The Assassination of JFK

[ElFenix]

So, you can't provide any rationale to square your claim with the details of the speech, and hence you defend yourself with a strawman insinuation of Jew-bashing. Figures, like KlokWyze noted:


Drama queens.

now what the hell are you even talking about?

 

[QuantumPion]

OK Ok you got me, I give up.



The Jews did it.

 

[kylebisme]

So, you can't provide any rationale to reject my interpretation of the details of the speech, and hence you defend yourself with a strawman insinuation of Jew-bashing. Figures, like KlokWyze noted:

Events like this always emotionally polarize people so much so that a rational discussion is always impossible.

Drama queens.

 

[Craig234]

How does do you square comments like these with your claim?:


From what I've seen; communism has aways constituted a scattering of varying ideologies rather than a monolithic conspiracy, they've relied primarily on overt aggression for expanding their influence (armies by day), and operate though big bumbling bureaucracies too, simply of a different ideology than our own. Also, communists weren't conducting of the Cold War just like we weren't, so Kennedy was obviously referring to a monolithic conspiracy of conductors had both sides of the orchestra playing along to their lead. This is also evidenced by the fact that Kennedy was working hard to defuse the Cold War, against people trying to turn it into a hot war through the Bay of Pigs such.


Were are you seeing any call for self-censorship in his speech, and what admission of regret from him are you alluding to? I see explicit warnings to to the contrary:


The first part of what I quoted describes exactly what has been happening at an alarming rate in recent times, the case of Wikileak's Collateral Murder video being one notable example. At this point we not only have the press attempting to stifle dissent, cover up our mistakes, and withhold from the facts the public deserve to know; but further, many are cheering on the prosecution of a military man who had the good decency break through the self-censorship which Kennedy warned us against.

It was Kennedy's speaking style to nullify criticism of his point with contrasts, addressing the 'other side'.

For example, when he'd want to carve out room that he would negotiate with enemies, to protect himself from right-wing attacks of being soft on enemies, he said:

'Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate'.

So when he was going to tell an audience of Newspaper editors who would be rabidly senditve to any government censorship, he'd begin with saying he wasn't asking for that.

And then on to the carefully phrased request.

I recall seeing a modern comment by JFK's primary speechwriter and advisor, Ted Sorenson, that JFK regretted the comments, that he'd 'gone too far'.

I can't find the quote at the moment.

As for finding his call for self-censorship, did you read the speech? It's not long after what you quoted, as I recall.

 

[kylebisme]

As for finding his call for self-censorship, did you read the speech?

I've read the speech multiple times across many years, and best I can tell; what you are branding as a "call for self-censorship" is nothing of the sort. That said, please quote whatever you are referring to specifically so we can discuss the details of it here.

 

[Craig234]

I've read the speech multiple times across many years, and best I can tell; what you are branding as a "call for self-censorship" is nothing of the sort. That said, please quote whatever you are referring to specifically so we can discuss the details of it here.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger...

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy...

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security...

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy...

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal...

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?"

I don't see a point to debating whether the remarks are a call for self-censorship or not; if you don't think they are, I don't see debate changing that.

But you asked for the relvant text to be identified that is a call for self-censhorship, and I posted it for that reason.

Saying that there is a global threat against our freedom, and that the press's printing some things it has helps the enemy, and that he sees the need to ask the press to 'reexamine its mission', and to be part of the call for all Americans to ask whether what they're doing helps national security, is IMO a call for mroe self censorship, regardless of all the nicities around it.

And my understanding is that he later agreed it was a mistake.

For another anecdote, he told the New York Times, who had sat on information about US involvement in the Bay of Pigs at his request for 'national security', that in hindsight he'd have preffered they had exposed the operation and prevented it happening. It seems he was partly joking about the 'humor' in the truth of the comment, as well as recognizing a benefit of the free press had not appreciated so much earlier.

 

[kylebisme]

Saying that there is a global threat against our freedom, and that the press's printing some things it has helps the enemy, and that he sees the need to ask the press to 'reexamine its mission', and to be part of the call for all Americans to ask whether what they're doing helps national security, is IMO a call for mroe self censorship, regardless of all the nicities around it.

Your quoting omitted his examples:

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

Surely you can acknowledge that a distinction can exist between calls for self-censorship and calls for common sense in matters of national security?

And my understanding is that he later agreed it was a mistake.

For another anecdote, he told the New York Times, who had sat on information about US involvement in the Bay of Pigs at his request for 'national security', that in hindsight he'd have preffered they had exposed the operation and prevented it happening.

Can you provide any sources to substantiate either of these two claims? With respect to Kennedy's intellect, I highly doubt he'd ever regretted his suggestion that journalists should have the good sense not to publish "covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations" and the like.

 

[zinfamous]

so it seems there are at least 45 fools in P&N.

I'm shocked the number isn't higher...

 

[kylebisme]

The poll shows 58 of you fools currently, which prompted me to do a little statistical analysis of participants in the thread:

--------------------------------------------------------

Currently 103 votes - 58 Yes, 45 No
Currently 29 commenters - 7 Yes, 7 No, 15 non-voting

Percentage of voters who've commented - 13.6%
Percentage commenters who've not voted - 51.7%

--------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Oswald acted alone (7):

Genx87
TastesLikeChicken
ShawnD1
3chordcharlie
heyheybooboo
woolfe9999
zinfamous​

No, Oswald didn't act alone (7):

bamacre
al981
TwinsenTacquito
LunarRay
dualsmp
KlokWyze
kylebisme​

non-voting (15):

irishScott
glenn1
boomerang
First
Danube
Freshgeardude
ShawnD1
Druidx
Nemesis 1
Craig234
blanghorst
ElFenix
nkgreen
rudder
QuantumPion​

--------------------------------------------------------

At some point I'll go back and tabulate how many from each list actually discussed the evidence mentioned in the OP, but note that currently nobody from the "No" list has even attempted as much. Most of the fence sitters haven't either, yet curiously they've put the most effort into defending the official story while ignoring the evidence in question.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I actually laugh at the 9/11 conspiracy theories because those are so readily disproved.

But with JFK there's a lot of stuff missing. The Warren Commission concluded one thing but didn't the House investigation leave the possibility of the 2nd shooter out there?

If you take the single bullet theory, it's not completely wrong. There have been major reproductions of this, and it seems like it just happens to travel in the right path so as to impact all these people and then hit JFK smack through the back/neck or whatever. It also injures the governor, etc.... I believe Discovery did a mockup and positioned all the people in the motorcade such that the hit could happen, and it worked. It's like one of those cartoons where something bounces around and just happens to hit the target right in the end. Yeah. That's it. It's like the perfect 1 in 1 trillion impact shot that happens.

Then there's the headshot of course. There's enough discrepancy in the evidence such as the film, the recordings from the cop, and testimonial evidence to show that there COULD have been a second shooter or something to do with the grassy knoll. The investigation was so botched that it's hard to conclude either way. And just like scientists do, the government gambled on a likely theory and stuck with it. Is it as sound as the theory of gravity? Nah.

So I wouldn't be surprised if in reality something different happen. There's a lot of inconclusive stuff even if you just look at say facts spelled out on Wikipedia.

Once again I totally laugh at the 9/11 conspiracy theories though.

 

[zinfamous]

There is no debate, actually. It's like evolution vs creation. The evidence is so insurmountably one-side that Oswald acted alone.

Amazing.

 

[kylebisme]

I actually laugh at the 9/11 conspiracy theories because those are so readily disproved.

Actually, the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is easily disproved by comparing the destruction of the WTC buildings to the laws of physics. That is why neither the official cover-ups or anyone else has managed to produce and semblance of experimental confirmation to suggest otherwise, and why there is currently 1209 architects and engineers calling for a proper scientific investigation through this organization alone. You can find a good presentation from them explaining as much here.

But with JFK there's a lot of stuff missing. The Warren Commission concluded one thing but didn't the House investigation leave the possibility of the 2nd shooter out there?

Yeah, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded there was a second gunman based on an audio recording. Their conclusion was later "debunked', though I figure that was accomplished by doctoring the recording.

If you take the single bullet theory, it's not completely wrong.

How do you square that with the evidence of shots from the front mentioned in the OP and elsewhere throughout this thread?

There have been major reproductions of this, and it seems like it just happens to travel in the right path so as to impact all these people and then hit JFK smack through the back/neck or whatever.

The Warren Commission had to say it was in the neck to get it to square with their single bullet argument, but the autopsy photos show it in the back.

 

[LunarRay]

Craig234

I don't see any evidence of the commission members 'covering up' info, and it's pretty clearly impossible for there to have been a big conspiracy to hide a 'real killer', but it does seem less than ideal to have the CIA director Kennedy forced out of office on it, for one. But Earl Warren, for example, was hardly going to hide a killer.

On the other hand, the commission was aware that it was involved in reducing the risk of the public blaming a foreign country for the assassination - which made LBJ worry of war.

That was the argument LBJ used to get Warren, who did not want to be on it because it wasn't the role for the Supreme Court.

The commissioners themselves did not really run the investigation so I'd not opine they could or even would if they could limit or direct how the investigation flowed.
I did listen to the LBJ tape with Warren wherein he asked him to chair the commission. EW was reluctant to be a part of it.

One thing for sure... IF Oswald did not act alone it was a conspiracy... It then follows that either the folks with the power to control the situation had to pin it on Oswald but they did not cause it to occur or they instigated it...

There is not enough proof to label anything conspiratorial found in any of the investigations.. just a lot of loose ends and conflicting testimony. [imo] There are quite a few issues that lead one to fall into one camp or another and they do this by accepting one issue and rejecting a conflicting one.

However, there are some issues that do stand by themselves and those convince me that Oswald - the one who really is Oswald - did not do what is attributed to him. Read some of the testimony from his Marine buddies. Oswald seems a very conflicted person or more than one of him.

 

[LunarRay]

I actually laugh at the 9/11 conspiracy theories because those are so readily disproved.

But with JFK there's a lot of stuff missing. The Warren Commission concluded one thing but didn't the House investigation leave the possibility of the 2nd shooter out there?

If you take the single bullet theory, it's not completely wrong. There have been major reproductions of this, and it seems like it just happens to travel in the right path so as to impact all these people and then hit JFK smack through the back/neck or whatever. It also injures the governor, etc.... I believe Discovery did a mockup and positioned all the people in the motorcade such that the hit could happen, and it worked. It's like one of those cartoons where something bounces around and just happens to hit the target right in the end. Yeah. That's it. It's like the perfect 1 in 1 trillion impact shot that happens.

Then there's the headshot of course. There's enough discrepancy in the evidence such as the film, the recordings from the cop, and testimonial evidence to show that there COULD have been a second shooter or something to do with the grassy knoll. The investigation was so botched that it's hard to conclude either way. And just like scientists do, the government gambled on a likely theory and stuck with it. Is it as sound as the theory of gravity? Nah.

So I wouldn't be surprised if in reality something different happen. There's a lot of inconclusive stuff even if you just look at say facts spelled out on Wikipedia.

Once again I totally laugh at the 9/11 conspiracy theories though.

The House committee indicated a conspiracy based on the 'sounds' of gunfire recorded but I'm of the opinion that tape is not reliable as evidence of anything. The testimony of witnesses indicated that some sounds were not at all like rifle shot... That is odd...

There is a hole in JFK's back that leads to a dead end as per Autopsy.
The angle to produce the various trajectories would best be from the second floor on the other side.. and from another building alltogether..

The Govenor's recollections are fairly powerful.

Newton said that Kennedy's brain matter ought to explode in the direction of the projectile... Brain matter and skull bits did some odd things for only one shot hitting him...
The vehicle maintained constant velocity during all the shots. Kennedy's initial recognition of being shot did not indicate projectile direction that I could see but the head shot(s) did.

 

[kylebisme]

The House committee indicated a conspiracy based on the 'sounds' of gunfire recorded but I'm of the opinion that tape is not reliable as evidence of anything.

But it's not even a tape, which demonstrates how uninformed your opinion is. :\

 

[LunarRay]

But it's not even a tape, which demonstrates how uninformed your opinion is. :\

They were presented a tape of the transmission recorded on what I call a dictabelt... The motorcycle transmitted via an open 'mike' to the base station's recording device...

You'd know that a second or third generation of an original does not have the same validity as the original... ergo, the tape is not the best evidence... or they indicated incorrectly and did listen to the original... either way it remains my opinion...

Edit: As I recall now, it seems there was testimony to indicate the sounds heard came from near the Trade Mart.. quite some distance away.. but it is inconclusive at best.

 

[LunarRay]

Just to be on the same page regarding the various means of presenting evidence that is written, recorded or photographed... Best Evidence Rule:
"The rule that, to prove the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original is required unless it is not available for some reason other than the serious fault of the party trying to prove the contents thereof. If the original is unavailable, the testimony of the person who created the original or the person who read it (if a writing), listened to it (if a recording), or saw it (if a photograph) may testify to its content. However, modern evidentiary rules usually permit the use of mechanical, electronic, or other similar copy instead of the original."

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded there was a second gunman based on an audio recording. Their conclusion was later "debunked', though I figure that was accomplished by doctoring the recording.

What happened was, the House Committee, which did a broad review of the information but was cut short by limited funding and time, was leaning towards a conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin - until the audio from the police motorcycle was found to allow triangulation of the shots that convinced the reviewers that the shots did come from two locations, indicating multiple shooters.

This was tricky work with low quality audio, separating car and other noises and cracking sounds from the gunshots, but the reviewers were convinced, and primarily on that evidence, the officialy conclusion was that it was likely that the assassionation involved a conspiracy.

However, when a prestigous scientific body reviews the same data, they concluded that it not did show a second shooter.

As with many things in the assassination, the issue is complicated and inconclusive.

It is intriguing, but has not been resolved as far as I have seen.

 

[Loyalist]

There is a hole in JFK's back that leads to a dead end as per Autopsy.
The angle to produce the various trajectories would best be from the second floor on the other side.. and from another building alltogether..

That is false.

The other missile entered the right superior
posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right,,side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the rightlupper lobe of the lung . The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body .
​

Kennedy's initial recognition of being shot did not indicate projectile direction that I could see but the head shot(s) did.

Also not true. The projectile direction cannot be ascertained by merely viewing the video of the assassination.

 

[LunarRay]

That is false.

The other missile entered the right superior
posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right,,side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the rightlupper lobe of the lung . The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body .
​

Also not true. The projectile direction cannot be ascertained by merely viewing the video of the assassination.

Is that so?

Seems to me one can determine many things from observation of the video. And from pictures of Kennedy's back. In any event, Cyril Wecht seems to think you can and I tend to agree with him. I figure he knows more about this stuff than I do.
The 'Cone of the Particulates' is an established forensic 'tool' used to determine directionality of a projectile. The Video does show something regarding this. At least to my eyes.

 

[Loyalist]

Is that so?

Seems to me one can determine many things from observation of the video. And from pictures of Kennedy's back. In any event, Cyril Wecht seems to think you can and I tend to agree with him. I figure he knows more about this stuff than I do.
The 'Cone of the Particulates' is an established forensic 'tool' used to determine directionality of a projectile. The Video does show something regarding this. At least to my eyes.

Ok, then can you tell me what you see in these two videos?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/melon2.mpg

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/skull.rm

 

[Loyalist]

Cyril Wecht is a forensic pathologist who believes that Kennedy's "back and to the left" motion indicates a shot from the Grassy Knoll. But when called as a expert witness in the Menendez retrial, he insisted that simple Newtonian physics isn't much use in determining how people will react to a shot. ​

 

[kylebisme]

They were presented a tape of the transmission recorded on what I call a dictabelt...

Rather, "Dictabelt" is trade name of a form of phonograph recorder, which records onto a plastic cylinder rather than anything which can rightly be called a "tape."

What happened was...

I'm familiar with that. I'm still curious about your claim that Kennedy had regretted his suggestion that journalists should have the good sense not to publish "covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations" and the like though. How did you derive that belief?

The projectile direction cannot be ascertained by merely viewing the video of the assassination.

True, but the likely location based on the head movement in the films squares with the account of the the small entrance wound in the front and large exit wound in the back from various doctors and nurses ad Parkland hospital and such.

Ok, then can you tell me what you see in these two videos?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/melon2.mpg

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/skull.rm

Those videos show objects which are near optimal for getting them to fall back in the direction they were shot from, a light outer shell filled heavy liquid, and a bare-bone skull, both sitting loose on platforms, quite unlike a human head attached to a living body.

 

[LunarRay]

Cyril Wecht is a forensic pathologist who believes that Kennedy's "back and to the left" motion indicates a shot from the Grassy Knoll. But when called as a expert witness in the Menendez retrial, he insisted that simple Newtonian physics isn't much use in determining how people will react to a shot.
​

I think there is a difference between how a body part reacts to trauma and what I was talking about... 'Cone of Particulates'. IOW, how the head and the rest of Kennedy reacted to to the trauma is one thing... the brain matter and skull bits are another. IF one could view the brain one could look and see the point where the particulates are the beginning of the cone and that would or should indicate the entry point. Failing having the brain to perform such an analysis the next best evidence might be looking at the separation of the skull bits and brain matter from the head. What direction did they travel considering all the dynamics of the vehicle travel etc.

Regarding the two videos. I see a watermelon, I think and in the other a skull, I think. Neither seem to be connected in any manner to the platform they rest upon other than by friction. I have seen the watermelon and other similar productions. It appears the producers are attempting to show that the movement of the object being struck by a bullet proceeded to move in a direction from which the bullet came after being struck by the bullet.
I've seen people being hit by projectiles before... also seen trees being hit and other objects... a tiger even. Of course, that was in VN where in retrospect I'd not expect many things to follow the rules let alone gunshot trauma.
But again, 'cone of the particulates' indicates to me that the transfer of energy does occur according to Newton's laws.

 

[kylebisme]

...how the head and the rest of Kennedy reacted to to the trauma is one thing... the brain matter and skull bits are another.

Right, like Jackie crawling out on onto the trunk to recover a chunk of his brain. And yeah, the cone of the initial spray suggests a frontal entry too, even despite all the doctoring which was done to the film.