Re: ABC News Declares "JFK shot himself"

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Caeruleo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Awake) wrote:
>
>
>> >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.
>
>May I ask how you know it was "inside" of 6 seconds, when the total 
>timing for the shots has never been conclusively established?


The House Select Committee on Assassinations came to this final conclusion
after more than a two year investigation in which the House of Representatives
concluded that it was "probable" that a conspiracy was hatched in the murder 
of JFK.


>> "JFK" covered very well what Garrison was up against.
>
>No it didn't.  That movie is extremely selective about what elements of 
>that case are portrayed in it.


The film let Dan Rather and others off the hook for things far more egregious than 
anything Garrison ever did in his pursuit of what happened.


>> 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.
>
>Could be, but all that's irrelevant to the tremendous & fatal flaws in 
>the Garrison investigation.


Who said that Garrison solved the case? No one to my knowledge.

What Garrison did was what the rest of the "American" establishment failed to do,
investigate what happened on November 22, 1963.


>> >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.
>
>ROFL!!!  That's ALL you have to say about the matter?  And nothing at 
>all about the OTHER trial witnesses whose stories changed dramatically 
>over time, not to mention the ADDITIONAL serious internal & external 
>flaws in their inconsistent claims?  So you'll not "inquire further"?  


The man who drove Oswald to the book depository the morning of November
22, 1963 said that the curtain rods could not have been the rifle because the
package was a foot shorter than it would have had to have been.

He said that then, he said that in front of the Warren Commission, he said it
on video tape two decades or more later in the documentary by Nigel
Turner called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy".

For some reason I just can't fathom you are not impressed by his consistency. 

This event and this witness are thousands of times more important than
the events and witnesses you are citing.


>David Lifton:
>**********


Quotes from Lifton calling someone else egotistical.

Rather like the pot calling the kettle black is it not?

How is anyone's ego relevant to what happened on November 22, 1963?

Why are you never interested in inquiring into what _is_ important?


>During this meeting at the Century Plaza, Garrison kept pointing to 
>other people who would walk by, and especially to anybody who had a 
>briefcase, and tell me that "That's an FBI agent." 


I'm sure Garrison was right about that far more often than he was wrong.

It's even worse today.

>> 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.
>
>Plenty of people in the media did do their patriotic duty at the time: 
>they accurately reported the fatal flaws in Garrison's investigation, 
>even when not nearly as much was known about the inner workings of that 
>investigation then as is known today.  


Why were they investigating Garrison four years after JFK was assassinated when
in the preceding four years they had done nothing to challenge the big lie that
today over 70% of Americans do not believe?

Why do the "mainstream" media attack anyone who questions their absurd lie?

Why did they refuse to follow the hundreds of leads in JFK's murder?

The House of Representatives said it was probable that a conspiracy was at
work in the murder of JFK, yet these fearless and righteous members of the
"mainstream" media continue to defy the Congress and the will of the
American people in their relentless repetition of their big lie.

Here's an example of real journalists at work:

www.theassassinations.com

Real journalists _ask_ questions, they investigate to the ends of the earth.

>> >> 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.
>
>I don't get my information solely from widely-distributed books, 


No, you get your bullshit from pathological liars working for the perpetrators
of JFK's murder.

- - - -
"Well that's the real question isn't it, why?

The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba,
the mafia; keeps them guessing like some kind of parlor game. Keeps 
them from asking the most important question, why?

Why was Kennedy killed?

Who benefited?

Who has the power to cover it up?

Who?"

- Donald Sutherland as "Mr. X" in JFK