Re: ABC News Declares "JFK shot himself"

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Caeruleo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Awake) wrote:
>
>> 
>> No shit.
>> 
>> Grab a dictionary and look up "satire".
>
>> No, you gave me an example of your ignorance of satire or an absence 
>> of a sense of humor.
>
>Rather obviously I did no such thing.  I've just watched that scene 
>again between typing this sentence & the last.  It is blindingly obvious 
>that Costner/Garrison is claiming IN COMPLETE SERIOUSNESS that his 
>diagram showing a zigzagging trajectory for the bullet & his verbal 
>description with his pointer stick is EXACTLY WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION 
>PROPOSED THE BULLET TO HAVE DONE.  The only "satire" contained in that 
>scene is his ridiculing of this theory, which is in reality a theory 
>NEVER PROPOSED by the WC.


If you have the sophistication of a retard who needs his chin wiped then perhaps
Costner is being literal.

For anyone with a three digit IQ the scene is a satirical send-up of the Warren 
Commission's
absurd theory (or rather Senator Arlen Specter's theory) about how one bullet managed
to act as no other bullet ever fired could. The satire is accomplished through 
Costner's
ridicule.


>No one who has done extensive research into that weapon's capabilities 
>would make such a statement.  The Carcano certainly wasn't a state of 
>the art rifle in 1963, but it was still a rifle of perfectly acceptable 
>performance.  Several posters in alt.assassination.jfk own Carcanos of 
>either an identical or similar model to the "Oswald" rifle, & they 
>report that the weapons perform quite adequately.


I guess the problem is the FBI sharpshooters huh?

They seemed not to have that problem at Ruby Ridge though.

>That presupposes exactly what Oswald's "feat" might have been.  The 
>purpose of the FBI snipers was to accomplish 3 such shots in as short a 
>time as possible; rather obviously, the shorter the time, the less 
>accurate they generally would be.  


Well, Oswald didn't have all day as Charles Whitman did, his shots were squeezed 
off inside of _6_ seconds.

It can't be done with that rifle, that was established long ago.


>Your own argument also suggests that it might be *less* likely for 
>anyone to subsequently remember him, since he was not "known" at the 
>time.  Thus the fact that a few people nevertheless DID later claim to 
>remember him might give you pause.
>
>And there was no "law enforcement shoving pictures in front of" these 
>witnesses when they gave their earliest statements.  You might do well 
>to study in detail how the Garrison staff first collected these 
>statements.


"JFK" covered very well what Garrison was up against.

The entire establishment -"Prozac Pete" and "What's the Frequency Kenneth"-
came down on Garrison as hard as they could. Until Stone's film came along they
were sure they had killed Garrison.

They want the JFK assassination buried as they want Ruby Ridge and Waco buried.

There is no statute of limitations for murder nor those who help to conceal a murder.


>The problem is that he *also* said that he knew both of these men, as 
>they were local residents, & he identified them as Estes Morgan & 
>Winslow Foster.  There's not a thing in these earliest Collins accounts 
>about Oswald getting out of the car & standing in line.
>
>How do you reconcile this with what Collins said 2 years later at the 
>Shaw Trial?


I can't.

I don't know who he is, what he was afraid of or if he hoped to gain something.

He isn't important, so I have no reason to inquire further.

I'm not interested in your next thousand words of slander directed at the
deceased Jim Garrison who did his patriotic duty to the best of his ability.

I just thank him for his efforts.

If only those in the major media had done their patriotic duty this thread would
not exist and the real United States of America would exist.


>> Lone nuts are not assassinated two days later by a made member of the Mob.
>
>And who was this "made member" of the Mob, exactly?  Surely you don't 
>mean Jack Ruby?  


Yes I do.

Read "Contract on America" by David E. Scheim.



-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.