pieces of evidence pointing towards Oswald's guilt. It would not be humanly possible for this man to be innocent and still have 53 pieces of evidence pointing towards his guilt. Only in a fantasy world could that be true."

 

  Call me crazy -wouldn't be the first time - but when a former prosecutor from Los Angeles puts 7 years of 80 hour weeks into researching and writing his 1600-page magnum opus and concludes it was done by one lunatic with a rifle who was trying to make a name for himself, I take it a lot more seriously than some armchair historians on a message board.  No offense to anyone here, of course, as we all have our opinions;  but no one has done the research this guy has.

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

 

 

A great, brand new article on the 50th anniversary of the murder completely debunking what conspiracy people claim is ''nonsense' about the single bullet theory;       

  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/11/john_f_kennedy_conspiracy_theories_debunked_why_the_magic_bullet_and_grassy.html

 

   But the best part of this thread for me is that the Zapruder film is a fake!  Which means, of course, we can finally put to bed that outrageous, absurd, laughably comical piece of trash put forth by Oliver Stone called "JFK".... thanks to Lefty  we now know that worthless movie was all based around a fake piece of film, therefore making it all complete and fantastical crap, something I knew back in 1991. 

[pacman]

   But the best part of this thread for me is that the Zapruder film is a fake!  Which means, of course, we can finally put to bed that outrageous, absurd, laughably comical piece of trash put forth by Oliver Stone called "JFK".... thanks to Lefty  we now know that worthless movie was all based around a fake piece of film, therefore making it all complete and fantastical crap, something I knew back in 1991. 

 

Fake? You know it's not fake & the fact that the FBI or the CIA or someone felt it necessary to alter it only shows how desperate they were to keep the original uncut version from ever being seen. It's not rocket science to figure out that version shows something that doesn't support the FACTS. And I use the word ironically because if the federal agencies weren't covering up something then all they needed to do was to show the Zapruder film in its entirety with no editing & the whole world could draw the same conclusion.

 

And that conclusion is the very same one they wanted in the first place - Oswald did it. 

 

But they held a sham enquiry, they removed a crucial part of the film, they threatened witnesses & even bumped a few off according to some reports, they withheld information, THEY EVEN HAD TO KILL THEIR ONLY SUSPECT, they did everything but hold an open & fair enquiry all in the name of arriving at the conclusion Oswald did it. If that was the case, why the necessity for all this other bullshit?

 

Because there were people waiting to talk & film waiting to be seen & most of it does not support the official line.

 

As for Vince Bugliosi's magnum opus, I am sure he makes a compelling case but I bet it was vetted before he was ever allowed to publish it. Imagine if he arrived at another conclusion, his book would never have seen the light of day.

 

There are many conspiracy theories that are just stupid. Most of them don't stand up to any serious scrutiny but the reason why I keep coming back to the JFK story & all the conspiracies surrounding it is because all the hiding, all the censorship, all the acts of desperate people have been carried out by the very people tasked to deliver the truth. For 50 years they have been doing anything but & it is time some people asked why. 

[deepthroat]

There's no smoke without fire.

 

Absolutely.

 

Guess that means flying saucers, loch ness monsters, sasquatches, leprechauns, and Santa Clause are all real as well.

[JaiDee]

Hang on now, are you telling me there are NO conspiracies we should believe in??

 

  How about the brand new one, where Loretta Fuddy, the lady from the Hawaii board of health and  the woman responsible for releasing the Obama birth certificate, was mysteriously killed in a plane crash this week; while NO ONE else on board was killed?  Huh, HUH?? 

 

  This was an obvious case of the Obama administration killing someone to keep their mouth shut -even though she was, ummmm, on his side  - the same way the military/industrial complex/CIA/Mafia/Cubans/Khruschev/Santa and the Easter Bunny HAD to silence Oswald for all he knew! [Despite the fact he knew nothing - but that's missing the point! Loose ends MUST be tied up!]

 

    Even real estate mogul and favorite guest of the very believable and hardcore news source Fox & Friends, Donald Trump - the only person in history ever to go bankrupt in the only business on earth in which people give you their money for nothing - weighed in on this one; it's an obvious, blatant cover-up and a conspiracy!  Open your eyes, sheeple!

 

 

 

[pacman]

Guess that means flying saucers, loch ness monsters, sasquatches, leprechauns, and Santa Clause are all real as well.

 

Seriously?

 

Hang on now, are you telling me there are NO conspiracies we should believe in??

 

Yes, I get it. I wasn't expecting you or Deepthroat to change your minds but thought you may find this new stuff interesting. I guess not.

 

I won't be changing my mind any time soon. It insults my intelligence to accept the official line when it has been so blatantly corrupted. And after 50 years of smoke, there is a fire burning that refuses to go out.

 

There aren't just a handful of misguided souls in the world who think something else happened  -  there are literally millions of people who believe they have been lied to. 

[JaiDee]

That's understood, believe me.....even on this forum it's pretty much split down the middle Paccie, you have Lefty and Willie and a few other guys, then there is me and DT and a few others on the other side....same as most of the polls you would see, pretty much a 50/50 split.

 

I think, by this stage of our lives, it would be hard to convince either side to change their view on this topic.  Almost like arguing about religion, the death penalty, abortion, gay marriage, global warming,  etc......... people take their stance on the JFK deal and hardly ever waver. 

[Lefty]

I would like one of you "LHO did it" fellows to explain how, from the rearward angle he was supposedly at, could have fired a shot that hit JFK from the front? The kill shot entered his head from the front and exited out the back. That is undeniable. How was LHO able to accomplish that? 

[JaiDee]

It didn't hit JFK from the front, it was a rear shot which blew the top front of his head off.

 

 If you subscribe to the school of thought that says some CIA marksmen were hiding in the grassy knoll and took their shot at the exact same time Oswald took his, an extremely well-coordinated and well-timed effort with some loser whom no one wanted any part of, you would surely believe it was a frontal head wound.  Again, the highly fictional piece of tripe put forth by Oliver Stone called JFK really drove this point home, again and again.....and also many conspiracy theories lead with that assumption.

 

Seems like everyone from Doctors to forensics experts have a hard time agreeing exactly what would happen in that scenario though; some are on the ''Oswald did it'' side, some are on the conspiracy side; that's why books keep on selling.

 

But if you subscribe to the lone gunman theory you would see that it was a rear shot which exited through his right front forehead.  Again, whichever side you or anyone else is on right now it's unlikely you would be swayed at this late date by some posts on a ladyboy message board. 

[JaiDee]

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html

 

 Between frame 312 and frame 313, when the head shot occurs, you can clearly see his head move forward; that's because the shot came from the back, pushing out the front of his head with violent force.

 

  If the shot came from the grassy knoll, anything other than a .22 fired at that close of a distance would have taken his head clean off and we would not be having this discussion today because no one would doubt someone other than Oswald did it.

[deepthroat]

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html

 

 Between frame 312 and frame 313, when the head shot occurs, you can clearly see his head move forward; that's because the shot came from the back, pushing out the front of his head with violent force.

 

  If the shot came from the grassy knoll, anything other than a .22 fired at that close of a distance would have taken his head clean off and we would not be having this discussion today because no one would doubt someone other than Oswald did it.

 

Ah, but you forgot... the Zapruder film has now been *proven* to have been doctored.....

[JaiDee]

Awww hell, I KNEW I had heard that quote somewhere!

 

Damn movie buffs on this site, you catch me every time

 

 

Anyone wanna guess how someone's head would look if some Russian, Mafia, CIA, IRS, FBI, NSA, Cuban, Doctor Evil-type character was hiding in the bushes less than 100 feet in front of the motorcade? Lets see if my buddy Route67 can come up with the movie THIS quote came from to describe what would happen;

 

"They would be picking up your friends pieces with a sponge"

 

Or, if you prefer another Hollyweird version, watch the very end of this clip;

 

 

[JaiDee]

Ah, but you forgot... the Zapruder film has now been *proven* to have been doctored.....

 

  Yes, yes, I know......the new evidence completely throws out the window any evidence compiled from  from the Zapruder film, which is now made worthless by the new, proven evidence [and surely a few more books sold].

 

    But, but......"back and to the left" [repeated 238 times for clarity in that awesome and completely believable "JFK" movie, just in case people didn't hear it the first time] has to be addressed, damn it!  And in reality, just in case Abe Zapruder's film WAS real, the head moved forward first before it went "back, and to the left." Because, errrr, the shot came from the rear and the bullet was then forced out the front of his forehead.

 

    Conspiracy theories are fun....doesn't mean any of 'em are right or true, but they are indeed fun.  And they give us something to chat about on threads like this so I say keep sending 'em up! 

[JaiDee]

May I ask a question of the proponents of conspiracy?

 

  Your guy Oswald is definitely part of any plot to kill the president, correct? He was obviously set up as a patsy, and the 3 empty gun shells found at the 5th floor of the book building may have come from his gun, and he may have pulled the trigger, but there were others involved - CIA, Russians, Cubans, Mafia, etc..... no one is ever clear on just who -  who set up the REAL kill shot from the front which killed the prez; Oswald just took the fall.

 

       So, if any of these groups were working with him, wouldn't they be just a LITTLE pissed off that their main player is out there taking pot shots at the Attorney General of Texas, Edwin Walker, just 6 months earlier?  Why draw attention to your huge plot by having your main guy trying to assassinate the A.G.?  If Oswald were to get caught doing that in April, and he almost was, wouldn't that screw up your plans to kill the president in November?

 

   Seems to me that once these groups - and again, no one ever can say for sure who was behind Oswald, just *somebody* - found out their guy was a loose cannon, no pun intended, they would have ditched him from their larger plans to kill JFK 6 months later and found another ''patsy''.  Seems to me ultimate secrecy and superb planning would have to go into effect for a long time before the actual assassination, not some cowboy screwing up your plans by taking a shot at a lesser-known figure and messing up everything.

 

  Again, no plot......just some crazy guy wanting to make a name for himself; when it failed against Walker he found a bigger, better target and did it right.

 

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130511-before-gunning-for-jfk-oswald-targeted-ex-gen.-edwin-a.-walker--and-missed.ece

[pacman]

Us proponents of conspiracy? I reject your implication that because I have a doubt about JFK that I see conspiracies everywhere I look. I have learnt not to rely on everything one might hear in the media but I certainly don't go round conjuring up scenarios on anything that can't easily be explained. I will address your questions on behalf of those proponents because I can explain my motives not because I identify myself as a serial conspirator. 

 

I completely accepted the official version of events surrounding JFK for many years. The first time I came across reports that we had been lied to was a complete shock to me. The reports kept coming & I kept not wanting to think that they had any basis of truth. I did what most did, read them, talked about them but all the time was sure that we wouldn't be lied to about something so important. It was when it was revealed that the process for revealing the truth had been corrupted I started to have some big doubts. 

 

In no particular order - why was there 6 seconds cut from the Zapruder film? Why was certain evidence either ignored or altered? All those people running & pointing to the grassy knoll yet it was considered irrelevant. And the stories about key witnesses mysteriously dying? That was huge here in Oz at the time. I suspect our media made much more of it then in the US, but I admit I don't know. I remember that last bit was very troubling, WTF was going on & why were two questions that bothered me.

 

Then were allegations about the CIA, the Mafia, the Russians, Cuba, the man on the moon, etc. Now I was in a perfect bind - if someone was to present the 'truth', I would no longer know whether to believe them. And that is what makes me so suspicious when I am told to stop thinking about it, Oswald did it, end of story. After all the books, films & documentaries I have absorbed I can't help but think it wasn't that simple because if it was, why was there so much deception with the official story? The Warren Report wouldn't have been a sham if it was so cut & dried. 

 

As to Oswald firing at the Attorney General, rather than pissing off his 'handlers', is it not possible he was doing their bidding? As I wrote previously, one theory goes that he was a sleeper for the Russians. They didn't trust an ex-Marine turning up in Russia wanting to change sides but they weren't so silly not to consider he may be useful. Before Oswald could be tasked with anything 'big', he had to show he could be relied on. Pick an easy target & see where his loyalties lie. And if LHO had issues with Texas, firing at the AG isn't going to lead to awkward questions at to why he did it in case he was caught. 

 

If this is the case, rather than Oswald being a 'loose cannon', he was a handy person to have inside the US. And they knew he wasn't mentally stable which made him the perfect 'patsy'. Rather than screwing up their plans, he enabled the plan to happen. 

 

But I am not convinced by this story. Oh sure, I have been arguing against the official verdict all this time but only because there are too many flaws in the reaching of that verdict. And I did love the German documentary, it was so professionally done. I will spare everyone the synopsis but after two years of travelling the globe & interviewing people who had never been spoken to before (plus the cost of the thing!), they turned up some amazing information. 

 

Now there's the new documentary that I also like. This one ties in all the 'weird bits' into a simple explanation with an outrageous conclusion. The retired Australian homicide detective who made it spent four years forensically investigating all the evidence & made some relevant discoveries. The major one for me is that those close to the President's car, plus those in the cars behind him, all of them bar 8 people (I think it was 8) swore they heard a much louder gun go off right near them & they were all assailed by the smell of gunpowder. All 65 of them! And their evidence was suppressed & they were threatened if they went public.

 

Now even someone who absolutely holds the official line dear to their heart must ask themselves, WTF is that all about? 

 

Allow me to tell you. Oswald was firing from 80 to 100 yards away. (And he fired two bullets, not three, the other shell was discarded some way away from where he was located, apparently they leave a shell in the weapon between use! Who knew?) From that distance, his first bullet penetrated the President's neck & left his body with only a small exit wound. The second one hit both the President & the Governor, again leaving small exit wounds. After a pause while everyone was spinning around to look up at the Book Depository from where they heard gunfire, there was an almighty bang accompanied by smoke thick in the air along with the unmistakable smell of cordite & the President's head was near blown off. 

 

Now it is obvious as to why all the BS had to take place. Oswald knew he had been framed & his testimony would have been dynamite. He could never be allowed to talk & those who wanted to set the record straight were intimidated into being quiet. We can all speculate as to who was behind it, the documentary neatly sidesteps that by declaring it an 'accident'. 

 

By the way JaiDee, you once posted that most Americans stopped questioning this long ago & no longer think it an issue. I recently read that nearly three quarters of the American public don't believe the official verdict.

 

 

 

 

 

[JaiDee]

I think it's more like 50/50 but of course it depends on which poll you follow. From my own personal experience, I literally don't  know ONE person in my family or group of friends who believes Oswald was anything but a lone shooter/nutjob seeking fame and glory.  In fact, if you ask anyone where I live "do you think there was a plot to kill JFK" they will look at you like you have 2 heads. So I have no idea where that 75 or 50% total comes from, maybe the deep south?  Certainly not in New England.

 

    I admire your dedication to this topic, Paccie! Especially for an Ozzie;  hell, I bet most Americans don't know even half of what you know about this case.  And frankly, I wish more people would speak up on this thread; I am sure dozens of people have seen it, and of course everyone has an opinion about it, so why the silence?  As you can see it's a rational discussion with good points made for both sides. And by the way, I didn't mean you were a proponent of ALL conspiracies, just this one, which you have made clear.

 

   Not buying that some handlers ordered Oswald to take a shot at Walker, sorry.....and methinks you are giving him way too much credit and the various intelligence agencies not enough credit. No one would work with a failure like that; he was a loser seeking to make a name for himself and any reputable intelligence service would have nothing to do with him.

 

   By the way.....his job, which was extremely vital to the plan, correct?  I mean, he had to be in that building on that day and at that time to fire the shots while his co-conspirators were firing from the grassy knoll.....wouldn't that be up to the CIA or the Cubans or whoever was handling his case to make sure he was there?  And yet, he coincidentally was given that job just a few weeks earlier on the recommendation of his neighbor Ruth Paine, the lady who spoke Russian and spent so much time with Marina. Was she in on the plot also?  If not, how could his handlers be so sure he would be at the window at that perfect time?

[pacman]

I don't give that poll I mentioned a lot of credence - you know how they work, someone once got a result of 70% or more of those polled who doubted the official line & that figure becomes the quoted number for ever & a day without considering that people may have changed their mind. And interestingly I don't think you would find an Australian who believes the verdict, I was going to refer to my friends but if there's an Aussie reading this who think Oswald acted alone, speak up. The case received massive airtime here over the years. People can still say where they were when the news was announced. It wasn't treated as some American curiosity, it had far more coverage than when our own Prime Minister disappeared while swimming at the beach. (Seriously, google Harold Holt.)

 

I don't share your opinion of Oswald either. I don't know if you are aware that he was an extremely intelligent person. He taught himself fluent Russian in something like 18 months, he read all the great Russian literature & was fully conversant with all their music. Dumb people don't behave like that. He was also in the top bracket of sharp shooters in the Marines. He was the ideal traitor. 

 

I can't say if he was instructed to shoot the AG, it was claimed to be the case in something I read. I don't know why it is hard for you to accept he took on the AG because he was asked. It's equally hard to imagine he would just go off & do it of his own volition. Neither of us can say what happened, my version fits with the idea that Walker was the test run. By the way, all those conflicting claims made about LHO are exactly the modus operandi of any organisation that wants to cover their tracks.

 

Your depiction of him as a failure & a loser may be applied to the strange life he led when he returned from Russia but it isn't an accurate depiction of the man. He had a very high IQ & his ability to turn up on time should not be questioned. Rather than him being just some nutcase who no reputable intelligence agency would deal with, they would have found a capable intellectual who could be manipulated & knew how to fire a gun. The fact he was also a nutcase made him the dream candidate.

 

Whether Ruth Paine was in on the plan, I have no idea. I doubt she could have known the President was due to visit but she may have been told. Whether she knew or not isn't the point. Obviously Oswald's contacts knew, even if it was only a day or two before, that's more than enough time. As to your last question, that one is easy. Oswald wasn't going to miss his big day. This was the day he got his vengeance against the US. He wouldn't have missed it for anything. Plus there is some evidence he was drugged. He was described as being completely catatonic after the shooting.

 

Finally I think I know more about the JFK assassination than most because I have read so much about it. None of what I read was in defence of the official verdict & as I wrote, there's way too much smoke for there to be no fire. Tell some of your friends there is new information going around about JFK which points to a giant cover up. You may find some of them still hold some scepticism & are not as committed as you believe. You'll never know if you never ask.

[JaiDee]

Good response Pacman, and may I suggest you add "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner to your reading list since you have read so much already.  It's not as long and detailed as the Bugliosi book but is very well done;  although I was always pretty much always a lone gunman guy, when I read that book the year it came out that sealed the deal for me.

 

  By the way,  I have heard that Oswald's Russian was average at best and in fact he had trouble learning the language; it was one of the things he and Marina fought about constantly. He also had trouble making friends in Minsk and felt that the factory work they assigned him to was ''beneath him." He may have been above-average intelligence but he wasn't super-smart and as I've said not someone the intelligence services would rely on. He was just too unreliable and weird for them to use him as the most important cog in a plan which had to be perfect in every way.

 

You may not want to waste 41 minutes viewing this clip I just located on Youtube,  but skip ahead to the 31 minute mark to see an interview done just last month with Posner; it's very well done.  There is also a brief section before that which focuses on that fool Oliver Stone, at one time a highly respected film maker who was completely humiliated with the release of his highly fictional "JFK" nonsense in 1991, which for some reason he tried to present as non-fiction and for which he has been a laughingstock with zero credibility ever since. 

 

Then read the comments section below and you will see, once again, pretty much a 50/50 split for and against conspiracy; same as in this thread and in most polls.

 

[JaiDee]

Here is another one with Stone being rightfully laughed at by more serious, thoughtful people;  fact is he's a buffoon who presented a pack of lies and made it look like fact and brought the conspiracy back to the forefront for a whole new generation of American people.

 

  The title of this clip pretty much says it all for people like me,  just ''50 years of conspiracy nonsense''

 

        But, as usual, check the comments below the clip to see how it's still about 50/50 between people who still believe in the conspiracy angle, and people who believe Oswald acted alone. Methinks the controversy will never go away, which is just plain sad for JFK's legacy.

 

[pacman]

OK. I watched the first video (the second one goes for one & a half hours!) & I think it is very well done. I was expecting a distinct bias for the official verdict but apart from Posner, all those featured support anything else. I am actually stunned that you watched it & are sticking with Posner's version of events, also the official version. I now understand where all your difficulties with accepting Oswald as someone capable of being involved in a plot come from.

 

Think about this - it's quite OK that Oswald has the skill, the acumen & the balls to act alone in the shooting but the moment it is suggested that he was recruited to do it or that he has to work in with other people, it all becomes implausible because the guy is a nutcase. Here's one way he could have been used - he is known to police as someone who hates the government. He may have even talked to his fellow protesters about shooting the President. An undercover guy hears about him, meets him, encourages him to shoot the President. He either suggests or tells him to go the 6th floor of the Depository, wait for the motorcade & then start shooting.

 

Oswald would not have known he was being set up. He may have been under some hypnotic suggestion, he may have been drugged, he may just have been the gullible fool he was made out to be. The other shooter is told to wait until he hears gunfire. There's your convoluted plot right there. Oswald fires two rounds & some 5 seconds or so later, he hears & sees another bullet hit the President. There never had to be anything more complicated about it..

 

Posner goes on about how the Feds & the Mafia couldn't knock off Castro after trying 11 times like that's the reason why this couldn't work. It's a completely specious argument, previous results have no bearing on future outcomes. Investment advisors drum that into us all the time. All that incriminating stuff about Castro is nothing more than a red herring.

 

Posner hangs much of his case on Oswald's unreliability & makes much of the Soviet's recently released report that he was found to be crazy, or words to that effect. Yes, he was an unreliable misfit who wanted revenge for his treatment in the Marines. He's the epitome of useless but it's OK that he shot the President all by himself but it's not OK that someone was quietly waiting for the sound of gunfire so they could join in. He can't be the both too hopeless to take the lead role in the plot to shoot the President yet all on his own, he goes & does exactly that. And he doesn't have to be aware that he's part of plan. In fact the less he knew the better.

 

Posner made a good point about anyone firing from the grassy knoll, where's the bullet? It disappeared. Yes it did but for any discussion about who's to blame, that is all beside the point. We're not going to settle who shot when here on this forum after 50 years. And thinking about one way to confuse the situation, what's wrong with a plan that has another operative (the three tramps perhaps?) sitting behind the fence on the grassy knoll also waiting for the sound of gunfire who then fire a blank cartridge designed to create total confusion as to the direction of the kill shot? That would be perfect cover, everyone's completely confused about what's happening, ipso facto, Oswald did it.

 

Apart from people wanting to believe that Oswald was "unreliable", the little evidence we have points to him not being unreliable. Here's what we are meant to believe - he was too unreliable to be involved in a perfect plan but not so unreliable that he couldn't do it himself. The mention of any plot invokes a howl of protest because Oswald is just some crazy guy incapable of doing someone's bidding yet this same crazy guy pulls off the assassination of the century all with two shots that leave... how many was it? 9 or 10 exit wounds?  I thought it was only 3 or 4 exit wounds but apparently not & once they started describing a bullet that had to go up, down & sideways, then the whole charge against Oswald becomes ridiculous. 

 

Finally Oliver Stone. I watched his JFK movie twice, once when it was released, later on TV. He's more guilty of making a boring movie than making a fool of himself. I don't get your hatred & I have never heard him being referred to as a laughing stock. How his film was received has zero to do with what might or might not have happened. It simply isn't logical to argue that Oliver Stone is a fool who made a ridiculous movie that no one liked therefore everything in it must be wrong. Which is in effect what you are saying. 

 

Oh there is more - how can you watch that clip & ignore two of the most incredible comments, one by Nixon when he recognises Jack Ruby as the guy he put on a committee at the behest of Johnson & the other by Johnson himself when he says today's the day when I'll be free of my tormentors, or something like that. 

 

Watch the whole thing again JaiDee & come back & tell me there isn't overwhelming evidence to implicate LBJ & the CIA plus it proves (YES, PROVES!) the Warren Commission was a farce. Posner speaks well but apart from his arguments against Cuban & Russian involvement which I can freely accept, the rest of his story starts to come apart once one looks into it. Really looks into it. Take your patriotic hat off & think about how flimsy his well spoken points actually are. He bangs on about stuff that actually don't make a blind of bit of difference. But he says it so convincingly. 

 

That's a great doco by the way & there was nothing to shake my resolve, quite the reverse actually. God I'm going to miss this thread when we all get tired of it.