 sj |
||
|
||
BS: JFK not intended victim of Lee Harvey Oswald?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: JFK- Accidental Victim? From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Nov 16 - 08:25 AM http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reston-jfk-assassination-target-20161122-story.html " In the hours after the Kennedy assassination, after Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit and was identified as the president's assassin, a Secret Service officer named Mike Howard was dispatched to Oswald's apartment. Howard found a little green address book, and on its 17th page under the heading "I WILL KILL" Oswald listed four men: an FBI agent named James Hosty; a right-wing general, Edwin Walker; and Vice President Richard Nixon. At the top of the list was the governor of Texas, John Connally. Through Connally's name, Oswald had drawn a dagger, with blood drops dripping downward. Special Agent Howard turned the address book over to the FBI and, ultimately, to the Warren Commission. Only some time later did he learn that the list with its hugely important insight into the killer's motive had been torn out of the book." The article goes on to discuss the reasons LHO wanted to kill Connally. |
|
Subject: BS: JFK NOT INTENDED VICTIM of LHO? From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:15 AM 2nd try to get past elves... http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reston-jfk-assassination-target-20161122-story.html The writer discusses the evidence and reasons to think that the intended VICTIM of LHO was NOT JFK, but John Connally. NO discussion of LHO NOT being the shooter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK NOT INTENDED VICTIM of LHO? From: Jeri Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:32 AM I transferred your original message into this new thread because it had more information in it. I have no clue why your thread should have been deleted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK NOT INTENDED VICTIM of LHO? From: Greg F. Date: 23 Nov 16 - 12:51 PM Reston's book "Accidental Victim" came out three years ago, nothing new. The article discusses Reston's OPINIONs and INTERPRETATIONs of the so-called "evidence". Most scholarly reviews of the book in the lastthree years have called his conclusions & assertions questionable at best. Now lets move on to discussing an issue with a great deal more evidence: that the moon landing was faked in a movie studio. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK NOT INTENDED VICTIM of LHO? From: Jeri Date: 23 Nov 16 - 01:02 PM I don't know how far you got in the linked article, but obviously not far enough to read Special Agent Howard turned the address book over to the FBI and, ultimately, to the Warren Commission. Only some time later did he learn that the list with its hugely important insight into the killer's motive had been torn out of the book. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Nov 16 - 01:43 PM Jeri, GregtrF NEVER bothers to base his comments on facts- If he sees a post by me, he calls it BS and belittles it without ever providing any factual basis for his comments, regardless of what I say- EVEN WHEN I QUOTE HIM. I would think that some of the other liberals around here would rein him in- he makes the rest of you look bad when he is the only "liberal" voice , or when others ignore his obvious personnal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Donuel Date: 23 Nov 16 - 01:55 PM In 30 years when the Warren Commission is declassified we will finally find out whether the true culprit was guilty of being innocent or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Nov 16 - 02:00 PM Donuel, This thread IS NOT about whether LHO shot JFK- That is NOT what is being discussed. The question is whether LHO INTENDED to shot JFK, or was aiming at John Connally and hit JFK by mistake! "In her testimony to the Warren Commission, Oswald's wife, Marina, definitively named Connally and not Kennedy as her husband's target. She repeated this belief in testimony to the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. Dallas emigres also testified to Oswald's obsession with Connally. Moreover, there was ample testimony that Oswald bore no animus toward Kennedy. Indeed, he admired JFK's important initiatives like the president's efforts at detente with Russia." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Greg F. Date: 23 Nov 16 - 02:00 PM Jeri: So Howard says. And the proof is - what exactly? Bruce: Grow up. Everything in the world isn't about you, difficult tho that may be for you to absorb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Greg F. Date: 23 Nov 16 - 02:06 PM Bruce: Marina changed her story so many times its hard to determine what she was trying to communicate.Also please note "she repeated this BELIEF"... her "belief" is not evidence. WHICH "Dallas emigres"- please post the names and their actual testimony. Also, please document the "ample testimony" "that Oswald bore no animus toward Kennedy". Thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Nov 16 - 03:17 PM "In her testimony to the Warren Commission, Oswald's wife, Marina, definitively named Connally and not Kennedy as her husband's target." Feel free to get the 1978 notes from the Congressional Record. and then tell us HOW MANY YEARS were you handling classified information? What positions of responsibility dealing with classified information have you ever been in? What training in dealing with classified information have you ever had? No thanks to you, just awaiting the justification for your previous statements |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Nov 16 - 03:37 PM https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/findings.html Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1979. 1 volume, 686 pages. Please read the entire document, not just the Web version ( 40 pages ) Please do not post again until you finish it. ( A person can hope.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Nov 16 - 03:47 PM GregtrF, You might want to look these over, as well, before making any more posts... https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/references1-jfk.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Greg F. Date: 23 Nov 16 - 04:53 PM Jeezis, Bruce, give your delusions a rest for once already. Believe whatever fantasies you wish, no skin off my arse, just don't pretend you're the second coming. and then tell us HOW MANY YEARS were you handling classified information? What positions of responsibility dealing with classified information have you ever been in? What training in dealing with classified information have you ever had? Which has fuck all to do with anything at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Nov 16 - 05:43 PM "I would think that some of the other liberals around here would rein him in- he makes the rest of you look bad when he is the only "liberal" voice , or when others ignore his obvious personnal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him." Greg's way is to react to what he reads here. He's disagreeing with you, not you with him. He's utterly devoid of bullshit, wordiness and diplomacy, all invaluable traits when it comes to dealing with some of the waffling bigots on this forum. This place would be a damn sight poorer without him. He's consistently right-minded. If you don't like him, tough. If I ever make it to the US, he'd be the first person I'd buy a beer for. If I could find any decent beer, of course! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Jeri Date: 23 Nov 16 - 06:21 PM Man, this went from being about JFK not being Oswald's intended target to a personal slug-fest in record time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Donuel Date: 23 Nov 16 - 06:51 PM bearded bruce I failed to put an emoticon above to signify a pun, not a serious comment but rather a turn of phrase that I, and probably I alone, find witty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Nov 16 - 07:02 PM Er, I was unslugging the slug-fest there, Jeri. I did it for you because I know how much you love Greg, you see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: punkfolkrocker Date: 23 Nov 16 - 07:26 PM "slug-fest in record time" All those years of hard effort and sacrifice, sweat, blood, training and practice have paid off.. Mudcat is a record breaking team.. Hooray... we salute them all... !!! 🏆 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Nov 16 - 07:38 PM Personally, I'd rather have a vintage Mudcat slug-fest than listen to a bunch of conspiracy theory shite about who killed JR...oops, sorry, JFK... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Nov 16 - 08:15 PM What difference would it make whether Oswald was aiming at Kennedy or Connolly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Teribus Date: 24 Nov 16 - 03:34 AM One observation, if Connally was Lee Harvey Oswald's intended target, surely Oswald could have shot him at anytime when he would have been a much easier target. Why pick a day when security would, even for those innocent days, have been "enhanced" and why pick a moving target when there had to have been plenty of opportunity to shoot the man while he was stationary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 24 Nov 16 - 08:52 AM I agree with Teribus. State governors are easy targets. I've personally been close enough to the Governor of Florida to have plugged him like Ruby did Oswald (if I'd had a pistol and been so inclined). Also, if Oswald admired Kennedy, why would he have put his (JFK's) life in jeopardy by shooting multiple high-powered rounds into a car in which he was riding. Even if JFK wasn't the primary target, he was acceptable collateral damage. That's not much in the way of admiration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of LHO? From: Greg F. Date: 24 Nov 16 - 10:58 AM he'd be the first person I'd buy a beer for. If I could find any decent beer, of course! Ta, Steve. There are actually a few local micro-breweries that produce ales that compare pretty favorably with some of the the brews I sampled in the UK on several visits over the years. The large commercial companies by & large make absolute crap. And Guinness over here is hopeless. And Now, back to Who Put The Ram In The Rama-Lamma-Ding-Dong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of Lee Harvey Oswald? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Nov 16 - 11:18 PM "He's consistently right-minded" is not the way I'd put it in regard to Greg, to avoid it being read as an insult. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of Lee Harvey Oswald? From: Ebbie Date: 25 Nov 16 - 03:19 AM It occurs to me to ponder upon unintended consequences. I expect that we all have had some, and that's sad to think. Personally, if - and when - I act, I prefer to hit the right target. Reminds me of grade school when I loathed a classmate who wouldn't leave me alone. He teased me, followed me around, always stayed within earshot. One day in gym, I threw a volley ball at him as hard as I could. He dodged just as a girl stepped into line. I feel bad about that to this day and that was something like 70 years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of Lee Harvey Oswald? From: Greg F. Date: 25 Nov 16 - 11:00 AM "He's consistently right-minded" is not the way I'd put it in regard to Greg... ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of Lee Harvey Oswald? From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 16 - 08:45 PM My beer remark was naked prejudice, Greg, born of complete ignorance of American beers. I do like to emulate some of our Mudcat companions in that regard occasionally, just to see how it goes down... If you think Greg is undiplomatic at times, even quite abrasive, just look at the posts that drive him to that. No excuse? That's as maybe, but he tends to reserve his vitriol for just four people here who spout a brand of nonsense which is often extremely prejudiced. If you think he's ever on the wrong side of the argument, a different matter altogether, well let's be hearing it. I haven't seen it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of Lee Harvey Oswald? From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 16 - 08:54 PM My dad is convinced that the evidence points to Kennedy having been shot from behind. He reckons that the car behind was infested with LBJ conspirators who wanted Kennedy dead. He also says that the moon landings were faked and that, of course, not a single one of the ten thousand people who worked on those missions could possibly have given the game away. Something to do with Van Allen belts being fatal to humans... It's very easy to put stuff together to make a conspiracy theory. It's bloody hard to prove them wrong even when you know they are. Why, I'm told that some people even "believe in God..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of Lee Harvey Oswald? From: meself Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:33 PM And of course it is perfectly understandable that, of all the gun-owners in Texas, it would be a small-time mobster and strip-club owner who would be so upset at the assassination of his beloved president that he would be unable to refrain from bumping off - whoops! I mean killing - LHO before he got a chance to say much more than that he didn't do the assassination and that he was a patsy. Imagine how upsetting it would have been to hear more of that in open court! And the mob would never actually kill someone just to stop them from talking, now, would they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of Lee Harvey Oswald? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Nov 16 - 07:22 AM "Personally, I'd rather have a vintage Mudcat slug-fest than listen to a bunch of conspiracy theory shite about who killed JR...oops, sorry, JFK... " Too bad that I HAVE STATED that the point is NOT "about who killed JR...oops, sorry, JFK... " " The liberals here cannot even read a simple statement and understand it. ************************************************ ** NO discussion of LHO NOT being the shooter ** ************************************************ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of Lee Harvey Oswald? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Nov 16 - 08:05 AM GregtrF, "Which has fuck all to do with anything at all. " You have made unsupported statements in other threads. I am trying to determine if you have any actual basis for your posts, or are just providing us with what YOU think we should be allowed to think. Typical LIBERAL postings- make a comment, refuse to provide any supporting facts, and then complain when asked to provide some level of expertise on the subject you have made proclamations upon. And of course your fellow supporters of that viewpoint have no criticism of this- THAT is reserved for those they disagree with, even when the opposing viewpoint provides both factual support and some degree of expertise. Teribus, All points to look at, but they apply to JFK as well- at that time, the level of security around the president was less than that of State Governors today. I remember being less than 25 feet from Nixon, at AAFB, and that was later. As for you, Shaw, I fail to see that you have any grasp of reality, form your posts. GregtrF is the very symbol and source of shit around here. " He's utterly devoid of bullshit, wordiness and diplomacy, all invaluable traits when it comes to dealing with some of the waffling bigots on this forum. This place would be a damn sight poorer without him. He's consistently right-minded." Have YOU thought about treatment for your illusions? All he has shown is that he is utterly devoid of a factual basis for his statements and personnel attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: JFK not intended victim of Lee Harvey Oswald? From: Greg F. Date: 28 Nov 16 - 09:05 AM Bruce, grow up. Everything isn't about you. Go grope a woman with your boy Trump, why don't you? |
