JFK murder reexamined

[Sparko]

You misunderstood my joke, but never mind. I still agree the photos are fakes, but for reasons already given before, evidence of fakery in this instance is hardly evidence of federal government involvement in the plot to kill JFK.

Hey . Did you watch the History Channel special last week about the JFK assassination? They had interviews with Lee Harvey's family, including his brother, who talked about the photo and confirmed it was his brother, and who also says that Lee was the assassin and was working alone.

Pretty interesting show.

[Augustine2004]

That quote contains nothing that would cause Tweb from prohibiting it. It would be nice to see whoever said it actually backed up the assertion or just wrote it out of spite because it might step on the toes of his/her favorite conspiracy theory.

PM you an explanation.

[Augustine2004]

I noticed in another thread, (can't recall which one at the moment), where he used the same reason not to provide a link. I didn't have time to look for it then, and, of course, now I'll probably never find it.

rogue06 should have known, but apparently forgot. PM you, moreta.

[Augustine2004]

Hey . Did you watch the History Channel special last week about the JFK assassination? They had interviews with Lee Harvey's family, including his brother, who talked about the photo and confirmed it was his brother, and who also says that Lee was the assassin and was working alone.

Pretty interesting show.

I'll say. How did the brother know? If he did know, how could he not be in the crime? I mean, if you know, really know, then you had to be at the very least accessory. Oh, right, someone told him, and he believed it.

Sparko, let's stop arguing about the fake photos, all right?

[Augustine2004]

'McCoy and Scott are among the serious experts who well understand that our government cannot be counted on for the truth.'

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/54741&75267

I believe that is as true in 1963 and onwards as today.



Last weekend (November 26) I stumbled over an intriguing possibility: The Texas School Book Depository was a CIA front or a rogue-government one. See '411 Elm Street' by William Weston, published in ??? [I neglected to record the provenance, but a post to a website does repeat stuff http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion....-the-6th-floor ( search for 'Weston.' You don't have to register, just click on the button on the right.)



Russ Baker weighs in on the Umbrella Man: http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/11/28/ny-...a-man-exposed/

Woo! Sure seems like a suspense or mystery novel. But the umbrella can be seen in the Zapruder film--frame z206 to z234, looking like a bat wing. Frames z235 to z238 are rather obscure.



Any argument against including the RFK mystery here? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-control.html I think the mystery should be included. A reason RFK was running for president may be that he'd get the power to have the JFK murder more properly and competently investigated. He was AG under LBJ, but found himself increasingly stymied.



RFK was unwise enough to ask LBJ point blank in a high-level meeting why he had JFK killed. Surely that raises the possibility LBJ had a hand not only in the plot to kill JFK, but also to kill RFK.


[I don't know when I will post again.]

[Augustine2004]

William Weston (previous post) says that the building was vacant until January 1963. This webpage confirms the building was vacated November 1961? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ4.htm

But there is no confirmation that the building remained vacant until 1963, though the webpage does suggest that.


The Texas School Book Depository--the company, not the building--moved out in 1970. The company had been incorporated 1927. That does not prove the CIA or some rogue government element didn't somehow plant agents in the company and so gained control, but it does tend to cast some doubt.


Found the article by Weston '411 Elm . . . '
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/ar...1&relPageId=24

[Augustine2004]

The argument in Weston's article '411 Elm Street' is clearly meant to be not much more than a plausbility argument:

The main purpose of this article is to delineate the challenge of the bystander problem and to suggest various measures which could have been used by the conspirators to bring this difficulty under control.[page 25]

IMO Weston did a good job, but he fell short of disproving the hypothesis that Oswald was the lone assassin, unaided by anyone or of being part of a small, non-government assassin gang. But he does cast considerable doubt on that hypothesis.

Next I found 'The Glaze Letters' by Weston http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/ar...11&relPageId=6
It raised the possibility that the 411 Elm Street building (where the Texas School Book Depository company was) had been a CIA warehouse since the end of World War II for illegal goods such as rifles. Such goods would be used in secret CIA projects.

I now doubt we can accomplish much more from an examination of the evidence for the possibility that the 411 Elm building housed a CIA station. I am therefore switching to a consideration of a counter website http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk.../costella.html
My question now is: Which is or are right, Costella or his website critics? I am going to try to answer without any further look at Costella's rebuttals, though eventually I will.

[Augustine2004]

My last post concluded with a question. In beginning to answer it, I started with the fact that all cameras create distortions of what is being viewed. A fish-eye camera image is distorting quite obviously. However, the Barnes photographs is so wide-angle that necessarily only a small part of the image near its middle should be only slightly distorted. What does 'slightly distorted' mean, though?

That was as far as my thoughts went. I wanted to find the Barnes photos elsewhere on the 'net, and . . .

stumbled on this pdf file http://www.gjerde.name/bkg/jfk/DPDZapruder.pdf

Incredibly, the Barnes photos may themselves have been altered! Why not, the Dallas PD probably was working together with the conspirators to some extent. The author Bjorn K. Gjerde shows some evidence . . .

He also claims that the Zapruder film was not taken by Zapruder, but by another person. That might explain why the discrepancy between the Barnes photos and the 'Zapruder' film is so large. The real Zapruder photographer was several meters away on Zapruder's right, which would create large perspective differences, which had to be covered up on the 'extant' Zapruder film. However, it will take me several weekends to study Gjerde's arguments.

ETA oops I forgot to include another website that I visited http://www.paullee.com/jfk/parallax.html

[Augustine2004]

Four! F-o-u-r. 4. Trees on the south side of Elm Street shown in this photo (Warren Commission exhibit CE740)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfki...bits/ce740.jpg

Now in this photo Zapruder z242, start counting 'em and weep afterwards. The trunk of the first (northernmost tree on the south side of Elm Street) tree is still visible (extreme left, as you view the photo). Just one!? Maybe we should look at later frames. OK, onward, march! Well! No next tree! Nada. Nothing shows up that is a stately tree afterwards.

ETa: WAIT until I see the Barnes photos. Anyway, the last 2 trees on the right in the CE740 photo probably just didn't get a chance to show up in the Zapruder film, but the second tree from the first tree does show up MIA.

[Augustine2004]

As mentioned before, this webpage discusses, among other things, a Barnes photo.
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk.../costella.html

In the photo, only three trees can be discerned. The tree that is supposed to be next to the northernmost tree on the south side of Elm Street just can't be seen.

Maybe you can make it out yourself?



Why, I don't know, unless it's to cover up the varying speeds of the Kennedy car.

[Augustine2004]

Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 32 was involved in the Clay Shaw trial.

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol21_0253a.htm

It ought to show the missing tree . . . and doesn't. Note how asymmetrical the photo looks, like a tree belonged in the gap between the northern tree and the . . . um . . third tree. Totally gone! Gjerde says he could not determine whether the tree was removed physically or the photo was retouched.

[Augustine2004]

Why, I don't know, unless it's to cover up the varying speeds of the Kennedy car.

Phooey! Rather unlikely. Another explanation occurred to me in the night. Maybe a high speed fragible bullet hit the 'missing' tree? The damage was so visible, the conspirators had to remove the evidence quickly.

[seanD]

[
Lil Pixie, stoutly supported by Rogue06, repeatedly makes a good point that any large group should not expect to be able to keep secrets for a long time; in particular, keep evidence of its skullduggery from coming into public awareness.

I disagree. This never was a good argument against government conspiracy because we have a historical record saturated with government secret operations that contradict this belief, and operations that were considered conspiracy theory at the time before they were exposed because of the extreme moral implications. Some involved thousands of people, and some were not exposed for many decades, and some exposed only by accident. Fast and Furious, for example, the most recent, was exposed only by accident as a result of a law enforcement officer getting killed (and yet it's still getting brushed underneath the rug). The government works like a pyramid structure, where everyone on the bottom is compartmentalized and subjected to a strict sense of duty to follow orders from those on top, thus it only takes a few at the top of the chain of command to know the details of an operation. There's also immense pressure or herd-like mentality against disloyalty to the herd, which further dissuades whistleblowers. This happens in police departments all the time and it's called the blue code of silence.

Augustine, my question to you is that assuming Oswald wasn't the real shooter, what would be the benefit of exposing it now when: 1) there isn't enough adequate evidence to persuade skeptics to do anything about it; and 2) most of the players involved are already dead?

[Augustine2004]

Augustine, my question to you is that assuming Oswald wasn't the real shooter, what would be the benefit of exposing it now when: 1) there isn't enough adequate evidence to persuade skeptics to do anything about it; and 2) most of the players involved are already dead?

Primarily I find it a fascinating hobby to show that it was a governmental conspiracy if at all possible. And I think that if I could succeed, it would go a long way to discredit the USFG. You do know the power of the State rests primarily on the people's acceptance of its legitimacy?



LBJ's presidency may have been illegal because he together with Hoover did a lot of engineering the plot to kill JFK. According to polls, most people do believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, but we need to have more detailed evidence, I think, for the people to become distrustful of the State. (IMO we should be.)



Expanding on why that tree was removed. Likely the bullet, if there was such one, came from the west, thus the damage it created would be evidence that disproves the thesis of Oswald as the lone assassin. He was to the east of Kennedy's car when the bullets started flying.

[Sparko]

I'll say. How did the brother know? If he did know, how could he not be in the crime? I mean, if you know, really know, then you had to be at the very least accessory. Oh, right, someone told him, and he believed it.

Sparko, let's stop arguing about the fake photos, all right?

actually he knew his brother better than you or any other stranger and would know what his brother was like. He would also know if the photo was real or not. I would trust a close family member's opinion over some conspiracy nut any day. Especially if the family member was obviously NOT trying to sugar coat his brother's involvement.

But anyway I think I am about done here. I know nothing is going to change your mind, and I find the topic has been discussed to death and is just boring now.

Have a Merry Christmas Auggie.

God Bless.