A faithful reader calls attention to an interview about the logic of the Warren Commission as expounded by one of the artists behind a new (and excellent) graphic treatment of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
Dan Mishkin doubts a JFK conspiracy because its “hard to place him [Oswald] as a member (or dupe) of any conspiracy, largely because of the timing of his getting the job at the Texas School Book Depository and the announcement of the motorcade route.”
No matter what you think of those two factual points (and they are worthing thinking about), Mishkin’s “Warren Commission Report: A Graphic Investigation into the Kennedy Assassination” is a compelling telling of the JFK story.
Here’s how Mishkin explained the evolution of his thinking:
“Mishkin: I didn’t go into the research and the writing of this book with a definite idea concerning Oswald’s guilt or innocence, or about the various conspiracy theories, but more with a sense of seeking some kind of understanding and closure. And as we’ve already talked about, the focus of the book is not on solving the mystery but on figuring out what went wrong in society, in the investigation, and in the conduct of the commission that left us with such a confusing mess.
Having said that, I did come to settle on what I think is the most convincing theory of the case, and was surprised to find myself basically on the side of the Warren Report, at least as far as the findings are concerned. I think it’s virtually impossible to read from the physical evidence any conclusion except that Oswald was the only person who fired a weapon in Dealey Plaza that day; and I think it’s nearly that hard to place him as a member (or dupe) of any conspiracy, largely because of the timing of his getting the job at the Texas School Book Depository and the announcement of the motorcade route.
Which is not to denigrate people who raise reasonable doubts about the lone-gunman hypothesis. There are all sorts of inconsistencies and gaps in that case, and it’s understandable why people would pursue them to see where they lead; I just don’t think they lead to a theory that’s anywhere near as compelling.
I also don’t mean to give the Warren Commission a free pass or to apologize for them, which I’m sure you know since you’ve already read the book. Although I ended up believing the commissioners were by and large (though not always) very well-intentioned, they made bad choices and foolish mistakes just about every step of the way, with consequences that all of us are still living with.”
149 thoughts on “The core logic of the Warren Commission”
According to Robert Caro, Kennedy and Governor Connolly began planning the details of the November trip to Dallas in early October 1963, almost 2 weeks before Oswald began working at the Book Depository:
“Johnson tacitly was admitting that his former aide now was the master of Texas Democrats. That point was underscored on Oct. 4, 1963, when Connally flew to Washington, D.C., and worked out the agenda for Kennedy’s November trip to Texas unbeknownst to Johnson. The itinerary included visits to Houston, San Antonio, Fort Worth and Dallas before an evening fundraiser in Austin — the most liberal city in the state.
I believe the theory that Oswald was infiltrating a rogue (anti-Kennedy) element of CIA has great merit. My question would be whether he would have been doing so on behalf of the “good guys” in CIA, or on behalf of the FBI, or some other force entirely. His anti-Castro work was intense and persistent, but again, working his way into the anti-Castro group could have simply been a step towards infiltrating the even more radical anti-Kennedy group. The question to me isn’t whether he was working for the intelligence community–he clearly was–but which faction he was most loyal to at the time.
The Nazi Rocketeers: Dreams of Space and Crimes of War
Proton- more info on SS Walter Dornberger
Dennis Piszkiewicz – 2006 – Biography & Autobiography
Helen B. Walters, Hermann Oberth: Father of Space Travel, Macmillan … 1932: FBI files on Walter Dornberger obtained through the Freedom of Information Act
“AMERICAN soldiers fighting in World War II had barely laid down their guns when hundreds of German and Austrian scientists, including a number implicated in Nazi war crimes, began immigrating to the United States. They were brought here under a secret intelligence project codenamed “Paperclip.” Ever since, the U.S. government has successfully promoted the lie that Paperclip was a short-term operation limited to a few postwar raids on Hitler’s hoard of scientific talent. The General Accounting Office even claims that the project ended in 1947.
All of which is sheer propaganda. For the first time ever, this’ book reveals that Paperclip was the biggest, longest-running operation involving Nazis in our country’s history. The project continued nonstop until 1973-decades longer than was previously thought. And remnants of it are still in operation today.”
If any doubt that all wars are banker’s wars, or who think the “US won the 2nd world war”, this book will help to put such delusions to rest. Add this to the Antony Sutton Wall Street books topped off with this grand slam, ‘Skull & Bones’, and reality finally emerges from the deep shadows of a massive historical lie and hoax perpetrated as ‘the official story’.
I wouldn’t call the wars of the ancient Mayans and Aztecs “banker’s wars”.
As for Skull & Bones, I think that Yale social club gets way too much credit. What about the Hasty Pudding Club or the Porcelain? They feel left out of the action!
And before you rant at Paperclip and its offspring, NASA, don’t you think the incredible leap in computer technology which you evidently seem to benefit from when you type a response was helped along by this infrastructure stimulus (to borrow from Robert Reich)? And let’s not forget that John F. Kennedy shook von Braun’s hand at Huntsville when he went down there, congratulating him on the progress of the large booster rockets that he was developing for Kennedy’s Moon Shot.
I wouldn’t call the wars of the ancient Mayans and Aztecs “banker’s wars”.~Sam
I seem to recall that gold and political power had something to do with these struggles as well.
the insane thing about not only Mishkin’s belief but also the fact that anyone would think it makes sense is – if Oswald did it, as Mishkin believes, than any confederates Oswald may have worked with had as much time as he did to coordinate with LHO and do their business; once again I am astounded by the lack of recognition that Mishkin’s statement makes no sense at its base. The assassination took place; so clearly the timing wasn’t the issue.
What I recognize about Mishkin’s comments is that they appear to go back and forth. I remember when then-Senator Obama appeared to criticize Condoleeza Rice as he was announcing his decision to vote for or against her in her Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing(before she became Secretary of State). In the end, Obama said, in so many words, “given all these doubts I have about you as Secretary of State, I vote to confirm you”. That was a performance not unlike Mishkin’s overall feeling here.
“Obama said, in so many words, “given all these doubts I have about you as Secretary of State, I vote to confirm you”.”
Yes indeed, he syrup on the waffle.
Motorcades in Dallas traditionally went down Main Street. There was no doubt that it would go through Dealey Plaza. The only question was where the luncheon would be held. Depending on the venue, the motorcade would have gone straight down Main street and under the Triple Overpass or the path that it took. So didnt take a genius to know JFK would be going through Dealey PLaza. So the late selection of the precise route of the motorcade is no reason to disbelieve in a conspiracy
The phone call between LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/1963 it is the 20:21 minutes version; at time frame 12:15 in the tape LBJ ask if Oswald is the “ONE” at time 12:18 J. Edgar Hoover answers yes. This is before the Warren Commission was officially created.
At the beginning of the tape LBJ goes over the Warren Commission line up with J. Edgar Hoover. What is funny is the answer by J. Edgar Hoover give concerning his snitch Gerald Ford when asked by LBJ what he thought of him.
So if there is any real logic then it must be evident in this 20 minute phone call between LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover.
All I hear is President John Fitzgerald Kennedy Constitutional protections get pissed away by LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover.
It’s the Warren Commission dummy!!!!
The Real question is how many LHO(s) were in dark theater built by Howard Hughes on 11/22/1963? 2
Hughes built the theatre on November 22, 1963?
I don’t think that’s what Jesse meant to say, H.P.
I don’t know what year Hughes built the theater but yes, two Oswald’s in the Texas Theater.
Per “The Assassinations”, pg. 129. One came in a few minutes after 1:00, bought popcorn at 1:15 and went to the balcony where Oswald was arrested per the police report. At least four witnesses saw him taken out the back door and put into a squad car.
Everybody knows the story of the “other” Oswald we know and love. Arrested on the ground floor, “I am not resisting arrest” The famous picture out front of the smiling cop chewing the cigar.
If you control the creation of the Warren Commission then you control the out come!!! G.I.G.O…
Nooooooo not myyyyyyyyy Government! LOL
I just listened to that conversation between Hoover and Johnson. The whole conversation was how to limit and control any investigation, heading off all others that were gearing up at the time.
Johnson asks, “What do you think about Alan Dulles as one of the members?”
Of course Hoover thinks it is a splendid idea.
Dos it really take a “crank”, “a tin-hatted conspiracy nut” to grasp what is going on here?
“Paranoid Style” indeed. Huh!
Beyond the evidence cited by Mishkin, there remain some serious problems with the Oswald-did-it scenario:
1. It does not seem that any reliable witnesses saw Oswald in the sixth-floor window of the TSBD. Five out of the six witnesses who saw a person in the sixth-floor window described that person as wearing light-colored clothing; three of them described an “open-neck shirt.” Oswald is known to have been wearing dark clothing when he arrived at the TSBD; two reliable witnesses said he was wearing either “some sort of brown or tan shirt” (Linnie Mae Randle) or “a brown-type shirt” (Marrion Baker), and Oswald himself was wearing a brown shirt when he was arrested.
2. Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald sitting in the second-floor lunchroom as she was leaving the building at 12:15 p.m. (From Anthony Summers’s “Not in Your Lifetime”: “[The time] can be fixed so exactly because Rowland recalled having seen the man with the rifle just as a nearby police radio squawked out the news that the approaching motorcade had reached Cedar Springs Road. The police log shows that the President passed that point between 12:15 and 12:16.”)
3. We know that Oswald was working on the sixth floor at 11:45, when his co-workers went downstairs (with Oswald calling after them to send the elevator back up for him). Bonnie Ray Williams went back up to the sixth floor at 12 p.m. to eat his lunch, and he told the WC he “was there from — 5, 10, maybe 12 minutes,” and that he had not seen Oswald.
4. Had Oswald snuck up to the sixth floor and hidden himself? It seems not: William Shelley saw Oswald on the first floor at “about 10 to 12,” and Eddie Piper told the WC that Oswald had told him “I’m going up to eat” (i.e., from the first floor to the second floor) at noon. How do we know that they didn’t get the time wrong? Because multiple witnesses tell us Oswald was on the sixth floor at 11:45. If they did get the time wrong, it could only have been later, not earlier, than they remembered.
This gives Oswald basically no time to prepare for the assassination. If he was on the second floor until 12:15, he could — in theory — have scuttled upstairs to the now-empty sixth floor, changed his shirt, quickly assembled a sniper’s nest, fired the shots at 12:30, then changed his shirt again, hidden the rifle, and trotted back downstairs to the second floor where he ran into Marrion Baker. (Keep in mind that the motorcade was scheduled to go through Dealey Plaza at about 12:25, so Oswald, assuming he intended to shoot Kennedy, would have been giving himself only 10 minutes to prepare for the assassination, not 15.)
The alternative: Oswald went down to the first floor after 11:45, went to the second floor to eat his lunch, and was there during the assassination.
Mr. Mishkin’s central argument defies all logic. Oswald acquired the job at the TSBD as a result of personal inquiries and direct actions made by Ruth Paine. Paine was the sister of a CIA employee, the daughter of a senior USAID official, and the daughter-in-law of the founder of Bell Helicopter, a major defense contractor. Paine secured the job for Oswald personally, and neglected to inform him about a better paying job from Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission.
From Spartacus Educational: “After the assassination, DPD officer Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they “found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers.” James DiEugenio has argued that this “cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents in the Cold War against communism.””
It’s a non-controversial matter of record that Paine had proximity to multiple intelligence officials and that she personally acquired the TSBD job for Oswald. And there’s strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that she was herself an intelligence asset.
To summarize: Oswald was placed at the TSBD. He was placed there by a person with highly suspicious connections to American intelligence. He was placed there before the motorcade route was released.
The notion that these facts disqualify a conspiracy is laughably absurd. These facts evince a conspiracy.
Bravo! Excellent points from J. Ian Roth.
The Single Bullet Theory. How charming.
Continue to treasure, coddle and protect these remaining defenders of the Warren Commission. Their numbers are dwindling in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence; Leaving us to debate a diminishing number of only the hardest core lone nutters – equipped with creative minds and near-genius level imaginations. They’ve kept you in “debate mode” for 51 years.
Fifty one years spent barking at the Government constructed perimeter that surrounds the facts and evidence which should have put the real killers behind bars decades ago.
To conjecture that a Presidential assassination could take place in Dallas, Texas in 1963 and argue that Lyndon Johnson wasn’t involved is the mark of a playful and nimble mind that exists only to mock. The day will come when even the lunatic fringe will acknowledge the absurdity of the conclusions that our Govt. forced us to digest. When that day arrives – We’ll be left with the realization that we fiddled while Rome burned. We’ve let scores of years of inaction spin by; While allowing the fringe’s nonsequiturs to keep us debating instead of prosecuting. So again I plead; Hold these lone nutters close, pet them, indulge them, don’t let them fall by the wayside. Once they do, we’ll be forced to accept the agonizing realization that big brother beat us again.
Without any doubt about it: LHO gets just what he wanted. He gets to win on both sides of the assassination coin. He becomes a ‘big man’ whether either way.
This man was a fool and was literally able to capitalize on the coincidental visitation of JFK to Dallas that day. JFK summed it up best when he told his own wife…’We’re in nut country now’…
He did it and he was caught in lie after lie from the very first moments of the aftermath. One shooter. Oswald.
Oswald lied. I don’t think there can be any doubt that. But so did the CIA in this case, hiding evidence, for instance, of the existence of the agent overseeing the DRE.
Have you ever had interactions with CIA assets that result in TV, radio and newspaper coverage? Anybody you know ever did? Amazing some itinerant nobody did six weeks before allegedly killing the president of the United States.
The only real choice you have is to believe Oswald – a defector and traitor during the height of the Cold War – caused all that ruckus himself in New Orleans and then somehow fell off the radar screens of the intelligence community even after raising more hell in Mexico City, or the CIA was using him for some still undetermined reason. My vote is for the latter.
“Without any doubt about it: LHO gets just what he wanted.”~Bill
Preposterous, he was murdered in cold blood. And now you simply defame him as a “nut”, although he was never proven guilty of killing anybody.
He never would have been convicted at trial, IMO. His civil liberties had already been grossly violated by Dallas authorities before he was disposed of on November 24th.
Faulty Evidence – Problems With the Case Against Oswald
Bill, Dallas Police Chief Curry said no one was able to place Oswald in the 6th floor of the TSBD with a rifle in his hand.
“The WR was imperfect because it was written by humans. IMO, they should have said “upper back,” not “base of the back of the neck.”
Jean, these are recurrent themes when you are painted into a corner; a transparent fall back position particularly when that one bullet comes under close scrutiny. Specter spent decades arguing the single bullet and you perpetuate the same untenable argument by suggesting it was a matter of semantics? Consider who wrote the final report Jean, then discuss those “human flaws and imperfections” Would a judge and jury accept that argument.
I’m certain you won’t venture to contemplate Gerald Ford’s career let alone the network of affiliations that brought him to public office in the first place – far too man dots to consider. Suffice to say he did not arrive there because of his intellect; even you will have trouble defending that assertion.
Consider yourself charged with the heinous crime of murdering the leader of the free world, and ask yourself if your family and loved ones – knowing you to be innocent – would be satisfied in the aftermath of your electrocution (in the 1960’s) with explanations … ‘well, it was just a question of human flaws, imperfections and should haves? ‘ … ‘we did our best.?”
I presume you have loved ones and fellow Americans that would be beating the very same drum on your behalf as we are on behalf of Oswald. The Warren Report simply wasn’t good enough, it left the public suspicious in spite of the fact these were skilled prosecutors, investigators, statesmen. They had to have known – by mid December to mid January that they were speeding toward a conclusion in reckless disregard for a thorough investigation. Anyone who ties their reputation to this report must surely be wondering how to defend it in light of all the new arguments.
That’s why some of the staff lawyers quit. They realized it wasn’t really a fact-finding mission.
I am not someone who believes in a small conspiracy and I can make no sense of Oswald’s character or conduct. There is sufficient first hand evidence of a shot from the front (Creating a huge exit wound) and sufficient evidence of after-the-event activity, to supress and distort evidence. I can’t understand how, when faced with these few elements, that anyone can conclude Oswald acted alone, and that is where the story ended.
I’ve talked before about the memo stating that “The public must be convinced that Oswald was the lone shooter”(words to that effect). I would hope that a lot of people today realize that the memo didn’t quite support the notion of Oswald as the lone shooter.
There never has been any “core logic” of the WC. It was created to prevent Congressional and Senatorial investigations. And to present LHO as the lone assassin.
LBJ was advised to create it and whom should be on it.
Ford informed to Hoover. The only unemployed member, Allen Dulles, whom JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs, ran it.
Actually Oswald’s numerous job changes and varied employment history is the classic sign of an intelligence operative. His last minute employment at the TSBD is completely consistent with that.
I haven’t read this particular book. However, the trip to Dallas was delayed several times. John Connally was directly involved with the changed motorcade route. It also appears that Ruth and Michael Paine, along with George Demohrenshieldt had a lot to do with manuevering Oswald into a job at the TSBD. Once Oswald was in position, the route as adjusted, and Boom, job finished. The fact that no one can connect Oswald to any particular groups only serves to strengthen the case of his being a “Patsy”. I think Garrison had it right though….and Oswald was being played by Bannister, Jack Ruby and the CIA.
With Ruth and Michael Paine’s backgrounds, actions, connections and testimony the story of Oswald’s hiring at the TSBD begs more investigation, even if impossible at this time. With his, their, and De Mornschild’s cia connections it makes one wonder.
Throw in the ownership of the TSBD by Harold Dry Hole Byrd and it starts to sound fishy.
Ronnie Wayne, Why impossible? Frazier, Buell Wesley and Ofstein, Dennis Hyman our still alive and working It’s never too late to get the facts out there.
From all I’ve read, LHO’s act of filling out his job application at the TSBD appeared to me a mere formality.
Last I remember of Ruth Paine she was still towing the line for the WC in a video. Probably on U Tube somewhere. Maybe around the 50th.
Wesley Buel Fraizer gave a presentation at the Irving, TX community center before the 50th. He was still being shepherded by 61/62′ (?) cia applicant Hugh Ayensworth.
I’ve read nothing about Michael Paine in recent years.
Michael Pain worked with Walter Dornberger at Bell Aircraft Corporation.
Dornberger was a Nazi rocket scientist who was brought into the US under the auspices of Operation Paperclip.
According to French Intelligence he was involved in the JFK assassination through an interlocking directorate of former Nazi’s and sympathizers who were ensconced in US Intelligence (Reinhard Gehlen), academia, and industry.
Like Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger was a member of the Nazi Party and more importantly both were in the SS.
Here we go again.
Willy, Walter Dornberger was never a member of the SS. That is slander. When Himmler tried to take over the rocket program the SS tried to move him out of the way and made his life extremely difficult. Indeed, the SS had ordered all prominent members of the rocketry program to be shot at the end to prevent their capture by the Allies.
What proof do you have that Dornberger ever joined the Nazi Party? He was an observant Lutheran who loathed the raced-based policies of the Nazis and was shunned by other ( pro -Nazi) generals while in captivity.
Von Braun did what he had to do to get ahead-Dornberger didn’t.
To try to link Dornberger ( or Von Braun for that matter) to any aspect of the JFK assassination is simply ridiculous . Willy, you seem to get a lot right in your posts- often contradicting pro-conspiracy factoids. Why try to create new ones?
Pardon me, perhaps Dornberger was not SS. But he was a Nazi, and a general.
Like the industrialists, bankers, and spooks who got him into this country, Dornberger should have been tried for war crimes.
Dornberger was the chief instigator for getting Nordhausen built and staffed. The infamous scenes of stacks of kindling like corpses from old newsreels are from the liberation of Nordhausen.
While some of these Nazi psychos were punished, the smarter ones got away … with a little help from their American friends.
While it is obvious that Dornberger had no concern for the prisoners at Mittelbau-Dora and bears moral responsibility for their treatment there is no evidence that he had anything to do with the day-to-day activities there.
But that doesn’t make him a Nazi. You could make the same claims about looking the other way about atrocities for some members of the July 20 plot to assassinate Hitler-did that make them Nazis?
Until you can show some evidence that Dornberger joined the Nazi party you shouldn’t call him a Nazi. I do admire your ability to recognize errors and correct them. From a conspiracy supporter that is extremely refreshing.
Dornberger was NOT a Nazi. Neither was von Braun. Operation Paperclip was helpful to the US. People aren’t pure evil or pure goodness. That’s primitive, tribal thinking. Institutions can be corrupted, like CIA. But even CIA (or some form of intelligence gathering) is necessary to a nation state, a player in the world stage. The trick is to get them back into just intelligence gathering, and also to monitor their budget, take away the covert ops, which belong in the military and not in the CIA. I get tired of knee jerks on the right and the left who try to lump evil onto one character, as if they are the Catholic Church and it’s the Middle Ages. And Willy, there is NO nation state that has ever operated in a pure libertarian fashion. None. Ayn Rand was a good comic book writer of fiction, but she wouldn’t know how to run a nation to save her life.
“In Nazi Germany, you lost at least your freedom, and possibly your life if you did so.” … von Braun replied, “… yes, I was a member of the Nazi party and the SS.”
He officially applied for membership in the Nazi Party on November 12, 1937 and was issued with membership number 5,738,692.
Braun joined the SS horseback riding school on 1 November 1933 as an SS-Anwärter. He left the following year.:63 In 1940, he joined the SS:47 and was given rank in the Allgemeine SS. In 1947.
. . . . .
As far as the rest of your twaddle about “libertarian” and Ayn Rand (who I happen to despise) I suggest you lay off this dig and stick to the topics of these conversations.
Although you say seemingly wise words like “People aren’t pure evil or pure goodness”, you seem oblivious to true human nature, both at personal and organizational scales…
Intelligence gathering can not take place unless it is “covert”… And given enough time, the “covert” always gravitates towards immoral, if not illegal. And when covert parties obtain the power to give themselves even more power (by hook or by crook) how do you propose to accomplish that “trick” to “get them back into just intelligence gathering, and also to monitor their budget, take away the covert ops..”, which is an utterly naive and oxymoronic proposition.
I stand corrected on von Braun. It seems you are correct, Willy.
So you’re not an Ayn Rand fan, eh? I would have thought with your anti-government rants that you were. You seem to have this purist fascination with anarchist ideas however. Like the libertarians and the marxists, anarchy doesn’t work in the real world. “Twaddle” indeed.
You get some of the facts right that I miss sometimes (and sometimes it’s the other way around) but your attempts to clothe your factual data base into this absurd rant against all authority doesn’t hold up to logic. Deep down you must know that, but you cling to it anyway, the same way the Warren Commission believers cling to their fantasy of Oswald acting alone, in a pristine USA where there is no corruption in the military or intelligence communities.
“..but your attempts to clothe your factual data base into this absurd rant against all authority doesn’t hold up to logic.”~Sam
This “absurd rant” accuse of is actually based on the principle of ‘Unalienable Rights’ that lies at the core of the foundation of your so-called “government” – and it is you yourself who do not recognize the oxymoron; that you yourself imply in your commentary that the State has the authority to grant and revoke the rights of Liberty on grounds of expediency.
“In Nazi Germany, you lost at least your freedom..”~Von Braun
In ALL statist systems you loose your freedom.
“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority.”~Lord John Acton
“In ALL statist systems you loose your freedom.”
Bullsh-t. If you don’t have rule of law, you’re nothing but herd of wild animals.
Unalienable rights don’t just mean no rule of law. On the contrary, without rule of law and an assigned authority, you have chaos, and the strongest rising to the top, because power abhors a vacuum. The framers knew this, when they met in Philadelphia, in 1787. Show me ONE place where your system works, Willy. In the real world.
“Show me ONE place where your system works, Willy. In the real world.”~Sam
What “rule of law”? States are ruled by caveat and diktat. These so-called “laws” only apply to “the little people” – the ruling class is exempt.
No Sam, I show you “the real world” where YOUR system works; a world of constant warfare and oppression by your precious system of States.
A system where the elitists at the top rule through the “legalized” monopoly of deadly force.
It is delusional not to see this.
“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.”~Lord Acton
Okay, so you’re a libertarian-socialist.
Your theory still doesn’t apply in the real world, except maybe in a hippie commune with a small population.
“Okay, so you’re a libertarian-socialist.”~Sam
Painting me with labels that you pull from the lexicon of Newspeak is grasping at straws.
You have no grasp whatsoever of the architecture of modern political power. No more than a mouse understands the mechanism of a mouse trap.
I ask: What does it mean to be well adjusted in a pathological society?
You know the obvious answer to that. So your next strategy is to deny the pathos of a world ruled by the paradigm of war and conquest, rape and pillage, and the maxim of “Might is Right”.
It is no secret Sam, the declaration of the “Forever War” is right in front of us all.
Re: Sam ‘Show me one example where your system works.”
Mr. Whitten, would you agree that Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War is a good example? Whatever else might be argued, one can hardly maintain that the Anarchist experiment collapsed due to any inherent fault. Who can say how it might have evolved?
For Sam: This is really just one man’s opinion, but for me Anarchism is simply the understanding that there is no such thing as inherent power. Furthermore, with respects to all parties involved, any assumption of power must be mutually agreed upon and symbiotic in nature. The extent to which both of the above aspects exist within any system of governance is as good a barometer of freedom as one is likely to find.
“..would you agree that Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War is a good example?”~JohnR
Yes! As short lived as it was. Had they been left to their own devices, it may have been ultimately very successful. But as we know it wasn’t merely the Fascists who ultimately took them down, all Statist concerns were aligned against such an experiment coming to fruition. Those “uppity peasants” will always be taught where their proper place in “polite society” is.
“Bullsh-t. If you don’t have rule of law, you’re nothing but herd of wild animals.” (Sam)
“Ayn Rand was a good comic book writer of fiction” (Sam)
“So you’re not an Ayn Rand fan, eh?” (Sam)
“Okay, so you’re a libertarian-socialist.” (Sam)
Early humans had only two words for the colors they saw: Light and dark… Although moderately more complex, a similar lack of language for colors has been observed in isolated tribes and was initially interpreted as a certain inability to see and differentiate between colors the way “we” do. It did not take long to discover, through experimentation, that what hey lacked was not the ability to see colors, but the language necessary to register the colors in their memory.
Extrapolating this to the seemingly very complex language of political and philosophical views, movements and thoughts, one can easily recognize the fact that attempting to place everything within the limits of existing lexicon and terminology renders the person incapable of recognizing anything new or different.
The system that “works” for humankind is either not thought of and formulated yet, or it has been buried deep under our so-called “civilization”, which has been around for only a fraction of a second in the cosmic scale.
It is not really “rule of law” that works, but it is more a matter of which rules and which laws, made and enforced by whom, over whom, and with what kind of intentions, and to what end… Anarchism is neither an ideology, nor a system of governance. It is an antidote for that “rule of law”, which, without exception, eventually gets concentrated in the hands of a few and stops its true function of benefiting the “many”, and perpetuates so that the “few” can retain their privileges.
When someone (like Willy Whitten here) speaks of the color “Pickled Okra”, let’s not call it simply “dark”.
Hi David and Willy
Barcelona during the Civil War was anarchist? From my (ahem) 2 minute read on Google it sounds like rule by a single Union. Were the union delegates even elected by the members?
If there were no delegates and all decisions were made by majority rule of the union members then I’m not sure how that is different to early Greek democracy??
Willy, I thought you were opposed to majority rule under any circumstances??
Admittedly, I’ve probably missed many subtleties in that cursory read.
I can’t speak to the specifics of Barcelona being an anarchist formation as I do not consider myself knowledgeable enough on the topic.
But, to reiterate a point I attempted to make above, I do not see anarchism as a viable system of governance for any political formation. We are, after all, pack animals and require a command structure even for relatively small organized packs. It seems like it works well for us humans, whether the what we are fighting is a wild beast for sustenance, or an army that threatens our survival.
It is more of a natural reaction to laws and systems that slowly (but surely) start abusing this structure and start sacrificing members (or entire sections) of their own pack in order to maintain their own pack-leader status. And an inherent desire to shed what we feel is detrimental to our own survival. One could argue that it’s a dynamic that functions as organic checks-and-balances. Hegelian dialectic in its non-sinister form.
Nice to meet you, Vanessa. Sorry I could not address your question.
“I do not see anarchism as a viable system of governance for any political formation”
I agree with David’s statement pasted above.
“I do not see anarchism as a viable system of governance for any political formation”~David
So do I! Don’t you get it! It is NOT political formation, it is NOT government, it is NOT system. It is self responsibility.
Nice to meet you too. 🙂 Not at all – you’ve provided me with some food for thought. Certainly google refers to this situation in Barcelona as anarchist. It’s just I didn’t think that there was any sort of ruling body in an anarchist polity.
I appreciate your intelligent commentary on these issues. I agree with you on the ‘pack animals’ issue although I prefer to call us social animals. :)Whichever I don’t think we can really get along without our fellow human beings in some sort of ordered society. And mostly we seem to like it that way.
Self-responsibility? Don’t you already have a lot of that in the US? I would argue that is what has caused a lot of your social problems.
And the Barcelona example – would you really want to be ruled by a union?
You won’t read anything about Michael Paine but I can tell you that he and Ruth, although divorced for many years live only doors apart from each other. I’ve met and spoken to both of them and saw Michael as recently as two weeks ago. I spent a couple of hours with him and took a number of photos.
My only problem with a theory of Connally’s involvement is why would he put himself and his wife in the line of fire? Doesn’t make sense to me to “take one for the team” on that level.
Connally was not in on the plot, but aware of it. He obviously thought the assassination would take place at the Trademart, not on route.
Another inconsistency I see with Connally’s alleged involvement is that he insisted that the single bullet theory couldn’t be true. If he was in cahoots on some level or another with conspirators why didn’t he insist one bullet hit him and JFK instead of inviting rumors of conspiracy based on his denial of the single bullet?
“If he was in cahoots on some level or another with conspirators why didn’t he insist one bullet hit him and JFK instead of inviting rumors of conspiracy based on his denial of the single bullet?”~Thomas
You answer this yourself in your original inquiry, when you say, “Doesn’t make sense to me to “take one for the team” on that level.”
The idea that he thought the assassination would take place at the trade mart is a theory, there’s nothing “obvious” about it. His involvement at any level remains a theory.
If Conally thought the assassination would take place at the Trademart, he was obviously in on THAT plot. Perhaps the planners did what quarterbacks frequently do-change the play at the line of scrimmage.
A good possibility Willy. I’ve read LBJ berated JFK early that morning in Ft. Worth insisting Yarborough ride with him (LBJ’s enemy vs his protegee).
Then there was a a scene at Love Field with LBJ’s SS agents. And the changing of the order of cars in the parade by the SS. Along with the reduction of the number of Motor Cycle Policemen riding with JFK and the elimination of them from directly by his side, interfering with sniper shot’s.
As was done in previous parades.
I don’t think Connally would have knowingly rode in the car if he knew it would happen where/when it did.
In light of no edit icon… I’d like to clarify my original post. LBJ wanted Yarborugh to ride with JFK.
Thanks for bringing up the LBJ’s attempting to Switch Yarborough for Connally for the jump seat position in the limo. I wanted to add that, but so many counters to my posts have had me jumping from opponent to opponent here. It makes my head dizzy at time it comes at such rapid fire.
Ronnie: Absolutely the SS riders were called off the JFK car. You can see it happen on film. I wonder if anybody ever directly asked Connelly if he knew he was being switched to the JFK car or not? He was so close to Lyndon through many years of being LBJ’s bag man with cash for votes and ballot stuffing operations in Texas, you’d think he would have been told of the switch plans. He certainly took part in helping to plan the parade route. I think LBJ had to have been behind the assassination, but I don’t think he did it alone. I think he had powerful accomplices at CIA, in the military and FBI, to name the big ones.
The film of the SS agents being called off JFK’s car at Love Field is extremely disturbing. Not least because it has only surfaced recently and has clearly been cut out of all previous versions of the departure from Love Field. Who did that and why?
JMO but I don’t thin LBJ was behind it. I think at a minimum he had foreknowledge and most likely involved by pulling strings with his previously established Dallas connections. Things like pushing the Trade Mart via Connally. Somebody had Sheriff Decker tell his deputies “not to participate in security” and more. JMO from a few years of reading a few books. I don’t claim to be a researcher.
He didn’t take one for the team. LBJ tried to get him out of that seat that morning arguing with JFK for Yarborough to ride with JFK. Connally was Johnson’s protege, Yarborough was his enemy. Connally surely knew something was going to happen, not necessarily an assassination in Dealy Plaza. Hence is cry on being hit “My God, they’re going to kill us all” (from memory).
The next time you look at the photos of Yarborough, Kennedy, Johnson, and Connally the morning of 11-22, before the parade, notice their expressions. Y and K look happy, normal for the occasion. LBJ has such dark circles under his eyes that he looks like he has two black eyes from being up late at Murchison’s, and hooded, as if worried about the outcome of his do-or-die plans.
But JBC, all that morning and in the parade, looks as though he’s ready to cry or worse. He’s scared. He doesn’t look like a man who has brought the Chief Executive, and a fellow Democrat too!, to his state after a long and hard-fought planning. His instantaneous excited utterance (best evidence in a crime) when he was wounded, “My God, they are going to kill us all!” confirmed his worst, well-reasoned fear.
I agree with Mishkin for the most part.
From 30,000 feet when looking at the facts of the case, Lee Oswald is the only known suspect in JFK’s murder due to his connection to the murder rifle. He was inside the Book Depository when the shooting happened. He’s the only named suspect plus he had the means and opportunity to do the deed without anyone’s help. The simplest answer in this case, that it was a crime of opportunity and Oswald acted alone, seems most plausible.
A closer examination of the evidence exposes many flaws and inconsistencies in the JFK assassination case. The evidence is muddled enough that the possibilities that Oswald was part of a conspiracy or was framed still deserves consideration.
It’s correct that Oswald couldn’t have known the motorcade route weeks before Kennedy’s trip to Dallas. However, Kennedy’s trip to Dallas was planned months in advance. The details of the plans were being finalized around the time that Oswald got the job at the Book Depository and could’ve been known and leaked weeks in advance by an individual inside the local Dallas law enforcement loop or an individual within the Federal national security loop.
But at the end of the day, most conspiracy theories are speculation.
No other suspects are named besides Lee Oswald. Him being the lone killer of JFK remains the most plausible explanation.
Neil: If you are convinced that LHO “owned ” the WC claimed murder weapon, perhaps you would like to offer an explanation as to where LHO obtained the ammunition for the MC? If you can, you are a far better detective then the FBI, Secret Service, DPD or any other investigative agency or person since there has yet to be an answer. Moreover, don’t you find it curious that an assassin would only bring along 4 rounds to do his infamous deed? Remember, no ammunition for the MC was ever found on Oswald, his lodging, or personal effects.
Brian and Neil,
There is also no chain of legitimate evidence concerning the rifle said to have been delivered to Oswald. All of the original records disappeared while in FBI custody, and all they have offered are photocopies, and even these present an impossible string of events.
I used the word “connection” because I’m aware of the disputes over Oswald’s ownership of the Carcano. Whether Oswald owned it or he was framed he’s “connected” to the murder rifle due to it being delivered to his PO Box and the fingerprint evidence.
None of which could have been fabricated, of course, Neil.
Except that there were weak links in the case against Oswald that would have been exposed in a legal forum had he lived to stand trial.
For example, there is no documented evidence or eyewitness account proving that anyone ever took possession in March of 1963 of a rifle that had been received at Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.
For the millionth time (or just seems that way) I’m going to suggest you can have Oswald shooting alone and STILL have a conspiracy on all levels: manipulating Oswald to make sure he does it, covering up those ties, and helping Oswald without his knowledge.
Hello President John F. Kennedy presidential news conference #22 January 31,1962
Why wasn’t the stockpile investigation mentioned in the Warren Commission report???
It was a very critical investigation in the words of the murder victim JFK. The reason for the investigation arose from the Bay of Pigs operation. WTF
Dan Mishkin – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dan Mishkin (born March 3, 1953) is a comic book writer, and co-creator (with Gary Cohn) of the DC Comics characters Amethyst, Princess of Gemworld and …
Another fine “expert” to add to the stable of the Warren Commission cult. Maybe not even the most laughable!
Hey, let’s not knock him because he’s a comic book writer. Creative people are often good at seeing the larger picture (even though I don’t share his point of view on this topic).
Evidence of Oswald shooting alone aside, until we get a truthful explanation of what the U.S. intelligence agencies were doing with the future alleged assassin of the president in the summer and fall of ’63, I don’t see how anyone can come to a final conclusion about the case when Oswald interacts with the DRE, owned and operated by the CIA, and the FPCC, completely infiltrated by the FBI at that point. Not to mention Mexico City.
The answer is either an innocent one of a major screw up of not seeing Oswald as a threat or something much more sinister. I lean toward the latter but the Americsn people deserve an explanation either way.
Hear, hear. If it was innocent the FBI and CIA would have said, “we should have done our job better,”by now, over 50 years later. It is clear there is more being hidden than just embarrassment.
All you have to do to KNOW the Warren Report is an utter fraud is just look at the bullet wounds in JFK’s shirt and coat which proves the Magic Bullet Theory is a joke and one bullet did not cause 7 wounds to JFK and Connally.
And beyond that all you have to do is look at the Zapruder film to KNOW that JFK’s head kill shot came from the front right.
Then read books by Roger Stone and Phil Nelson indicting the rest to fill in the rest. The key point is that the murderers of JFK were running the non-investigation into his death which is why the government posits ridiculous things.
“…just look at the bullet wounds in JFK’s shirt and coat…”
Clothes don’t get wounded, people do:
This is the original sentence Ford tried to correct:
“A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine.”
“Entered his back … above the shoulder.” Where would that be on a body chart?
Gerald Ford forced to admit the Warren Report fictionalized
Gerald Ford Moving the JFK Back Wound
Ford “admitted” no such thing, David. The article you linked to is baloney. Ford tried to correct a poorly worded sentence that wasn’t even in the WR’s section on the bullet wounds. The section on JFK’s wounds placed it exactly where the autopsy report said it was: 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process, the bony point behind the ear. That’s in the upper back, not the neck.
Besides that, “raising” the wound to the neck wouldn’t help the single bullet theory as many CT writers have *assumed* it did. It actually makes a SBT impossible (the angle downward would be too steep to hit Connally where it did, and the shooter would have to be in a helicopter).
Caveat lector, dude.
In 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board released a draft of the Warren Report marked up by Gerald Ford that had been held by Warren Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin. The initial draft of the report stated: “A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine.” Ford had changed it to “A bullet had entered the back of his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine.” The level of the entry wound in Kennedy’s back is critical to the viability of the “Single Bullet Theory” which is essential to the belief that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. The version that ultimately appeared on page 3 of the Warren Report was “A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.”
Gerald Ford’s Role in the JFK Assassination Cover-up Crime Magazine http://www.crimemagazine.com/gerald-fords-role-jfk-assassination-cover via @CrimeMagazine
Jean, it certainly appeared that Specter used Ford’s alteration to his advantage, though. Did Specter tell Ford, “No, that won’t make it work Gerry, but nice try”? I doubt it.
“The initial draft of the report stated: ‘A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine.'”
That sentence is fine, in your opinion? Is any part of your back slightly above your shoulder? Please describe it to me.
“The level of the entry wound in Kennedy’s back is critical to the viability of the “Single Bullet Theory”…”
Darn right it is, and moving the wound up to the neck would DESTROY the SBT, not help it. The angle from the sniper’s window was calculated to be c. 16 degrees,
which works fine with an entry in the upper back exiting below the Adam’s apple and striking Connally near his armpit. An entry in the nape would be much steeper, around 45 degrees or so, it appears to me. Look at a profile view of JFK and compare the angles yourself.
“The version that ultimately appeared on page 3 of the Warren Report was ‘A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine…'”
That’s right, “page 3,” which was an introductory section, not the section specifically devoted to describing the wounds. The WR was imperfect because it was written by humans. IMO, they should have said “upper back,” not “base of the back of the neck.” But the section on wounds’ description was more specific: c. 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. Measure that on yourself. Upper back, right?
“Gerald Ford’s Role in the JFK Assassination Cover-up Crime Magazine http://www.crimemagazine.com/gerald-fords-role-jfk-assassination-cover via @CrimeMagazine”
Why should I read nonsense in Crime Magazine when I can look at the original documents and testimony for myself?
“IMO, they should have said “upper back,” not “base of the back of the neck.” But the section on wounds’ description was more specific: c. 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. Measure that on yourself. Upper back, right?”~Jean
But the wound was NOT 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. As mortitian Robinson notes, the back wound was 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder- that is at least 10 inches lower than placing it “5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process”.
Jean asks; “Why should I read nonsense in Crime Magazine when I can look at the original documents and testimony for myself?
That answer is clear enough on reading this Crime Magazine article that it is far from “nonsense” and develops a case that proves your “original documents” are the real nonsense.
Plus this added jewel:
“Oswald did it by himself scenario is the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”
As contained in a tape of an Oval Office conversation with aide Bob Haldeman, which was not made public until 2002.
This link goes to the autopsy face sheet and notes by Boswell. As you will see, he puts the backwound where mortitian Thomas Evan Robinson describes the back wound: http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/images/397.jpg
You’ve been trying to have this both ways for a long time now, Jean. Yes, you are correct: Ford didn’t move the back wound. But Specter and Ball did months before Ford changed a few words. The WC’s own documents support that Ball and Specter knew the wound on the face sheet was too low to support that a through and through bullet came from the sniper’s nest when they went to visit the doctors before their testimony. Do you think it’s just a coincidence, then, that they asked the doctors for “help” in the form of drawings demonstrating the bullet’s trajectory, and that these drawings, in the opinion of the HSCA FPP, no less, misrepresented the location of the back wound, and placed it two inches too high, far higher than as presented in the measurements? I mean, wow, what a coincidence. The doctors made a mistake that just so happened to be the exact mistake required to sell the single-assassi theory. Incredible!
Do you still find the Magic Bullet theory feasible after this discussion?
There is no doubt in your mind at all?
Thanks for posting yet another JFK myth — Nixon supposedly saying, “Oswald did it by himself scenario is the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”
You’ll find it on the quote page at History Matters, along with a correction:
“It was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”
— President Richard M. Nixon, discussing the Warren Commission on May 15, 1972, the day presidential candidate George Wallace was shot.
CORRECTION: This quote appears to have been a grave error on the part of BBC writer Kevin Anderson. According to a transcript on the CNN website, in describing “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated” Nixon was referring to the idea that the JFK murder was attributable to the John Birch Society. Even casual students of the assassination will note that the Warren Commission did not reach such a conclusion, instead declaring that Oswald acted alone. My apologies for passing along the BBC’s bizarre mistake.
The CNN transcript is still online:
Keep relying on secondary sources, folks, and you’ll learn lots of things that aren’t true.
I don’t see how this is pronounced a “myth” Jean. I have Colson’s book, they were talking about “the Mexican thing” at the time these tapes we are speaking to were recorded.
Colson explained therein that “the Mexican thing” was Nixon’s code language referring to the JFK assassination.
In the same conversation, Nixon gave new fodder for conspiracy theorists who question whether Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter involved in the assassination of President John Kennedy.
The BBC’s Tom Carver listens to the 18 minute gap
[An 18 minute gap remains on the tape]
Referring to the report by the Warren Commission, “it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated,” Nixon said. He did not elaborate why he questioned the report.
“It was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”
— President Richard M. Nixon, discussing the Warren Commission on May 15, 1972, the day presidential candidate George Wallace was shot.
CORRECTION: This quote appears to have been a grave error on the part of BBC writer Kevin Anderson. According to a transcript on the CNN website, in describing “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated” Nixon was referring to the idea that the JFK murder was attributable to the John Birch Society. Even casual students of the assassination will note that the Warren Commission did not reach such a conclusion, instead declaring that Oswald acted alone. My apologies for passing along the BBC’s bizarre mistake.
. . . . .
So Jean, even the “correction” maintains that Nixon was talking about the JFK assassination.
Mention that it was the day presidential candidate George Wallace was shot does not alter the fact as it continues ‘Nixon was discussing the Warren Commission”.
“CORRECTION: This quote appears to have been a grave error on the part of BBC writer Kevin Anderson. According to a transcript on the CNN website, in describing “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated” Nixon was referring to the idea that the JFK murder was attributable to the John Birch Society.”
So how is this now construed to mean that Nixon was not discussing the Warren Report, but meant the hoax was concerned with the attempt on George Wallace? This attempt could hardly be put in the magnitude of “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated.”
There is in fact no “retraction” made in this “correction” at all!
“This link goes to the autopsy face sheet and notes by Boswell. As you will see, he puts the backwound where mortitian Thomas Evan Robinson describes the back wound: http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/images/397.jpg”
The important info on the face sheet isn’t the dot, which wasn’t intended to be a precise placement according to Boswell, but the note recording a measurement: “14 cm below the rt mastoid process.”
Did Robinson measure the wound and make a note of it that night as Boswell/Humes did? If not, what is the best evidence here? A dot, a recorded measurement, or Robinson’s recollection years later?
“this Crime Magazine article … is far from “nonsense” and develops a case that proves your “original documents” are the real nonsense.”
No, it’s nonsense. Example: Connally didn’t always insist that he and JFK were hit by separate bullets. His wife believed they were and he respected her judgment, but as he told the HSCA, he wasn’t able to turn far enough to see JFK before he himself was wounded so he had no way of knowing when JFK was hit. The only thing he was always certain about was that he (Connally) was hit by the second bullet, which is true. So was JFK.
“The important info on the face sheet isn’t the dot, which wasn’t intended to be a precise placement according to Boswell…”~Jean
Yes it is Jean, because it is just too coincidental that it is almost exactly where the wound really was.
“what is the best evidence here? A dot, a recorded measurement, or Robinson’s recollection years later?”~Jean
The dot on the facesheet, Robinson’s notes, the hole in the shirt, the hole in the jacket, JFK’s posture and position in the z-film when he was hit in the back.
And the fact that you have to be a coincidence theorist to buy that all of these things align by happenstance.
The dot on the face sheet is exactly as presented in the autopsy measurements, Jean—equidistant between the bottom tip of the right mastoid and the right shoulder tip. That Boswell had made a “diagram error” was a lie foisted upon him by the Johnson Justice Dept. in November, 1966, in an effort to shut down the growing clamor for a new investigation. Hello, they lied.
“Hello, they lied.”
As I recall, you also suspected that Specter lied about a Secret Service interview of Tomlinson until, to your great credit, you found and posted that document, which showed that Specter hadn’t lied after all. All I’m saying is that suspicion about people’s motives can mislead.
“Do you think it’s just a coincidence, then, that they asked the doctors for “help” in the form of drawings demonstrating the bullet’s trajectory, and that these drawings, in the opinion of the HSCA FPP, no less, misrepresented the location of the back wound, and placed it two inches too high, far higher than as presented in the measurements?”
Unless I’ve forgotten something, the Warren Report published the autopsy measurements not any doctors’ drawings, right? And the HSCA FPP agreed that Connally and JFK were hit by a single bullet, even it they didn’t agree with all the details:
The HSCA’s measurement from the mastoid process was also very similar to that on the face sheet, as I recall. They’re lying, too?
“But the wound was NOT 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. As mortitian Robinson notes, the back wound was 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder….”
How does that statement settle the matter?
Google says it comes from a researcher’s notes about what he says Robinson told him in 1992. They are the researcher’s notes, not Robinson’s:
On the other hand there’s a transcript of a 1977 HSCA interview of Robinson in which he says that he took no notes and couldn’t even recall a back wound:
Do you think the autopsy photo of the back wound is fake?
“So how is this now construed to mean that Nixon was not discussing the Warren Report, but meant the hoax was concerned with the attempt on George Wallace? This attempt could hardly be put in the magnitude of “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated.”
As reporter Bruce Morton pointed out, Nixon was talking about liberals, who he believed “pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers” even though Oswald was a left-winger. Being the charming fellow that he was, Nixon wanted to turn the tables and blame liberals for the attack on Wallace.
MORTON: In 1972, Arthur Bremer, who had once thought of shooting Nixon, shoots presidential candidate George Wallace. Nixon wants to make sure the liberals are blamed.
RICHARD NIXON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Why don’t we play the game a bit smarter for a change. They [liberals, not the WC] pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers. It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated. And I respectfully suggest, can’t we pin this on one of theirs?
MORTON: Aide Chuck Colson reports to the president on Bremer.
CHUCK COLSON, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL AIDE FOR RICHARD NIXON: Ah, he is obviously demented.
NIXON: Is he a left-winger or a right-winger?
COLSON: Well, he’s going to be a left-winger by the time we get through, I think. NIXON: Ah, good. Keep at that. Keep at that.
Jean, none of this has anything to do with the statement “it was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated”. I have read all of this dialog before.
Again, anything to do with the shooting of Wallace would not measure to an event of the magnetude of the murder of Kennedy.
This backpeddling by Morton is obviously an attempt by he or his employers to drop what was too hot a potato in these White House tapes. This “correction” is thoroughly unconvincing. It is transparent in that it makes no rational sense at all.
“On the other hand there’s a transcript of a 1977 HSCA interview of Robinson in which he says that he took no notes and couldn’t even recall a back wound:”Jean Davison
But Jean, this testimony is all about what Robbinson knew during the autopsy, not what he found himself while doing the the embalming.
You know how formal questioning and answers are handled, you answer in the context the question is made. All of these questions pertain to what he heard said and saw during the autopsy.
He couldn’t remember a lot of things at the time, and seems to have felt he was under pressure. They asked him to think about it, and I am sure he did. so when he was contacted by the journalist he had probably begun to remember those details he was flustered about at the hearings.
I do not accept that either Robinson or the reporter lied about the back wound.
JEAN: “Hello, they lied.” As I recall, you also suspected that Specter lied about a Secret Service interview of Tomlinson until, to your great credit, you found and posted that document, which showed that Specter hadn’t lied after all. All I’m saying is that suspicion about people’s motives can mislead.
PAT: And what I’ve proved is that if there was any reason to doubt they lied I wouldn’t hesitate to say so. I detail the facts around the Boswell lie in chapter 10 of my website. No one has even attempted to counter these facts.(Basically, that Boswell said it was a back wound in the 11-1-66 inventory of the autopsy photos, that within a few weeks Connally’s interview with Life Magazine, caused the New York Times, among others, to call for a new investigation, that Johnson’s lawyers and advisers then began talking about how a re-inspection of the medical evidence could help prevent a new investigation, and that Boswell, while still under a military order of silence, suddenly rushed out to announce he’d made a diagram error and that what he’d depicted as a back wound was really a neck wound. I mean, this is two plus two kind of stuff. There is most certainly no reason to believe Boswell would come forward in such a manner without his receiving encouragement from above.)
JEAN: Unless I’ve forgotten something, the Warren Report published the autopsy measurements not any doctors’ drawings, right? And the HSCA FPP agreed that Connally and JFK were hit by a single bullet, even it they didn’t agree with all the details:
PAT: The HSCA FPP said the drawings created for the Warren Commission to demonstrate the single-bullet theory mis-represented the location of the back wound, and were off by two inches. The HSCA FPP said the wound was on the back, and that the measurements created at autopsy depicted a back wound, not a neck wound. While they signed off on the single-bullet theory, they did so under the proviso Kennedy was hit while behind the sign in the Zapruder film, while bending over further than as shown in the film. This was, apparently, unacceptable to the HSCA’s staff, who brought in a non-medical person, Thomas Canning, and allowed him to move the back wound back up to the base of Kennedy’s neck, so as to better sell the single-bullet theory at a time before Kennedy went behind the sign–when the photographic panel concluded he was hit. So, no, the HSCA FPP did not sign off on the single-bullet theory as presented by the HSCA, or most current single-assassin theorists.
JEAN: The HSCA’s measurement from the mastoid process was also very similar to that on the face sheet, as I recall. They’re lying, too?
PAT: No, this is precisely my point. The drawings made for the Warren Commission grossly misrepresented the location of the back wound. The HSCA’s drawings, which show a wound at a near identical location as presented on the face sheer, show a wound inches below the location on the Warren Commission’s drawings. These drawings were made, moreover, after the Warren Commission’s staff realized that a wound at the location presented on the face sheet was too low to support a through and through shot from the sniper’s nest, and announced to the commission that they were going to seek the doctor’s “help” on this issue. Well, hello! This suggests they lied. That Humes and Specter later got nervous and asked if they could double-check the drawings against the photos is almost beside the point. The Rydberg drawings were a lie, plain and simple. Just ask Rydberg, who was given a commendation letter stating that the drawings “depicted the situation required”…as close to an acknowledgement that they were not intended to be accurate as one could possibly hope for.
In your Chapter Ten you wrote that Rankin told the WC that “the face sheet (which he called a picture) placed the back wound below the throat wound and that he would be seeking the doctors’ ‘help’ along these lines.” You’ve suggested that Rankin’s comment about seeking their help indicated that “the WC staff realized that the back wound was too low to support a SBT and… Well, hello! This suggests they lied.”
Except that’s not what happened. Rankin wasn’t talking about getting “help” to change what was on the face sheet.
The “pictures” Rankin referred to weren’t the face sheet, they were photos showing the holes in JFK’s clothes. Rankin said “…we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back…below the shoulder blade…which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the NECKBAND OF THE SHIRT in front.”
clothing photos from FBI report, 1/13/64:
Rankin was confused because the FBI report that included the clothing photos was based on the erroneous Sibert and O’Neill report that said the bullet didn’t transit. (S&O’N left Bethesda before Humes learned about the neck wound from a Parkland doctor and changed his opinion.)
So Rankin had conflicting information: the autopsy report saying the bullet transited and the FBI report with the clothing photos. What’s wrong with asking for the doctors’ help in resolving this confusion in order to determine what actually happened?
PAT: The HSCA FPP said the drawings created for the Warren Commission to demonstrate the single-bullet theory mis-represented the location of the back wound, and were off by two inches.
JEAN: I agree, the Rydberg drawings were inaccurate. The WC didn’t publish them in its Report. Nobody ever brings them up but CTs.
I’d still like to know how an entry in the back of the neck could support a SBT? Where would the sniper be, at that angle? In the Goodyear blimp?
PAT: The HSCA FPP said the wound was on the back, and that the measurements created at autopsy depicted a back wound, not a neck wound.
JEAN: Of course it was a back wound, and the WR presented those autopsy measurements. When Boswell, working from memory, later moved the dot upward too far those very same measurements were still visible on the “corrected” face sheet published in the newspaper, and I believe he referred to them in his interview. Why talk about the dot and virtually ignore the measurement, Pat, which you agree was in the upper back?
In James Tague’s book “LBJ&The Kennedy Killing”, Tague titles one of his chapters GERALD FORD’S BIG LIE AND THE MAGIC BULLET(Ch.46). In that chapter, Tague describes what Ford did and why. People may think immediately of Arlen Specter when they recall the Magic Bullet Theory, but it was Ford’s falsification of JFK’s back wound that put Specter to work.
I’ve studied the background to the back wound lie as much as anyone, Paul, and you (and Tague) are just plain wrong, IMO. As discussed in my 2013 presentation in Dallas and 2014 presentation in Bethesda, Specter called it a back wound in his private correspondence until seeing a picture of it which confirmed it was a back wound at a point too low to support the single-bullet theory. He then started calling it a neck wound; he even corrected the SS agent who showed him the photo when he called it a shoulder wound. Specter then presented chapters to Ford and the other commissioners in which it was called a neck wound dozens of times, and a back wound a couple of times. Ford caught one of these and suggested its correction. Unlike Specter, and Warren, and possibly a couple of others, Ford had not been shown the back wound photo. He thought the wound was where it was shown in the drawings made for the autopsy doctors, at the suggestion of Specter and Joe Ball. It follows, then, that Ford was not the orchestrator of the back wound lie, but an unwitting dupe caught up in the subterfuge of others.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
But the wound was NOT 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. As mortitian [sic] Robinson notes, the back wound was 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder- that is at least 10 inches lower than placing it “5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process”.
DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
Ridiculous. The wound wasn’t nearly that far down JFK’s back.
Plus, who needs Robinson when anyone can just look at the autopsy picture below? It shows the wound precisely where the autopsists placed it, and it works just fine for a bullet heading downward at 17.72 degrees to exit JFK’s lower throat at the tie knot:
Those who attempt to shred the SBT are abandoning the best possible answer in favor of….what exactly? TWO bullets that entered Kennedy and went into him only an inch or so and then BOTH missiles just vanished? Yeah, that’s a lot more reasonable than accepting the SBT, isn’t it? Pffffttt.
As Vince Bugliosi said (and it’s oh so true): The SBT is so obvious, a child could author it.
And Z225 and Z226 of the Zapruder Film are frames that the naysayers should *never* want to look at with an open mind. Because if they ever did, they’d soon be SBT supporters themselves. They’d have to be after viewing this and realizing what these frames are truly depicting:
“Ridiculous. The wound wasn’t nearly that far down JFK’s back.”~David Von Pein
That photograph is taken at such an angle that it is deceptive. They have pushed Kennedy’s head back while pushing up the skin on his back to give the appearance that the hole is closer to the head. An obvious attempt at deception.
The actual measurements made by Peterson, plus the Boswell face sheet, and the holes in the shirt and jacket give this lame attempt at deception away.
Yeah, sure, Willy. Whatever you say. Everyone in officialdom was lying and being “deceptive” about the back wound location. (Even the PICTURE is lying to us!)
And those dumb plotters strike again. They forgot to deep-six the Boswell Face Sheet. ~slaps forehead~
“Everyone in officialdom was lying and being “deceptive” about the back wound location.” ~David Von Pein
I’m looking at zframes 225 and 226 with an open mind. What are you seeing there?
David, I hope you don’t mind that I took a screen shot of your comments, for the sake of preservation. Mark and remember those comments, as I certainly will. The SBT theory is and has always been nothing but a fabrication. A fabrication that is fairly simple to prove, as I will be doing soon enough. The deception will be laid to rest once and for all. There were in fact, four shots that struck targets in the Presidential Limo. Only one of those shots came from the rear of the Limo, (which happened to be the shot which struck John Connally, the 2nd shot).
“Wound in back 5 to six inches below shoulder.
To the right of the back bone.”~Thomas Evan Robinson
Robinson was the mortician who prepped the corpse of JFK. He handled this body, and cosmetically repaired it for the funeral. Ford was a political hack who never saw the body at all.
Very succinct. You can add the holes in the shirt and coat. The autopsy report. I think Sibert and O’Neil (?) FBI. And more at Bethesda if memory serves right.
Just a question. At z230 and z231 JFK’s jacket is clearly bunched up high enough to cause the bullet holes consistent with the single bullet theory. Although of course if he was shot at all at this point then that is out of sequence with the WC report.
JFK’s actions from Z225 to z226 don’t seem to be sequential to me. He seems to change positions completely between one frame to the next. There seem to be frames missing.
“Any thoughts?” Yea Vanessa, the wounds on Kennedy’s body align with the bullet holes in his shirt and jacket. The “bunched-up” argument is more nonsense from the WC tribe.
“At z230 and z231 JFK’s jacket is clearly bunched up high enough to cause the bullet holes..” ~Vanessa
JFKs elbows are up in those frame which will cause such “bunching” – but Kennedy is leaning on Jackie and forward and his elbows have come down by the time of the back shot. There is no such “bunchin” when the bullet hit his back.
Thanks Willy, so what frame number do you think the back shot was in?
Do z225 and z226 look as though there are frames missing to you? JFK seems to change from one position to the other without actually moving?
No he didn’t . He helped embalm it, he had nothing to do with the head restoration.
So what Photon, Peterson details what he did, and his measurements of the position of the back wound are in his notes.
He had to plug these wound with morticians wax before proceeding with embalming.
Gawler’s Funeral Home did the cosmetic work, but that does not preclude Robertson’s personal handling and witnessing of the wounds.
I have done special effects make-up work with morticians wax. This stuff is as defined, a wax with the same gloss as any other wax.
The sculptural work is separate from the the “cosmetic” work which in both the case of effects work and mortician work, has to do with coloring with powders and liquid make-up.
So Peterson’s work on the corpse, is akin to the sculptural aspect, while the funeral home artisans is in applying the make-up.
The testimony from Robinson has to do with what he knew about the issue during the autopsy. It has nothing to do with what he learned in handling the body afterwards, while doing the embalming.
I addressed the issue of the photograph before. Whether it is real or not is questionable, but the photo is taken from an angle that hides the fact the Kennedy’s head is drawn back as far as it would go, while stretching the skin upwards; both in an attempt to make it appear that the wound was closer to the back of the head. It certainly does not represent an accurate position of where the bullet hole was. Plus the amount of undisturbed scalp is inconsistent with other photos taken of Kennedy at the autopsy.
Yes this was done purposely to deceive in my opinion. After late discovery that the neck wound had actually been a bullet wound, a clear problem of accounting for the trajectory was at hand.
‘The testimony from Robinson’
Of course I meant Peterson.
The key to LHO recieving a job at TSBD is unorthodox way B W Frazier got a minimum wage job in Dallas
Mr. BALL – How did you happen to get that job?
Mr. FRAZIER – Well, I went to see, first I come up there and started looking for a job and couldn’t find one myself so I went to one of these employment agencies and through that a lady called up one morning, I was fixing to go out and look for one, I was looking for myself in the meantime when they were, too, and so she called up and gave me a tip to it if I was interested in a job like that I could go over there and see about that and for the time being I wasn’t working and needed some money and so I did and I went over there and saw Mr. Truly, and he gave me an interview, and then he hired me the same day I went over there.
Mr. BALL – What–where is the employment agency and what is its name when you first applied for a job?
Mr. FRAZIER – Well, I went to several but, see, this one got me this job the main one was Massey, the employment agency, and it is over there on Shady Grove Road.
Mr. BALL – In Dallas?
Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; in Irving.
Mr. BALL – Then you started work there about what date in September?
Mr. FRAZIER – It was the 13th. I say that was the same day I went for an interview. I went early enough that morning that he told me to come back after lunch.
INFORMATION that Ruth Paine knew at 10:30 am on Oct 15 that LHO
had job offer at Love Field at $310 per month,Morning of 15th Truely hired him to start at TSBD on Oct 16/63
Could the alternative venue for the staging of the assassination have been Love Field had Oswald gotten that job?
I’m thinking that Love field was plan B with LHO highjacking a airplane to Cuba. Ruth also hide a job offer from Solid State Electronics on Oct 7
“Ruth also hide a job offer from Solid State Electronics on Oct 7
No, Gerald, she did not. Oswald applied for that job but didn’t get it. It was the highest-paying job he was referred to, $350 a month.
The “NH” on Oswald’s record above means “Not Hired,” as explained by this witness:
Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Under the word “Called” is 10-7-63—TM, indicating a telephone message under the column headed “Referred” is 10-8-63.
Employer-agency–I read–“Solid State Electric; job title or purpose sales clerk; duration–permanent; pay–$350 a month; under “Results”-“NH”–meaning, “Not hired.”
Under “Remarks” is printed the word “direct,” which I interpret to mean that our staff member did not make an appointment for the applicant but asked him to go directly to see the employer.”
Why didn’t your source tell you that, I wonder?
That’s what I was just thinking, too, based on Gerald’s post.
Yes it looks like Oct 8 he was not hired
October 7 1963 Adams at TEC calls BL 3-1628 the telephone at Mrs Michael Paine’s Irving residence for Oswald to tell him of a job opening at Solid State Electronics Adams was told that Oswald was not there (Mrs Paine was probably the person to tell Adams this If she takes Oswald to Dallas or the Irving bus station at noon and if Oswald was at her residence all morning Adams must have called in the afternoon ) (10:131 11:480 19
The “11.480” reference you mention explains what happened. The employment office clerk Robert L. Adams says, “I left a message with the person who answered requesting that Mr. Oswald contact me…. Oswald contacted me the next day….I personally checked with Solid State Electronics Company of Texas and was advised that Oswald had followed through on my job reference, had been interviewed, but had not been hired.”
Item 5a on this page:
If the diabolical Ruth Paine was trying to maneuver poor Lee into a job at the Depository, why did she pass along Adams’ message about this higher-paying job elsewhere?
Jean Davison you stated why did she pass along Adams’ message about this higher-paying job elsewhere? There is no evadance that Ruth past message on.Oswald was in and out Adams office that week.The job was a sales clerk on Commision with no guaranty he would make $350.00 month
“Jean Davison you stated why did she pass along Adams’ message about this higher-paying job elsewhere? There is no evadance that Ruth past message on.”
There certainly is evidence Ruth passed on the message. Did you read the links?
Under the “CALLED” column was the notation is “10-7-63—TM, indicating a telephone message,” according to Mrs. Cunningham. The clerk Robert Adams said in an affidavit, “I left a message with the person who answered requesting that Mr. Oswald contact me…. Oswald contacted me the next day.”
Since Marina couldn’t speak English, there was no one else there to take the message, was there?
The core logic of the Warren Report is deceit.
This graphic novel is trash. Mediocre art from a shallow mind.
Exactly. Unless these folks completely dismiss whats in the history books, whatever they say does not mean jack $&%t!!!
I’d ask Mishkin of he thinks the bullet that caused the residue that hit Tague’s cheek was fired by Oswald. I’d also ask him if he realizes the signifance of what Gerald Ford did in “moving a bullet wound” to help fit the SBT. Mishkin mentions “bad choices and foolish mistakes” made by the WC. Were they forced to make these “bad choices and foolish mistakes, Mr. Mishkin?