Text 11433, 212 rader
Skriven 2013-12-04 15:32:47 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
Kommentar till text 11404 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Shannon Talley
======================
Hello Ward,
LL>> "It's something defining for me and a lot of people. Whether he's
LL>> guilty or not, (Oswald) is part of history." - Ward Dossche
LL>> Most people do not give a rat's cocktail about Lee Harvey Oswald,
LL>> and would rather the man had never been born.
WD>It cannot be denied that he moved into history, the same way that
WD>John Wilkes Booth became part of history.
Are you saying the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Who else,
other than Lee Harvey Oswald, was involved in the killing? Who else
aside from JFK was attacked? Who was put on trial, convicted, and
executed? Please tell. The world wants to know.
LL>> Furthermore, for most
LL>> people, there is absolutely no doubt that Oswald was guilty as hell,
LL>> and acted alone in murdering the President of the United States.
WD>That was not the case as I was able to observe it in Dallas.
When people first heard JFK had been shot and killed, the vast
majority thought like Jackie Kennedy - "Why did *they* have to kill
him?" However, since the findings of The Warren Report, most folks
agreed that Oswald acted alone. OTOH, authors such as Mark Lane,
Jim Garrison (the New Orleans District Attorney who put Clay Shaw
on trial), and others, made a killing spinning wacky conspiracy
theories, leading many people to believe that Hillary Clinton might
have been right about JFK being the victim of a vast right wing
conspiracy.
WD>A notable other Fido participant once told me something very
WD>interesting. He said there were 3 questions that needed to be
WD>answered:
WD> 1) Who took the final shot?
Jackie Kennedy (she had a small pistol hidden in her hand).
WD> 2) Who benefited from the murder?
Aristotle Onassis.
WD> 3) Who had the power to cover it up?
The Pope, having forgiven Jackie and allowing her to marry Ari.
WD>After having been on-site to see what was to be seen I am
WD>convinced that the Zapruder movie on which the whole timing
WD>hinges, consistently is played too slow thereby providing
WD>more time to support the lone gunman theory put forward by
WD>the Warren report.
Some of the frames are classified, never having been viewed by
the general public.
WD>Dealey Plaza is so small, the Texas School Book Depository so
WD>close, the Grassy Knoll so near that I cannot see how one or several
WD>gunmen could have done it without being spotted. There's a multitude
WD>of photos available now by hundreds of photographers taking pictures
WD>of something that day on that moment and none show any activity on
WD>the 6th floor.
The Dealey Plaza was a location. A convenient location to make it
look like somebody who did not shoot JFK did the dirty deed. This can
be proven by sound, if such a recording exists. Notice the Zapruder
film is a silent classic ...
WD>I do think that Oswald is involved but a Manlicher-Carcano is not
WD>high-tech. It all happened faster than is concluded from the speed
WD>by which the Zapruder movie is played ... I think Oswald indeed was
WD>a patsy, a pawn which was offered on a chessboard we will never
WD>understand. Not even your prodigy.
Oswald was a low-level CIA agent. He was born and raised in New
Orleans, but never had a stable home to speak of. His mother had
no idea as to how to raise him, probably because she was an unfit
mother. He joined the Marines, but that turned out to be a poor
career choice, so he left and decided to go to Russia. The Russians
didn't want him, so he returned to New Orleans, with a Russian wife
in tow. He still couldn't find a real job, so nine weeks before the
JFK assassination he left for Dallas. And that is where Lee found
his true calling ...
For any crime, there has to be a motive. What motive was there
for Oswald to assassinate the president? John Hinckley had a motive
to kill Ronald Reagan, his motive being to impress a 15-year-old
actress named Jodie Foster. Was Oswald trying to impress somebody?
If so, who? That is the real question that must be answered.
Just before leaving for Dallas, Oswald handed out pro-Castro
leaflets at the International Trade Mart. Actually, he handed
out leaflets twice in one week, both times in New Orleans.
Was that his motive? Catch Fidel Castro's attention? Nah.
Fidel would have cared less. But something else might do it ...
WD>The neuro-surgeon who was on call in Parkland Memorial when JFK
WD>arrived was in Dallas 10 days ago and he was very affirmative. There
WD>was an entry wound at the front-right temple and the exit-wound in
WD>the back took part of his skull away. He declared that really
WD>quick the secret service took the body away by force effectively
WD>preventing a post-mortem and that the photos of a dead Kennedy which
WD>are now available on the internet do not conform with what was
WD>available to him in trauma room 1 at Parkland Memorial. His
WD>testimony is carefully ommitted from the Warren Report, he stated.
Rumor has it that JFK was still alive, but in very critical condition.
The secret service took him away from Dallas as quickly as they could,
and had him flown to Bethesda Naval Hospital, where he was treated for
his wounds, an entire floor being corded off for him. An entire floor
of the hospital remained off limits to everyone for decades (except for
security, high government officials, and cleared medical personnel) as
it was "undergoing renovations." JFK was eventually moved to a private
nursing home, allowing the hospital to finally close its doors, where
he passed away peacefully in his sleep just a few short weeks ago.
The eternal flame (JFK's gravesite) recently underwent refurbishing.
This was just a cover story, as the world could never know the *real*
reason ...
WD>I'm waiting till 2027, I'll be 77 then, when the next batch of
WD>documents will be opened to the public's scrutiny but I doubt any
Wd>answers will be found, probably the mistery will be enlarged and
WD>even more books written on the subject. The shredders will have
WD>done a good job by then.
I doubt the truth will ever be known. Especially now that JFK has
finally been laid to rest. I mean, think about it. Had his body been
exhumed before he had passed away, there would have been no body to
exhume ...
WD>I think Oswald was involved, did not know there was another marksman
WD>with better equipment, and merely served to create confusion and a
WD>diversion by having the sound of gunfire come from different angles.
WD>The actual killer got away and Oswald was sacrificed.
If it was a conspiracy, the conspirators got away long ago. Although
Jim Garrison lost his case, Clay Shaw having been found not guilty, he
was definitely on to something. His assistant district attorney, who
argued the case in court, refused to talk about the JFK assassination
afterwards, even though he was very open about discussing every other
issue or topic.
Jim Garrison wrote a book about the JFK assassination, coming up
with a theory about a CIA agent popping out a manhole shooting the
president. After being ridiculed about that theory, Garrison admitted
he should have come up with a better theory. His assistant district
attorney knew better than to say a single word, in public or in
private, to anybody. Too many people who had been tied to the JFK
assassination had died under mysterious circumstances. Aycock wanted
to make sure he was not one of them.
LL>> There is no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. The weapon
LL>> that was planted when Oswald was taken into custody could not have
LL>> been the murder weapon for one obvious reason - the rifle had a
LL>> scope on it, and there is absolutely no way a shooter could have
LL>> made a kill on a moving target while using a scope.
WD>Further to that, after each re-arming the human eye would need to
WD>acquire the target again. Couldn't be done from there in that
WD>timeframe.
Yes, it could. But only if no scope was used. And even then, the
shooter would have to have been very, very good. Furthermore, had
it been a lone gunman, a lone gunman would most likely have taken
only one shot, if he/she was to have any hope of escaping. Two shots
would have given away his/her direction, three shots almost his/her
exact location.
WD>Plus, were Oswald the shooter, his best opportunity would have
WD>been after the limo turned right from Main Street and then went on
WD>Houston Street. It was going ultra slow there having to turn left
WD>again on Elm Street and was in a cul-de-sac, there was no escape
WD>other than get closer to the shooter and allow for an even better
WD>shot ... of course Connely was in the way.
You forget that Oswald had "magic" bullets. :)
WD>As for the slaying of officer Tippit ... I don't think any dispute
WD>is possible. Too many witnesses and the balistics matched the gun
WD>with which he wanted to shoot some more policemen in the Texas
WD>Theatre prior to the arrest.
Oh, come now. That was his body double. Everybody knows that. ;)
WD>It would have been deathrow anyhow.
Jack Ruby saw to it that Oswald never made it to deathrow.
Either that, or it was the greatest acting job ever performed.
Why did it take so long for Lee Harvey Oswald to die after getting
shot point blank by a two-bit nightclub owner in cahoots with the
mafia? Sure, the mafia had an interest in Cuba. And JFK had ordered
an (failed) invasion of Cuba. But politically it made no sense for
either the mafia or Fidel Castro to put a hit on the president. So
why did Ruby shoot Oswald? The only thing that makes sense to me is
that Ruby shot Oswald with a blank, with Oswald putting on a show for
the (live) television audience.
LL>> George W. Bush (and Laura) love Dallas. However, George H.W. Bush
LL>> (and Barbara) much prefer Houston. Now if only the Dallas Cowboys
LL>> and Houston Texans would cooperate by making it to the Super Bowl ...
WD>There's no Super Bowl in football.
Soccer (European-style football) is for sissies.
--Lee
--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
* Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)
|