After the assassination, I was filled with a burning hatred for Lee Harvey Oswald. After Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby, I swore that someday I would go to Dallas, find Oswald's grave, and piss on it.
I've been to Dallas a few times since then, as I have relatives there. One night in 1975, a cousin took me to the Texas School Book Depository and I stood on the ground directly below the window where Oswald fired the shots. I remember how close and accessible Elm Street seemed from where I was. I could see it wind around, first slightly to the right, then slightly leftward, down towards the overpass. I remember dark gray concrete with white highway stripes. The scene before me was largely deserted of people and cars, as it was night time. I was shocked to see how easy Oswald's shots appeared to be. (See a graphic of Dealey Plaza here.)
Fifty years later, I have become a conservative Republican, but I still bitterly resent Oswald's cancellation of a presidential election by bullet. I still hate the little commie bastard. And I really need to go visit my cousins in Dallas. Maybe I'll finally get to visit Oswald's grave. After several beers, I should be ready.
UPDATE: If you are in Fort Worth and feel a need to relieve yourself, directions to Oswald's grave are at this link.
19 comments:
Pretty sick - Oswald never fired a shot and you need to wake up to the fact that the Warren Report was defunct decades ago.
You live in an alternate universe, John. Oswald fired all three shots and you don't know what you're talking about.
Incorrect there is no actual "evidence" that Oswald fired ANY shots -
you are reading the wrong books - I've read both those you mentioned - I
started the same as you believing the "Official" versions - try Mark
Lane's "Rush to Judgement" and Syvlia Meagher's "Accessories After the
Fact" for a more balanced view. But, if you really want to know the
truth about Oswald then read "Me and Lee" by Judyth Vary Baker. (actually read 40+ books + many docu's)
The two authors you mention are not credible on the assassination. You can read some of Sylvia Meagher's claims vs facts here: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009692819969986975742%3Afvtj6trw3km&q=Sylvia+Meagher&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A0&siteurl=mcadams.posc.mu.edu%2F&ref=&ss=5336j2070836j22#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Sylvia%20Meagher&gsc.page=1
You can read some of Mark Lane's claims vs facts here:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm.
This link shows some of Lane's claims compared to actual testimony and makes it clear that Lane is quite dishonest regarding the facts of the assassination.
Good try!
But all your points have been rebuffed...
1) So did a lot of people but it does not make them guilty - worthless point
2) The first rife found was a german Mauser rifle and it was announced that this was the weapon used - only later, several hours later did it turn into a Carcano
- plus the weapon was sent to the FBI lab in Washington and NO PRINTS were found on it - it was only later when it came back to Dallas that a print suddenly appeared
3) This is a really complicated part as the shells found were from different manufacturers and there was problems with the chain of evidence with these shells
4) Many eyewitnesses saw a colored man in the window with another unidentified man but there affidavits were ignored by the Warren commission because they did not fit with their preconception of the lone gunmen. Like many other witnesses
5) Not correct 4 others were missing too
6) The magic bullet! Hmmm that really is an old chestnut - unless you are living in a time warp you will know that theory is long dead
7) Nope, 1 possible identified him - even then he was not sure
8) Don't know where you got this one from - all the medical staff at Parkland said that the exit wound blew out the back of his head - as the Zapruder film clearly shows the headshot came from the front - that's why several witnesses smelled gunpowder, saw gunsmoke in Dealy Plaza by the grassy Knoll and why about 60 people charged up the grassy knoll embankment - again ignored by the Warren Commission
9) How come then that this remarkable shooter who could beat some of the best marksman by shooting all them shots in such a short time could miss a sitting target? Plus you have to remember that Marina changed her statements several times (threatened with deportation)
No not enough proof to convict in a court of law
And why do you think that people should lie?
What's the point in lying?
Unless of course you are CIA
1) The Mauser had "Mauser" printed on it as sworn by Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig (who was later shot at then run off the road and then shot to death)
2) No prints found before the FBI got their hands on it
3) Its a fact
4) There are many conflicting accounts of what was seen so no point us quoting these sources back and forth
5) As you quote from House Select Committee on Assassinations do you remember what there conclusion was? Probably a conspiracy! That's what
they agreed on
6) Do you realize that the vast majority of Americans (polled) do not believe this magic bullet theory is it because they are all mad conspiracy theorists?
7) Markham changed her account so many times and even with continual prompting could not identify Oswald (she also told the Warren Commission that she talked to Tippet for 20 minutes before he died!)
8) They may have been green but they still had eyes (all of them)
9) I am sorry but this comment defies logic
10) Firstly the sites were mus-aligned when examined. Oswald's own pals stated that he was a POOR shot. Delgado "He got a lot of "Maggies Draws" he missed a lot
Now have you actually read any of the books that I mentioned as I have read both Posner and Bugliosi's and if one is to have an objective view it cannot be possible without seeing both sides of the story
Hi,
All you are doing is repeating the one-sided views from books that just repeat the long vanquished Warren Report - I could do exactly the same copy and paste relevant text here but it proves absolutely nothing to do so.
Just to re-iterate - it was the back of Kennedy's head that had the huge hole in it not the front, did you not see the autopsy photos showing the front of his head intact?
Try using your own judgement.
There is no concrete evidence that Oswald fired any shots, only circumstantial. He would and could NOT be found guilty on circumstantial and conflicting evidence (the reason there was so much circumstantial evidence was because he was framed). Try answering how come Oswald's nitrate test was negative?
And what about the crowds of people who ran to the Grassy Knoll immediately after the shooting (including cops) were they all woefully ignorant Americans too. And Zapruder, was he lying when he said that the head-shot came from behind him.
Lyndon Johnson "I never believed Oswald acted alone" another conspiracy nut?
" True, I don't want to waste my time reading books by dishonest and
unethical authors with a political ax to grind, like Mark Lane or Sylvia
Meagher, neither of whom I respect or who hold any credibility with me."
I think this statement sums you up! its no wonder you have your head in the sand!
A complete lack of objectivity!
Another spanking, John? Let me get my paddle out.
1. There is much forensic, fingerprints, eye witness testimony and the actual rifle itself, that prove Oswald did the deed. All of the conjecture, speculation and denial is on your side. Outside your bubble of conspiracy illusions, you really can't stand up to the facts.
2. By Oswald's nitrate test, you mean the paraffin test? The paraffin test is notably unreliable and often gives both false positives and false negatives. It means absolutely nothing. Proof is below.
Here's what the Journal of Forensic Science said about false positives:
"Although this test often but not invariably gave positive results on the hands of
individuals who fired weapons, it also gave positive results on the hands
of individuals who had not fired weapons because of the widespread
distribution of nitrates and nitrites in our environment. The paraffin
test is in fact nonspecific and is of no use scientifically."
And for false negatives, the following is from Charles O'Hara and Gregory L. O'Hara,
FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, pp. 820-821.
"Finally, some experimenters have found that it is possible to obtain a negative reaction from the
hand of a person who has recently fired many rounds of ammunition."
So much for the paraffin test.
3. Dealey Plaza is a huge echo chamber, and some people (a minority) thought the shots originated from the Grassy Knoll, but the police and the majority of witnesses who were there say the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository. The witnesses and their beliefs on this have been tabulated, though greatly misrepresented by conspiracy sources. The next important tabulation of earwitness testimony came from the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Per McAdams:
"The next important tabulation of earwitness testimony came from the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
They found only 20 witnesses who actually believed they heard the shots from the vicinity of the Grassy Knoll, and 46 who thought the shots came from the direction of the Depository. See House Select Committee, Volume 2, p. 122."
So over twice as many witnesses believed the shots came from the Depository direction. You just can't win, hey John?
4. Lyndon Johnson's opinion doesn't mean beans. Here is what Lee Harvey Oswald's own brother, Robert Oswald, said about the assassination in 1993:
"There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired, two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other? I think they’re inseparable. I’m talking about the police officer being shot and the president. You look at the factual data, you look at the rifle, you look at the pistol ownership, you look at his note about the Walker shooting. You look at the general opportunity — he was present. He wasn’t present when they took a head count [at the Texas School Book Depository].
You look at all the data there, and it comes up to one conclusion as far as I’m concerned — the Warren Commission was correct."
Read it yourself here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/interview-robert-oswald/
5. The books and websites I read are not "one-sided," in that they refute the major conspiracy authors head on with facts and evidence. I agree with Robert Oswald. The Warren Commission was correct. The conspiracy authors are not.
6. I don't waste my time reading trash. I don't read grocery store tabloids about bigfoot, or how the moon landings were staged, or sightings of Elvis. Responsible authors and websites have done such a thorough job of refuting the irresponsible conspiracy theories and authors, that I feel reading their fiction would be a great waste of my time.
Here is the autopsy photo of the back of Kennedy's head. There is a small bullet hole in the cowlick area of his head, and you can see the large flap from the exit on the right, front temple. Quite clearly, the fatal head shot was fired from behind JFK and there was no large wound in the back of his head, as would be typical of an exit wound. The actual hole is small, typical of an entry wound.
Hey Chomper
Lets get one thing straight I don't know where you get this spanking thing from but it sounds a bit kinky to me and rather childish.
Also, as much I like discussing the matter in hand it seems like a waste of time talking to a childlike person who is unable to study the subject in an objective manner.
The closest I can get to a definition of your behavior is the definition of a bigot...
"Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance"
Sound familiar?
Your friend
John
That's not Kennedy's head - read "Best Evidence" by David Lifton..
if you really want to know - then you can make an objective decision regarding the headshot
David Lifton is one of the most demented of the conspiracy theorists, claiming that JFK's body was surgically altered to conceal the great conspiracy. He is, in fact, an idiot with zero credibility. That photo is indeed a real picture of the back of Kennedy's head, as confirmed by the autopsy doctors themselves. Your only arguments are merely fantastic tall tales, filled with error and delusion.
So I am a bigot because I just kicked you butt in a debate? That is a really asinine statement. Yes, I have publicly spanked you here by easily knocking down every one of your foolish conspiracy theories. Why don't you tell me why you work so hard to exonerate the assassin? Are you a communist? Do you hate your own country? Do you enjoy slandering dozens of honest officials and police by claiming they are all accomplices to murder? Have you ever thought about it yourself.
It was 2 FBI officers who said that the body had been surgically altered before the autopsy - Lifton was just repeating this fact!
Read it first then comment and we can then discuss it - you are not allowed to comment on stuff that you have not read yourself... ok?
Well your wonderful Warren report that took most of its evidence from Hoover's FBI supplied James Silbert and Francis O'neill and they were there throughout the proceedings to document what occurred at in the theater at Bethseda for dear Mr Hoover. (sworn testimony by two secret service agents Greer and Kellerman confirm their presence.(I guess you know these guys as they you probably use them for your side of the story, so think carefully before you rubbish them!) )
Quote: "Surgery to the top of the head area, namely, in the top of the scull".
Note that no surgery was performed at Parkland.
So if you doubt this then you are implying that the 2 FBI and 2 Secret Service agents invented this for some reason or another although they have given sworn testimony.
Now, please try hard to be slightly objective if possible as then we can continue but if you keep calling everbody who disagrees with you liars and demented, then we had better call it a day as Iv'e better things to do with my time.
Regards
John
Hi Chomper,
Interesting explanation...
Ok, then try this one...
I have seen the picture you uploaded showing the back of the head many times before.
What's interesting is that there appears not to be a large head wound on the right rear side of the head, none at all, not even a little dent.
Just that tiny white thing just above the neckline that you pointed out earlier.
These short videos on UTube show some of the Parkland Doctors indicating that there was a huge hole in the back of the Presidents head.
Apparently many more Doctors and staff confirmed these findings.
So please take a few minutes to look at them as even if you do not agree with them, they are very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHfWG1S6SZM
Interview with Dr McClelland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c
Interview with Dr Charles Crenshaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLbDuO-Lot0
Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el0kzujm5co
Lower half of the brain fell out! (13min 10 secs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpdjZB-qNA0
ER Nurse Patricia Hutton
"The Dr asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head. This was of no use howerver because of the massive opening on the back of the head"
Now I cannot see any reason why this mixture of perfectly normal people with no axe to grind should suddenly become compulsive liars.
I believe that the image of the head is a fake to try to show that the shot came from the rear.
Anyway, please let me know what you think of this evidence
Regards
John
John, there are no faked photos, X-Rays or autopsy reports. I won't even consider these arguments, as there is no evidence of fakery and the autopsy doctors have confirmed their accuracy.
The photo of the back of Kennedy's head is not remotely focused on the right side of his head, so your observation that there isn't even a little dent seems really specious on its face. In fact, you can see a large flap of flesh hanging off the right side of his head in the photo mentioned.
The only doctor that remembers a large head wound in the rear is Dr. McClelland, and he is refuted by all of the doctors who actually saw the wound, as well as the three autopsy doctors. He is just wrong.
The video above claims that ALL of the Parkland doctors said the wounds were entry wound from the front is typical conspiracy nonsense: they lie. We have been over this before. The doctors attending JFK in Trauma Room 1 were with him only 22 minutes; few of them saw the back of Kennedy's head because he was lying face up; they were concerned with saving his life, not in evaluating the wounds, which were covered in blood, tissue and brain matter, and thus preventing a clear view. Most of the doctors there were interns and residents. None of them were pathologists, and none of them were bullet wound experts, as pathologists generally are. Here's what McAdams says:
A little over an hour after declaring John Kennedy dead of gunshot wounds he received in Dealey Plaza, doctors Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark faced fact-hungry reporters in anews conference at Parkland Hospital and tried as best they could to inform the journalists of the circumstances of Kennedy’s death.
Some of the statements have been used ever since as evidence of a conspiracy. Note that Kemp Clark said the head wound was at the "back of [Kennedy’s] head" — although he didn’t know whether the wound showed the entrance or exit of a bullet. Perry described the wound in the throat as an "entrance" wound, although he later backed off a bit and said it "appeared to be an entrance wound."
But note also that the doctors had to speculate rather wildly about bullet trajectories. Perry said he didn’t know whether the two wounds were the result of one bullet or two, and Kemp Clark speculated that the head wound might be the exit of a bullet that entered at the neck."
Anyone who would draw conclusions from early statements by some of these doctors is really grasping at straws. You are reduced to claiming that the giant conspiracy somehow altered the actual wounds, or faked the X-Rays and autopsy photos, all of which is quite absurd. Conspiracists now claim that the Zapruder film, which shows the explosion of Kennedy's right front temple (a clear exit wound in front) has also been falsified or that the whole film is a fabrication.
Nothing that you have presented would change my mind. Early impressions about a Mauser, a throat wound as an entry or exit wound, whether or not surgery had been applied to the head -- conspiracy theorists seize on early but mistaken impressions without refuting the more thorough and accurate examinations and conclusions that followed. They are entirely selective in the facts or pseudo facts that they choose to believe and ignore the rest. They are highly motivated to convince themselves, and each other, of a massive conspiracy. Why, I do not know, but surely their obsessions with the non-existent conspiracy would be an excellent topic of study for mental health professionals.
Thanks for the discussion, I'll give you the last word.
Hi Chomper,
"The photo of the back of Kennedy's head is not remotely focused on the right side of his head"
The Doctors are referring to the right REAR side of the head, that's the part that is mostly shown and its plain to see that there is not a massive wound here.
"The only doctor that remembers a large head wound in the rear is Dr. McClelland"
Many more staff in the theater confirmed McClelland's account including the UTube links I posted regarding testimony from:
Dr Charles Crenshaw
Dr. Malcolm Perry
And ER Nurse Patricia Hutton "The Dr asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head. This was of no use howerver because of the massive opening on the back of the head"
" The doctors attending JFK in Trauma Room 1 were with him only 22 minutes; few of them saw the back of Kennedy's head because he was lying face up"
I have to say that this is a bit of a silly statement especially as one observer said "The lower half of the brain fell out"
"Claims that ALL of the Parkland doctors said the wounds were entry wound from the front is typical conspiracy nonsense: they lie"
Really chomper this is desperation, people told what they saw, as I said before why should a mix of perfectly normal people without an axe to grind suddenly turn into compulsive liars? ...unless its to save you from the truth...which is more likely?
"Nothing that you have presented would change my mind"
Speaks volumes
I believe that photo is a fake!
There was a massive head wound on the right rear side of his head. Now, this would not be absolute conclusive evidence that the shot came from the front but either way it does prove that the photo was not of President Kennedy and therefore involved a conspiracy.
There are literally hundreds of of inconsistencies in the whole affair that cannot all be put down to echoes, being green, being demonic, sensationalism, garbage etc etc.
Finally, although you point out an eyewitness statement (there are conflicting accounts here too) there is no absolute proof that Oswald actually pulled the trigger.
Thank you very much for your input into this discussion. Although we obviously have dynamically opposing ideas on the matter I am grateful to you for allowing me to state my points of view and I respect you for that.
Regards
John
I pissed on it last week; just google "peeing Oswald" for youtube vid
Post a Comment