Comments for JFKfacts

Comment on They were there: MacNeil/Lehrer on Nov. 22, 1963 by Marian Veverka

Marian Veverka — Fri, 24 May 2013 01:28:56 +0000

This story reminds me of my 1950′s University journalism classes. “In a story not yet concluded, stick to the facts.” It was Oswald who was charged by the police. Oswald – no one else. “Charged by the police.” Not found guilty by a jury of his peers, but still, the only person charged with that crime. Anything else is speculation. Both Mr. MacNeill & Mr. Lehrer reported the facts as they were made known at that time. As private citizens, they have the right to keep their opinions to themselves.

Comment on South Tampa Tribune schools the AP by PKM

PKM — Fri, 24 May 2013 01:05:43 +0000

See Rex Bradford’s entry for November 23, 2012 in JFK Facts (i.e., this site).
LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?
Hoover: No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason—we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.
Another comment that has been made about the tape recorded voice of the man impersonating Oswald was that he spoke “broken Russian.” This remark was made in contrast to Oswald’s relative fluency in conversational Russian, as noted by Marina in her comments about first meeting Oswald. See http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=5099&relPageId=2 for copy of memo re “broken Russian” and “hardly recognizable Russian.”
See also re Lopez report and controversy about the tape and the voice on the tape-recorded telephone call not being Oswald’s: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0011a.htm.

Comment on South Tampa Tribune schools the AP by John Kirsch

John Kirsch — Thu, 23 May 2013 23:50:43 +0000

The last sentence — “Oswald was no John Hinckley, Squeaky Fromme or Arthur Bremer.” — frames the issue precisely. Who was Oswald?

Comment on South Tampa Tribune schools the AP by leslie sharp

leslie sharp — Thu, 23 May 2013 23:04:43 +0000

Solid evidence that there was more than one shooter would persuade a jury that at least two people assassinated President Kennedy. But would it persuade a jury that their dual conspiracy involved others?

I fully respect the role of forensics in this case; however, the term conspiracy – combining Oxford and Merriam definitions – suggests ” a group . . . with unusual power,” and two or more shooters does not take the case to conclusion of a conspiracy by definition were I a member of that jury. (As absurd as it sounds, it could be argued that instead of “one lone nut,” there were two . . . perhaps brothers?)

However, if that evidence was presented along with proof that Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby were at the very least acquainted and (possibly) involved in illegal business together, I would be comfortable with the case for conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is interesting that Oswald’s protestation that he did not shoot John Kennedy was completely ignored by the commission and buried by the press, but Ruby’s explanation of his motive for killing Oswald was accepted by both which redirected any wide public attention from the possibility of a relationship between the two men and rationalized Ruby’s actions in many minds.

Comment on Fact check: Was a Mauser found in the Texas School Book Depository? by Pablo

Pablo — Thu, 23 May 2013 22:47:44 +0000

I was looking at some photos of the motorcade and noticed that there were 3 spectators holding umbrellas (closed). This illustrates to me that there were at least 4 individuals that were prepared for the possibility of rainfall, and makes “umbrella man” seem a little less out of the ordinary.
I think that it would be much more productive for those who have the desire to further the case for conspiracy, to concentrate on the facts. Spending limited and precious energy bickering about theories and hypotheses serves only to “wear you down” and allow the dialogue be focused on non facts. A skilled debater will continually steer the line of questioning back to the facts, while deflecting and ignoring his opponents attempts to avoid the facts. For 50 years we have been dealing with a disinformation machine that has used its understanding of human psychology and behavior to create doubt and confusion with regard to the assassination. (Know you enemy). It is up to we, the truth seekers, to rise above the temptation to argue over hypotheses, and spend our time searching for more truths.

Comment on South Tampa Tribune schools the AP by EconWatcher

EconWatcher — Thu, 23 May 2013 22:14:59 +0000

I have to admit that I thought the “two Oswalds” theory was completely nuts until I read a piece of transcript in which J. Edgar Hoover asserts in recorded discussion right after the assassination that a man who presented himself as Oswald in Mexico City was not the man apprehended in Dallas. I haven’t read Morley’s book about Win Scott yet, but I assume he must get into this.

Comment on South Tampa Tribune schools the AP by Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 23 May 2013 21:46:33 +0000

In “Harvey & Lee”, John Armstrong makes a persuasive case that the person Jack Ruby killed (“Harvey” Oswald) was a native speaker. He also makes a persuasive case that there was a second Oswald — “Lee” Oswald — whose identity got blended, both pre- and post-assassination, with Harvey’s identity.

I agree with you, EconWatcher, that an American who was trained in Russian could never speak Russian as well as a native speaker.

Comment on South Tampa Tribune schools the AP by EconWatcher

EconWatcher — Thu, 23 May 2013 21:35:46 +0000

By the way, I don’t suppose it’s possible that there is a tape existing anywhere of Oswald speaking Russian. But if there were, and it confirmed de Mohrenschildt’s description of his proficiency, I bet that alone would turn a lot of doubters on whether there was a conspiracy. The image of him fluently conversing in this very difficult language does not fit the mainstream portrayal of him at all.

I’m not saying I think he was some kind of master spy. If he were some kind of intelligence asset, as the South Tampa Tribune thinks, it would probably be the kind of asset that gets manipulated, used, and thrown away.

But that kind of proficiency in Russian is a big deal. And de Mohrenschildt seems very credible on the point. Marina has also been quoted as saying he spoke Russian well, but I think that’s less significant, because Russians tend to give you a lot of credit just for going beyond “hello, please, and thank you.” De Mohrenschildt provides a meaningful evaluation.

Comment on They were there: MacNeil/Lehrer on Nov. 22, 1963 by Pablo

Pablo — Thu, 23 May 2013 21:19:35 +0000

Thank You Tom. Perfect dissection of his contradicting statements.

Comment on South Tampa Tribune schools the AP by Sherry Fiester

Sherry Fiester — Thu, 23 May 2013 19:07:07 +0000

Scientifically establishing the projectile striking Kennedy in the head originated from the front is paramount to supporting a second shooter, and thereby establishes a conspiracy. Beveling, fracture sequencing, projectile fragmentation, target movement, and blood spatter in gunshot wounds to the head are current methods of assessing a projectile’s direction of travel. The first is deemed unreliable, the other four support a shot from the front when applied to the evidence in the Kennedy assassination. Importantly, they so while meeting the evidentiary standard required to support a criminal conviction in today’s courtroom. The media in general needs to consider how contemporary forensics is impacting assassination conclusions, report what we can now prove, and move away from the “conspiracy theorists all wear tin hats” stories that are just fluff.