Re: ABC News Declares "JFK shot himself"

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Caeruleo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Awake) wrote:
>
>> 
>> You didn't answer my questions of November 10th:
>> 
>> *What doesn't "make sense" about "JFK"?
>> 
>> Be precise and don't give me any references from the pathological liar's
>> "book".
>> 
>> Just explain the scenes in "JFK" that do not "make sense" and state why
>> you feel or think this way.*
>> 
>> If you're "intellectually honest" and without an "agenda" then answer the 
>> questions.
>> 
>> Discuss "JFK".
>
>He hasn't yet, but I certainly will.  Repeated from 2 articles I posted 
>yesterday:
>
>**********
>
>> Put in DVD of "JFK".
>> 
>> Go to Costner in court holding pointer and describing "Magic Bullet Theory"
>
>And see how the Single Bullet Theory as proposed by practically all of
>its proponents is completely misrepresented there.  I know of no
>serious researcher who believes in the SBT who has proposed that the
>bullet did all that stopping & turning; certainly the Warren
>Commission proposed no such thing, nor did the House Assassinations
>Committee (HSCA). 

No shit.

Grab a dictionary and look up "satire".

>Not that I especially believe in the SBT, mind you.  I think it more
>likely that Connally was indeed hit by a separate bullet in the back. 
>But Costner's demonstration is NOT the SBT proposed by the WC, or the
>HSCA, or any other major proponent of the theory.


It makes every bit as much sense, something obviously lost upon you.

>> Watch "JFK" again, it's all true.
>
>Oh, it's "all" true, is it?  I've just given one example of it being
>blunderingly inaccurate.


No, you gave me an example of your ignorance of satire or an absence 
of a sense of humor.


>Let's talk about another.
>
>In a latter scene not long before the trial, one of Garrison's
>staffers is asking him why they aren't doing more investigation of the
>Mafia.  Among several lines given to Costner in reply to the staffer
>is something to the effect of, "Could the Mob change the motorcade
>route?"  This comes straight from Garrison's book, which goes into
>more detail about this matter.  Garrison opined that because the map
>contained on the front page of the Dallas Morning News on 11-22-63 did
>not show the turns for the motorcade route onto Houston & then onto
>Elm, this was powerful evidence that the route was unexpectedly
>changed so late that the papers were not informed.
>
>But the truth of the matter is that this is merely a myth, absolutely
>& provably false.  The motorcade route as it actually occurred was
>announced to both Dallas papers on the evening of 11-18-63, & both
>papers published the exact route, including both of those turns, in
>text articles in their morning editions of the following day, 3 days
>before the assassination.  


So the route was changed.

Why would the route be changed to such a location that was a security nightmare?

A route that put Kennedy in a crossfire position?

This is how Posner does things, he removes all context as to what is important while
wordily demonizing someone over an error of little or no importance to the matter at 
hand, if indeed an error has occurred.

>In addition, the Dallas Times Herald
>published a map of the route on 11-21-63 which *also* quite clearly
>shows both of those turns.  

The day before.

Not much time for planning was there, yet at least two guns showed up to fire at
JFK and put him down.

Then Ruby put down the patsy a couple days later in a garage full of Dallas cops
he knew, after he called some of those cops and told them to change Oswald's
move or he would be killed.



>A mere unintentional error was made by the
>person at the News who drew their map, which was to begin with a very
>small-scale map, covering only about 1/16th of the page, so small in
>scale that it would have been difficult to show those turns anyway.


So the changed route was not visible?

How could Oswald have gotten where he was to kill JFK on one days notice
by way of a map too small to read?

Keep in mind that I'm just replying to what you wrote.


>There was no "change" to the route.  It remained exactly as first
>announced 4 days before the assassination, & on the day itself, the
>motorcade traveled precisely that route, with no difference
>whatsoever.


You've just contradicted yourself.


>With, moreover, Oswald driving the vehicle.
>
>The same Oswald who never got a driver's license, & according to several 
>people who had known him for years, including his own wife, had never 
>learned to drive.


And according to the Marines and the Russians, Oswald couldn't shoot either.

Yet somehow he showed up at the appointed time on one days notice via a map
too small to read, with a rifle that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 100 
yards,
and proceeded to accomplish a feet of marksmanship that defied the best efforts
of the best snipers at the FBI to repeat later in tests as well as all of the known 
laws
of physics.



>In addition, we are asked to believe with this scenario that it is even 
>remotely plausible that the very accused assassin of the President of 
>the United States, whose face, beginning immediately after the 
>assassination & continuously for many months afterward, saturated the 
>media, would appear in such a small town only 2 months before the 
>assassination, & that yet his "appearance" there would *not* be the 
>biggest piece of gossip ever to hit that tiny burgh in its entire 
>history, 


If Oswald had appeared in that town two months _after_ the assassination
then yes it would be huge news (even if he had not been assassinated!).

At the time that Oswald is supposed to have appeared there he was unknown
to one and all, and I can assure you that if I saw you tomorrow, look in my window
at breakfast, and then two months later you turned up on TV as the supposed 
assassin of the President I do not believe I would recall you simply because there
is no connection between the two things. Hell the connection couldn't be farther
apart.

However, if I did recall you looking in my window I would not call the police and tell
them such a bizarre story as "that assassin looked in my window two months ago!"

Heck, I would not want to admit ever having seen you if you were connected to
such an ugly event if I had no piece of useful information to pass on. Making a 
call like that to report such a non-sequitur would paint myself as a nut job.

You are attaching significance to someone simply standing in line to vote. Why would
anyone remember someone under such circumstances without serious prompting
from law enforcement shoving pictures in front of them and asking them pointed 
questions?

>In a town of less than 1/4th that population, a man who had been seen in 
>public 2 months earlier, 

He was a nobody when he was "seen".

I see people all the time where I live, I don't remember them two months
later just because I saw them. If I had talked to them sure, but not just seeing
them standing in a line.

Now if I saw someone outside my house two months ago and then two months later 
I saw them outside my house again I might well recall them because of the geography 
being the same. If I saw them at the mall two months later just walking by me or 
standing 
over against the wall then no way I would recall them as the individual I saw walking 
by 
my residence two months earlier, not unless they did something very unusal and 
disturbing
when they walked by my residence.

Now, someone puts down pictures, someone from law enforcement and
describes the day and the importance then maybe it would come back.

Maybe.

>It is awfully strange that you call Posner a "pathological liar," when 
>Jim Garrison represents the very definition of that word.  He's been 
>proven beyond all possible doubt to have told a good many more 
>bold-faced lies than Posner.


Well, by your own description Garrison didn't lie about the motorcade route.

The other story just makes no sense.

I'll tell you something else about that day. The guy who drove Oswald to
the book depository is in the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy",
and he is emphatic that the package that Oswald took there was no longer than
two feet, much shorter than the supposed rifle that Oswald was to have brought 
with him, and that it could not have been the gun. 

The Warren Commission and Posner simply ignore this guy and dozens of others
because it doesn't fit their "lone nut" myth.

Lone nuts are not assassinated two days later by a made member of the Mob.