Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More proof of JFK film fakery

[JaiDee]

Looks like everyone else IS already tired of it, or have taken their stance and can't be swayed.  Pretty much the same as you and I.  But why only 4 or 5 people have bothered to offer their opinions on the matter is beyond me when I bet at least 20 people have read it. Everyone has an opinion one way or the other,  but only 4 or 5 people offer theirs; I thought forums were for people to send up their reasoning and debate the issues but no one wants to do that with this topic so the thread will certainly die soon, which is a shame because I also enjoy debating it.

 

  But I haven't been swayed in any way, and in fact haven't been since I first heard about all this when I was a youth and started looking into it more and more as an adult;  Oswald was a lone nutjob who wanted fame and glory and the fact that we are still discussing it 50 years later at least proves he got his wish.

[pdogg]

I think in terms of probabilities as their is no way we can ascertain the truth.

 

I assign the highest probability to Oswald acting alone and the second followed by a small conspiracy.

 

The Ruby involvement bothers me a bit, but if the intention was to silence Oswald then there's a similar problem with Ruby.  And the success of Ruby could not be assured unless it was a huge conspiracy and then too many people are involved and there'd be leaks.

[SiamSam]

Didn't Ruby have terminal cancer and died shorty afterwards? I remember a theory that because of the cancer he had nothing to lose and was paid off big money to leave his family if he did the deed. 

[pacman]

Didn't Ruby have terminal cancer and died shorty afterwards? I remember a theory that because of the cancer he had nothing to lose and was paid off big money to leave his family if he did the deed. 

 

I read exactly the same thing Sam. However he shot Oswald on November 63 & died January 67. He may well have been sick but those dates don't support the idea he was dying when he did it. 

 

That he was paid to do it I have no doubt. When Richard Nixon was watching the news & saw Ruby's picture on TV, his comment was "that's Johnson's man!". Nixon knew Ruby because when he was Vice President he had been leaned on by Johnson to make Jack Ruby a member of a House Committee. He instantly knew the cover-up was on. 

 

Ruby's stated reason for shooting Oswald was he wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy from a trial. How noble of him, the petty crook & nightclub owner suddenly turns to gallantry at the most convenient moment. And he even knew exactly what time & out of which door Oswald was being taken in the bowels of the Dallas police department. The story of how he came to be there makes most interesting reading. 

[JaiDee]

That he was paid to do it I have no doubt. When Richard Nixon was watching the news & saw Ruby's picture on TV, his comment was "that's Johnson's man!".

 

 

 So Johnson - the Vice President of the United States, one of the most important men in the whole world - paid some small nightclub owner to silence Oswald?  Or had someone pay him to do it so he could become President in the same 'coup-de-etat' mentioned in the 'JFK' science fiction movie? And managed to keep THAT quiet until he died in '67?

 

  Wow, this keeps getting more bizarre - and completely unrealistic - as this all moves on.

 

       Someone has to explain how Ruby was at the western union office 5 minutes before he shot Oswald, sending off a money payment to one of his strippers who needed some cash.  That's time-stamped and proven; seems like Johnson's Man would not have cut it so close and would have been in the station hours earlier, not just a few minutes.

 

  Reality;  Ruby was sending off a payment to a stripper friend at the Western Union near the Dallas P.D.  He decided at the last minute he'd go over and watch the transfer of Oswald, and because he had so many friends at the Dallas PD,  guys who used to frequent his club, he was let in through a side door unmolested, similar to a press guy. Hew as also in there the day before with the press guys. He then took his one chance to kill Oswald and did it because he was a patriot who loved the president, plain and simple.

 

   Another fact; Oswald, about 10 minutes before the shooting took place in the underground garage, had requested a sweater to wear because he was chilly; it's the dark blue one you see when he's getting shot, and the FBI had to scramble around to find one, which took 10 or 15 minutes to do. So in reality, the transfer was planned for a few minutes earlier, when Ruby was at the Western Union office. Johnson's Man would have totally missed his chance at silencing Oswald were it not for that weird twist of fate about wanting a sweater to wear; something a paid, professional operative would never have left to chance by still being inside the Western Union office.

 

  Top to bottom;  Ruby the day before, in dark glasses with the press guys

                          Ruby shooting Oswald, in the blue sweater he had requested

                          Johnson's Man with some strippers at his nightclub

[pacman]

I think in terms of probabilities as their is no way we can ascertain the truth.

 

The longer this goes on, the less chance there is of any official confirmation of a cover-up. If the information was available I think Obama is the type of guy who may have released it but you can be certain he was never going to be allowed to get anywhere near the records. If they still exist that is.

 

I assign the highest probability to Oswald acting alone and the second followed by a small conspiracy.     

 

 

I reverse your probabilities PD as you'd expect. 

 

The Ruby involvement bothers me a bit, but if the intention was to silence Oswald then there's a similar problem with Ruby.  And the success of Ruby could not be assured unless it was a huge conspiracy and then too many people are involved and there'd be leaks.

 

Only the Ruby involvement bothers you? There's a lot more I find troubling about this - why did J. Edgar Hoover have his final report prepared 72 hours after the event? Why was the Warren Commission such a farce? Why was so much evidence suppressed or altered? The Zapruder film is but one piece of evidence that the investigators felt it necessary to edit. Why? Why are all those people running & pointing towards the grassy knoll yet their opinions were dismissed? Why did 65 people all say the next day that they heard & smelt a louder blast much closer to the car yet none of them were ever called to give evidence? How did three bullets (the number Oswald fired is two according the ballistics people interviewed in the latest documentary) leave so many exit wounds? And how does one magic bullet travel in ways not physically possible with a different entry trajectory than is possible from the 6th floor? 

 

When those questions get answered I will be satisfied. 

 

And the old story about it could never be a conspiracy because they could never trust so many people with the truth is another of those myths that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I previously posted the names of 73 people who were there who all died within a few years of the assassination. Some of them must have died of natural causes but 73? Did they all have to be silenced? I would wager those who died unnaturally were.

 

And there have been a number of reports of death bed confessions which have not been heard of again. When the resources of an organisation like the FBI wants to keep something quiet they can do a very efficient job. And there have been many conspiracies over the years that involved larger numbers of people who all kept their mouths shut. Some of the actions in the Second World War relied on 100's to keep quiet, most of them never spoke about that stuff again in their life. Such secrets can be kept on a large scale, especially if a visit from the Feds scares someone witless.

[JaiDee]

The Fonz

 

 

[JaiDee]

 

 

How did three bullets (the number Oswald fired is two according the ballistics people interviewed in the latest documentary) leave so many exit wounds? And how does one magic bullet travel in ways not physically possible with a different entry trajectory than is possible from the 6th floor? 

 

 

  It was only 2 bullets; the first one completely missed everything.

 

 The 2nd went into the Prez through his neck, exited and struck the Governor [who was sitting in a jump seat in front of, and a little to the left of, the Prez], went  through his lung and his wrist, and landed in his thigh. The trajectory from the 5th floor was perfect for all 4 wounds.

 

The 3rd exploded the President's head from back to front.  There was no 4th or 5th shot.

[pacman]

The Fonz

 

Huh?           

[pacman]

 So Johnson - the Vice President of the United States, one of the most important men in the whole world - paid some small nightclub owner to silence Oswald?  Or had someone pay him to do it so he could become President in the same 'coup-de-etat' mentioned in the 'JFK' science fiction movie? And managed to keep THAT quiet until he died in '67?

 

That's what appears to have happened. And if I was Ruby knowing what he knew, I damn sure wouldn't be talking about it. You consistently find any suggestion of conspiratorial behaviour impossible to believe. I don't find it surprising at all. There are 1000's of criminals in the world walking free because those who know about them know to keep their mouth shut. 1000's & 1000's of them.

 

 

Wow, this keeps getting more bizarre - and completely unrealistic - as this all moves on.

 

That's your opinion. The very notion of any move by anyone to shoot the President is bizarre. So if those who have the most to gain are found to be up to their neck in the cover-up, there is nothing unrealistic about that, I would expect nothing less. What would be crazy if the plotters never tried to hide their tracks. 

 

 Someone has to explain how Ruby was at the western union office 5 minutes before he shot Oswald, sending off a money payment to one of his strippers who needed some cash.  That's time-stamped and proven; seems like Johnson's Man would not have cut it so close and would have been in the station hours earlier, not just a few minutes.  

 

Reality;  Ruby was sending off a payment to a stripper friend at the Western Union near the Dallas P.D.  He decided at the last minute he'd go over and watch the transfer of Oswald, and because he had so many friends at the Dallas PD,  guys who used to frequent his club, he was let in through a side door unmolested, similar to a press guy. Hew as also in there the day before with the press guys. He then took his one chance to kill Oswald and did it because he was a patriot who loved the president, plain and simple.

 

   Another fact; Oswald, about 10 minutes before the shooting took place in the underground garage, had requested a sweater to wear because he was chilly; it's the dark blue one you see when he's getting shot, and the FBI had to scramble around to find one, which took 10 or 15 minutes to do. So in reality, the transfer was planned for a few minutes earlier, when Ruby was at the Western Union office. Johnson's Man would have totally missed his chance at silencing Oswald were it not for that weird twist of fate about wanting a sweater to wear; something a paid, professional operative would never have left to chance by still being inside the Western Union office.

 

The details you give are what I read & they do point to it being a lucky coincidence for Ruby to run into Oswald right at that moment. But are they? If the fix was on, he was always going to run into Oswald. It's only a thought & not one I want to get caught up arguing about when I don't have any supporting facts. What we do know is that Ruby was a confidante of Johnson's who went & killed the man indirectly responsible for making Johnson President. I say he was doing his master's bidding & was well rewarded for it, you argue he was a patriot who also had a romantic side in sparing the First Ladies blushes. Hmm, given the guy's history, I think he went there to do the biggest job of his life.

 

But that's my opinion. 

 

And a paid professional operative would have been risky. Ruby only had to step in front of the guy & fire. I love the way the agents escorting him all stand back & present the target. That's one way it can be viewed. Or is that my imagination playing tricks on my eyes? I will let others decide.

[pacman]

  It was only 2 bullets; the first one completely missed everything.

 

 The 2nd went into the Prez through his neck, exited and struck the Governor [who was sitting in a jump seat in front of, and a little to the left of, the Prez], went  through his lung and his wrist, and landed in his thigh. The trajectory from the 5th floor was perfect for all 4 wounds.

 

The 3rd exploded the President's head from back to front.  There was no 4th or 5th shot.

 

Three gunshots were heard. Oswald fired two of them. He left behind three shell casings but one of them had been discarded some distance away from where he fired. On examination that shell was found not to have been fired on the day. I can't remember exactly what the ballistics people said about it, something about it being damaged, but they revealed what every gun owner knows - an empty cartridge is left in the breech when the gun is not in use. Not being a gun owner I don't know about such things but they did explain why. Sorry if I am light on detail here but it all made sense in the doco.

 

The third bullet was the kill shot. It was from a larger calibre weapon. I don't know who fired it, I don't know from where it was fired, I don't know who the plotters were, I don't know how they involved themselves with Oswald, what I do know is that a hell of a lot of people went to an extraordinary amount of trouble & deception to pin it on Oswald when if there was nothing untoward about the shooting, NONE OF IT WAS NECESSARY. 

 

And then when it was discovered that the Dallas Detective Agency went & spoke to 73 people who were present in Dealey Plaza that day & 65 of them said they heard & smelt another gun go off much closer after they heard shots from the 6th floor, I find it even harder to think the public hasn't been lied to. I guess those witnesses were all expecting to be called on for a statement. They were called on but they weren't being invited to appear before the Warren Commission. I don't know who visited them or what was said but none of them ever spoke about it again. 

 

And that is part of the reason why the Kennedy family all believe they haven't been told the truth about JFK's death. John Kerry, the current Secretary of State believes the same. Who knows how many other highly connected people in the US also thinks so. I don't understand why they don't demand the government releases all their information to put this to bed once & for all.

 

And if they can account for all the nonsense, why films had to be doctored, what's with all the BS, the conflicting stories & the coincidences & they prove Oswald acted alone, I will be satisfied. I only brought into this saga because it defies everything I understand about human behaviour. I enjoy going post to post with JD as I meet his convictions with conflicting information.

 

I guess it's different for me, a cynical Australian distrusting of big government versus a loyal US patriot who would prefer that the biggest assassination of the 20th century be left alone, it's inevitable we are going to see it through different eyes. I have come to understand JD's conviction & a small part of me wishes he was right. But then logic interrupts & I cannot ignore all those questions that beg to be answered. JFK despite his flaws was a great man who was changing the course of US policy. His decision to gut the CIA of all the Cold War warriors also condemned him to die an early death. Isn't anyone else going to fight for the man?

[williethepimp]

well said Pacman.....i can't be bothered arguing Oswaldites, have never answered one simple question i have often posed...if Oswald acted alone...then why did he let the motorcade drive up to him ,under him  and then fire as his target was actually getting smaller......the easier shot was the frontal shot....it only makes sense if it was a co-ordinated attack,timed for a certain point in the journey......and until i see it proved otherwise,the kill shot was for me ,from the front......eye witnesses from the autopsy said the back of JFK's skull was missing due to the size of the exit wound.....i guess we'll all have to agree to disagree

[JaiDee]

"well said" may be pushing it a bit, no offense.....Pacman's argument includes Cubans and Russians, as well as Vice President Johnson working with some small-time club owner from Dallas to assassinate the president so Johnson could take over in a coup de etat.  I won't say what I REALLY think of that hypothesis but I will say that I strongly disagree with any of it.

 

   As for why the front shot didn't take place, I have mentioned this before up here; in my opinion Oswald got cold feet as the limo approached [obviously the best time to take the shot] and then as the limo turned the corner he realized this was his only chance and fired the 3 shots, 2 of which hit their mark.  There's no proof for this of course, same as there's no proof that VP Johnson had "his man" take out Oswald in the police station 2 days later; it's all conjecture on everyone's part.

 

  Always fun debating this topic but nothing I have read here have swayed my views even a little bit.

[pacman]

"well said" may be pushing it a bit, no offense.....Pacman's argument includes Cubans and Russians, as well as Vice President Johnson working with some small-time club owner from Dallas to assassinate the president so Johnson could take over in a coup de etat.  I won't say what I REALLY think of that hypothesis but I will say that I strongly disagree with any of it.

 

No offense taken. We all get to have our own opinion on the matter based on the facts as we know them. 

 

My "argument" is not specifically supporting the side of the Russians, the Cubans, the Mafia, the CIA, the FBI or LBJ, I am prosecuting the case against Oswald acting alone. With the plethora of conflicting information I believe we have all been lied to with the lone gunman story. And my reason for rejecting Oswald as the sole participant is my response to the utterly bizarre behaviour of the authorities in the days, weeks & years after the shooting. None of it makes sense unless we were witnessing the biggest cover-up since Christendom.

 

Here's a long clip I just lifted off Youtube. If you watch the first 30 seconds, you will see Oswald saying he was a patsy. If you watch another minute you will hear a woman say she saw a man kneeling at the 6th floor window with another man standing beside him. She could see they were armed but thought they must have been guards. A notice runs down the screen saying CIA protocol requires all windows on the route to be nailed shut. Then she says she heard a shot she thought was a fire cracker. Then she heard two more shots. Then after a few seconds, one more shot but this one was a little quieter. 

 

This is not something I made up, reports of people contradicting the official version of events can be found on dozens of websites. They are speaking up because they want to be heard. If there were only one or two of them they could be considered to be whackos but there's not one or two, there's dozens & dozens of them.

 

Oh & guess who can be seen at the police station on the day they bring Oswald in for questioning? Right there among the journalists & police officers is none other than our old friend Jack Ruby. He can't get close to Oswald but what's the betting he was there to shoot him? I'll lay a million dollars Jack was there for one reason. 

 

Here we have eye witnesses who saw Oswald with another man standing next to him. Two witnesses in fact, the other one saw someone standing at another window on the 6th floor. Yet more evidence there were two different guns fired based on the difference in their noise level. And the presence of Jack Ruby right from the start of Oswald's custody casts doubt about his sudden decision to pop in the next day. Plus Oswald's own denial which means absolutely nothing but at least he does sound sincere.

 

I don't know how this can all be ignored. I appreciate JaiDee's position, he will defend the official verdict until hell freezes over. But for anyone not acquainted with the story, it is all but impossible to consider the evidence & conclude there wasn't both a plot to kill JFK & a cover-up to protect those who did it.

[pacman]

Oops, forgot the clip  -

 

http://youtu.be/O7vljjHgc3I

[Lefty]

well said Pacman.....i can't be bothered arguing Oswaldites, have never answered one simple question i have often posed...if Oswald acted alone...then why did he let the motorcade drive up to him ,under him  and then fire as his target was actually getting smaller......the easier shot was the frontal shot....it only makes sense if it was a co-ordinated attack,timed for a certain point in the journey......and until i see it proved otherwise,the kill shot was for me ,from the front......eye witnesses from the autopsy said the back of JFK's skull was missing due to the size of the exit wound.....i guess we'll all have to agree to disagree

That is exactly right, Kill shot (the smaller hole) was in the front, the exit hole (the much larger one) was in the back of his head. No way LHO could have fired that shot. The secret service agent who climbed in the back of car to cover JFK after he was shot, said as much about the back of his head. I agree, NO WAY THAT CAN BE AN ENTRANCE WOUND!!!  Also while we are at it, the magic bullet theory is complete nonsense. 

My main question that points to conspiracy is why were all the records sealed until something like 2050? It is to protect someone, or else no reason to have them sealed. 

[Lefty]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1626363137/

 

What does legendary political operative Roger Stone know that historians Robert Caro and Robert Dallek do not know? He knows that Lyndon Johnson murdered President John F. Kennedy. Combining decades of insider political knowledge with cutting edge JFK assassination research, Roger Stone lays out the case that Lyndon Johnson manipulated the situation in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and murdered Kennedy as he murdered numerous other victims along the way. LBJ was not just shooting his way into the White House, he was avoiding political ruin and prosecution and jail for corruption at the hands of the Kennedy's.

The case against LBJ has long been sitting in plain sight, and in The Man Who Killed Kennedy, you will find out all the details you weren't supposed to know:

• The amoral psychopath detailed in Robert Caro’s earlier volumes.
• The mutual hatred between the Kennedy's and Lyndon Johnson.
• The discredited Warren Report.
• The early murders committed by LBJ on the path to power
• The Dallas connections; as well as LBJ’s epic mental instabilities. 

Political consultant, strategist, and Libertarian Roger Stone has gathered documents and used his firsthand knowledge to construct the ultimate tome to prove that LBJ was not only involved in JFK’s assassination, but was in fact the mastermind.

With 2013 being the fiftieth anniversary of JFK’s assassination, this is the perfect time for The Man Who Killed Kennedyto be available to readers. The research and information in this book is unprecedented, and as Roger Stone lived through it, he’s the perfect person to bring it to everyone’s attention.