Share, did you kinda miss the point about the possible Secret Service
"conspiracy"? According to the BBC show Salyavin described, the "conspiracy"
was not to kill Kennedy, but to cover up that he was killed by accident, after
the fact.
Obviously if that were the situation, Johnson's relation
I've just ordered a copy of Roger Stone's recently published book The Man Who
Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ. I think it likely that LBJ was the
mastermind. There's enough just on YouTube to make the case, including Jack
Ruby himself, who says the assassination would never have happened ha
This is from the entry on the assassination in Wikpedia:
"In contrast to the conclusions of the Warren Commission, the United States
House Select Committee on Assassinations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations
(HSCA) concluded in 1978 that K
For the record, I don't just automatically disbelieve sense-witnesses; but
there's been so much recent research about the unreliability of eyewitness
testimony (not to mention false memory) that I can't automatically accept such
testimony either.
I think I'm least trustful of nosewitness tes
"The Warren Report wasn't meant to find the truth, it was meant to deflect
it." Now I agree.
it's like we say about public enquiries in England, they are there to make us
think the government is doing something about whatever we are upset about. Some
establishment stooge will be appointed a
"OK, I'm still skeptical of sense-witnesses as a source of factual
information" Interesting. I remember reading about a tribe in the Amazon who
claimed they had heard a rare animal that an explorer was looking for. "But did
you see it?" he'd ask. It didn't matter to them, they lived in a dark
Salyavin wrote:
> "Did they volunteer this information, or were they asked?" All sorts
> volunteered this info, police, pedestrians near the car etc. Just about
> everyone was interviewed.
OK, I'm still skeptical of sense-witnesses as a source of factual information.
> Did I mention
The Warren Report wasn't meant to find the truth, it was meant to
deflect it.
On 11/25/2013 11:15 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
"Did they volunteer this information, or were they asked?" All sorts
volunteered this info, police, pedestrians near the car etc. Just
about everyone was interviewed. Did
"Did they volunteer this information, or were they asked?" All sorts
volunteered this info, police, pedestrians near the car etc. Just about
everyone was interviewed. Did I mention that in a photo of the cars after
Kennedy was shot you can see the SS guy holding a large rifle in one hand!
"
Recommended reading:
Jim DiEugenio
Destiny Betrayed, JFK, Cuba and the Garrison Case
Overview: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/11/19/where-new-jfk-evidence-points/
Joe Williams
The Grassy Knoll Report
Complete text of Vincent Salandria's speech to the Coalition on Political
Assassinations
Makes sense to me too. It wouldn't have been that difficult, I suppose, to keep
that story from getting out. Also not surprising that there were no general
suspicions to that effect--the idea of its having been an accident caused by
the Secret Service, of all people, is just too wildly unlikely
Before last week I would have scoffed at any conspiracy surrounding Kennedy's
death. There was Oswald's rifle, three spent cartridges and the usual objection
that covering it up would have been a ludicrously complex undertaking with so
many people to swear to silence that it would be a trillion
Yes, movies are definitely the best way to find out what happened in real life.
(Novels, too.)
Maybe someday somebody will make a movie or write a novel about how people
feel so threatened by sudden, tragic events that they have to believe in
conspiracy theories about the Powers That Be hav
Richard, I haven't read any books about the JFK assassination but I saw Oliver
Stone's movie LOL. So I'm convinced there was a conspiracy and also for 9/11
and Princess Di's fatal accident. The Powers That Be are ruthless imo though I
can't help but wonder why they feel so threatened. Really, wh
Why are we not surprised the Prof Troll buys the Warren Report kool-aid.
On 11/24/2013 02:44 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
There is no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippet -
hardly anyone supports the theory that Oswald was innocent of the
killings. He was caught red-handed
There is no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippet -
hardly anyone supports the theory that Oswald was innocent of the
killings. He was caught red-handed (no pun intended). Oswald didn't need
any co-conspirators in order to pull the trigger three times on Kennedy
and four times
A co-conspirator can't be named because Oswald appears to have been
patsy so it wasn't a conspirator. He even said so himself. Why else
would have Jack Ruby shot him other than to keep him quiet otherwise a
trial might have shown he indeed was innocent?
The spent shells might not have been t
Can you name a single co-conspirator? Lee Harvey Oswald left his rifle
inside the building where the shots were fired with three spent shells
on the floor. Oswald was arrested inside the the theater holding the
pistol he used to shoot Tippet. What other proof do you need that Oswald
killed Ken
Reminds me of the folks I listened to on the radio this last week
explaining why people won't believe the lone gunman theory. They have
all these sewed up psychological theories about how the mind develops
conspiracy theories. I find the lone gunman theory as preposterous a
the idea Martians
http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of-body-experiences-explained.html
http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of-body-experiences-explained.html
20 matches
Mail list logo
