|
Post by chew on Dec 15, 2011 23:07:21 GMT -4
chew you are right, but useless. surftofind.com/fbi"The one-page xerox is a composite of 2 different documents. At the top is a half-page undated FBI note STAPLED TO THE TOP OF A FULL PAGE UNDERNEATH. Only the bottom half of the full sheet is seen. The note, on the letterhead of the Office of the Director, is signed by LS. It does have an illegible zip code. The HUAC document and its FBI cover sheet is very genuine and very typical. Jack Ruby was an informant for Nixon circa 1947." why not stop playing these idiot games Sure, as soon as you stop posting idiotic documents. Even the whackiest JFK assassination buffs say it is a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 15, 2011 23:22:02 GMT -4
billie sol estes a business associate of LBJ went to the justice department and in a sworn affidavit listed 8 people that LBJ had ordered murdered no 8 on the list was JFK capture from EVIDENCE OF REVISION disk 2 Now you bring up a swindler as a witness.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 16, 2011 0:57:37 GMT -4
Please learn the difference between hearsay and evidence. Remember, dozens of corroborating witnesses who are unrelated to each other also say three shots were fired from the Schoolbook Depository. What's your response to them?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 16, 2011 6:08:43 GMT -4
billie sol estes a business associate of LBJ went to the justice department and in a sworn affidavit listed 8 people that LBJ had ordered murdered no 8 on the list was JFK capture from EVIDENCE OF REVISION disk 2 Another example of why this conspiracy, if there was one, has to have been simultaneously so good it fooled everyone for decades, and yet so inept they actually wrote down on paper a list of people to kill! If I was conspiring to kill a major public figure the last thing I would do would be to leave any kind of paper trail, especially one so incriminating as to state my intention to kill said person in plain type. Have you ever seen the series Blackadder the Third? In one episode Blackadder satisfies a personal grudge against a couple of actors by asserting to the Prine Regent that the play he overheard them rehearsing was in fact a geuine plot to assassinate him. When the actors tried to claim (truthfully) that it was only a play by pointing to the script, Blackaddder says: "Textbook stuff again, your highness. The criminal's vanity always leads him to make one tiny but fatal mistake. Theirs was to have their entire conspiracy printed and published in plain manuscript." This is a comedy series, and the line raises the laugh it was intended to due to its absurdity. Now you are proposing that such a thing actually happened! That a group of conspiritors actually printed their intentions on official stationery! And you can't see how absurd this is?
|
|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Dec 16, 2011 11:26:41 GMT -4
Jason Thompson i have no idea what "list" you are talking about the affidavit from Billie sol Estes was from 1964, he came forward wanting to testify that he had personal knowledge of 8 murders ordered by LBJ, including JFK If you believe it fooled "everyone" for decades your delusional. It may have fooled those that had to believe it couldn't have been a coup or those that still trusted everything the government said. It sure in hell didn't fool Bobby Kennedy. The conspiracy theory that Oswald did it is a construct full of inconsistencies and half truths.did you know there was a finger print found on a box, in the "sniper nest" that was not matched to anyone for years? In 1998 this finger print was examined by a retired finger print expert, he found a 34 point match to some one called Malcolm Wallace. (34 point is a sort of like 100% certain match) the evidence was turned over to the FBI, 18 months later the FBI claimed it did not match at all... Malcolm (Mac) Wallace Kinda like every point and argument you've brought up so far.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 16, 2011 12:16:40 GMT -4
echnaton that is the world that LBJ came from, DA LBJ was a crooked politician.... Yes we in Texas know that. People knew of the corruption when he was elected Senator. It was endemic. But at the time Texas was a one party (Democratic) state, so their were few outlets for complaints. But so what? You are still putting the word of a con man up as evidence. There is no reason to believe anything Estes says based solely on his own word. My mother was from West Texas and as a kid I met people who had been swindled by Estes. He was a very good at dropping the right names and spinning a story that had superficial plausibility. The problem was that he was a swindler who readily mixed lies with just enough verifiable truth to con people. What have you done to say that this particular statement was true? If it is even a factual record of his words.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 16, 2011 16:05:19 GMT -4
how about Barr McClellan a lawyer who represented LBJ form 1966 to 1971 in his book "blood money & power" says it was well KNOWN with in the law firm that LBJ had been involved with JFK assassination. ? You mean, it was gossiped about. You really have no idea what "hearsay" is, do you? Or why it's not actually considered evidence? There are a lot of things "known" about people that turn out to be absolute lies.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 16, 2011 16:27:34 GMT -4
JIf you believe it fooled "everyone" for decades your delusional. It may have fooled those that had to believe it couldn't have been a coup or those that still trusted everything the government said. It sure in hell didn't fool Bobby Kennedy. Actually, Bobby Kennedy believed until the day he died that Lee Harvey Oswald had killed his brother. He knew LBJ was corrupt, and he certainly didn't like him very much, but he also knew that wasn't enough to accuse someone of murder. You still needed physical evidence. Did you know that, at the Texas Schoolbook Depository, there were dozens of people in and out? That many of the boxes had been other places? That there were plenty of opportunities for people who had nothing to do with the assassination to put fingerprints on boxes? Where did he get Wallace's print? Do you know how vanishingly unlikely it is that any print would be 34-point? I mean, you could take two fingerprints of a person in rapid succession, and they probably wouldn't be 34-point matches. Especially if they were on different surfaces. After all, the tips of your fingers aren't rigid, and as they move, they leave different-looking impressions. Maybe it didn't. Maybe your "retired fingerprint expert" was wrong. Or, hardly unusual, lying because he wanted there to be a conspiracy. A lot of people do that, I'm sure you'll be shocked to know. So okay. You don't believe that Oswald did it. You believe that E. Howard Hunt did it. Why him and not James Files, who also confessed? And before you post more of your links, check out this page. Most of your "evidence" appears on it. mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 16, 2011 18:54:05 GMT -4
I didn't say everyone. Nor did I say "ran toward"; no one with sense runs toward a shooter with a rifle. They run where they think they'll be safe. That they ran to the grassy knoll indicates quite strongly that they didn't think there was a shooter there. But, yes, there is plenty of footage and plenty of photographs of people pointing toward the Depository. But you won't find that on conspiracy-themed websites, because it doesn't fit the story they want to tell.
And you clearly don't know what you're talking about, since one of the things you can see in the Zapruder film is a Secret Service agent climbing onto the Presidential limo to help Jackie. I think I'm done with you.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 16, 2011 18:57:29 GMT -4
how about Barr McClellan a lawyer who represented LBJ form 1966 to 1971 in his book..... Throwing around accusations until one sticks is a pretty shoddy way to make your case. What have you done to make sure that this is any better than the previous "witnesses" that you have abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 16, 2011 22:29:08 GMT -4
Secret Service type dudes are exactly the people you'd expect to run towards a shooter. Or at least to intersect the shooter's line to his target. They go through years of training and vetting to make sure they are psychologically prepared to place their life in danger for the sake of their protectee's, even if that means standing between them and a sniper yelling "shoot me!"
I would therefore not be even faintly surprised that a secret service agent reacted differently to a crowd of untrained civilians who were expecting a pleasant day out in the sunshine, rather than to become witnesses to a murder.
Yet you consistently manage to miss the incredibly obvious in your perpetual quest to raise confirmation bias to a high art. I don't know what that makes you exactly, but I know what it certainly makes you not: A competent investigator.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 18, 2011 22:25:14 GMT -4
I believe that the philosophy to considered is this: If it was a conspiracy it was a coup, the people responsible for the coup will then be the people that attain the power, in control, they will control how the information is spun. Johnson was responsible for the selection of the Warren Commission. The person that becomes the new leader is the head of the conspiracy. The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK. In this case, way didn't the House commission a separate investigation on the assassination? wouldn't we want to know for sure? The key words here are "If it was a conspiracy." Until the conspiracy is shown, everything else is ungrounded speculation. The second problem is the assumption that if the hypothetical conspiracy was true, it therefore must be a Johnson coup. Not that the second part of this is in any way rational, because the conspiracy is just speculation on your part. That facts is that we do have reasonable certainty that Oswald was the shooter and that he acted alone. That will stand until you show us a conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 18, 2011 23:08:52 GMT -4
And of course proving a conspiracy takes a lot more work than just finding people with motives. You have to find physical evidence which shows that your version of events is the correct one. If it contradicts your version of events, you don't get to just assume it was faked. You have to show it was faked.
|
|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Dec 19, 2011 6:48:04 GMT -4
Answer me this then...why did LBJ declare he would not run for a second term after he became president then? Let me tell you why...it is because he knew Bobby was going to run and he had a snowball chance in hell that's why. Let me post now what you more than likely will say to that. "Well that proves he did cause Bobby got assassinated right?" Wrong, because he declared he was not going to run for a second term BEFORE Bobby was killed.
So in essence...LBJ who obviously was a smart and intelligent man....killed his friend and running mate...Why again? Then in his genius he took over the presidency for how long again? Wanting or not to run for a second term he was foiled by his friend and running mates brother...he knew he was down and declared he would not run for president and then in his bitterness....maybe or maybe not killed Bobby? But certainly did not declare he was back in the race. So by your logic he was the most likely killer because those who construct a conspiracy are obvious because they are the ones that gain the most out of it? Yeah that is obvious...obviously idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Dec 19, 2011 8:04:31 GMT -4
Try this out for size, it is filled with testimonials and witness accounts that knew Oswald and knew his goals and communist aspirations
|
|