The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Part 2 of two part reply to Matthew Jones

So back to the curving bullet. Bonar Menninger redid the ballistics on this shot after obtaining a correct seating arrangement from the manufacturer of the vehicle and the whole shot lines up. The seats in the car were not arranged correctly in Warren commissions testimonies. The seats the Governor and his wife were in were more to the center of the vehicle. They were small and lower to the floor board then back seat bench Kennedy was in. The damage inflicted was consistent with the round fired by Oswald, which [was a ] full metal round that did not break apart.

True, the copper jacketed round, known as "the magic bullet" did not shatter and was in near pristine condition when found on Governor Connally's stretcher at the hospital. Pictured in the below photo as CE 399, there is only a small nick at the tip end at left, and this was admittedly caused by the FBI having removed material for testing purposes.

I would ask how in the world it is "plausible" to you that this single magic bullet could have caused 7 wounds in two men. The Warren Commission hadfirst, 3/23/64, Commission interview. But that was beforethey radically altered their views after U. S. News Report HSCA Appendix to Hearings, volume XI, page 3 (indented paragraph) for confirmation about Hoover's statement.

Without making this post overly long, I will stop here, but there is plenty more damning evidence which tells us that the "official story" of JFK's assassination, as told in the Warren Commission report, is pure bunk. For starters, there's the fact that Hoover had his FBI dig up dirt on all the Warren Commission members and their staff, which he used to intimidate the Commission members into not questioning anything provided to them concerning the JFK assassination. This was uncovered by the Senate's Church Committee, chaired by Frank Church. And then there's the fact that 3 different rifles were said to have been the assassination weapon. One was photographed by the Dallas PD, another appears in the National archives photo, and still another in a photo by the FBI for the Warren Commission. All are side profiles, and they don't match up when scaled identically! More on that soon. I don't want to overwhelm anyone now, and simply want you to see that what at first may seem "plausible" is really just a blind alley of misinformation.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Obama administrations "brain washing" .....

[Matthew Jones]

@Rick

I can't answer to that whole 2 posts, cause its just to much typing for a subject I just pay attention to but don't really care either way about. I just read or listen to the subject I have no opinion on it.

In the BOOK which I now have now the CORRECT Wounds on Kennedy head is displayed. The ones you are showing are incorrect and those have been part of the problem for along time according to the Author They came from the Hospital in Texas, were included with the Secret service report.
The actual bullet hole in the back of the head was on the left rear and the wound was hollowed out about an 1" through the skull and then there were metal pieces after that, all the way out of the skull which was missing. Menninger was given the correct drawings when he was granted access to the Ballistic from the naval hospital, or something like that. I haven't got to that part yet I am trying to remember what they said in that show.

Either way most people are going to draw their own conclusions. I personally feel the simplist answer is the best and this one by for more simple than anything presented in the conspiracy realm. But I wasn't there who knows....Really.

Matt

[rickoff]

This morning I happened to catch a very interesting documentary on the Travel Channel, where they have a series titled America Declassified. Today's show featured a segment questioning the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. The show opened with a look at a historical plaque that has been placed on the Book Depository building, at the corner of Elm and Houston streets, and which tells the history of the building. The bottom paragraph reads, "ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963, THE BUILDING GAINED NATIONAL NOTORIETY WHEN LEE HARVEY OSWALD ALLEGEDLY SHOT AND KILLED PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FROM A SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW AS THE PRESIDENTIAL MOTORCADE PASSED THIS SITE." What is interesting about this plaque is the use of the word ALLEGEDLY to qualify the statement, a reminder that it was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was the shooter. What is even more interesting about the plaque is that the black background around the word ALLEGEDLY had been scraped off so that the word becomes highlighted. Here's a photo of that section:

Early this month, a member of the Dallas historical society restored the black background around this word so that it looked like the below photo, though the word still appeared accented by underlining:

Two days later, though, the black background had been scraped off again.

Anyways, the documentary went on next to point out that a Dallas police officer entered a cafeteria on the second floor of the Book Depository shortly after the last shot being fired, and had said that he saw Oswald standing there drinking a Coke. Indeed, that officer (patrolman Baker) had signed a statement for the Warren Commission saying, "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke." Baker, who was accompanied by building manager Roy Truly, and who was holding a pistol in his hand, had approached Oswald asking who he was. Oswald responded correctly, and Truly confirmed to Baker that Oswald was an employee. Baker noted that Oswald appeared calm and not out of breath. That would have been a remarkable accomplishment for Oswald if he had run down the four flights of stairs in the stairwell (actually 8 paired flights), entered the cafeteria, purchased a soda from the machine there, and begun drinking it, because the Warren Commission's re-enactment of this encounter between Baker and Oswald determined that it occurred within 75 seconds of the last shot being fired. And that would be if Oswald had immediately dropped the rifle and left the 6th floor to run down the stairwell. That could not be the case, however, since the rifle had been found carefully hidden between boxes at the opposite end of the sixth floor from the so-called "sniper's nest." Furthermore, and as the documentary next pointed out, two women employees had entered the stairwell Oswald was said to have utilized, just after the shots were heard, and made their way to the first floor without ever seeing Oswald.

One factor that the documentary didn't mention, but which absolutely blows away the theory that Oswald was the person in the "sniper's nest," is that two photographers standing outside the Book Depository building had taken photos of the building's open sixth floor window. One was taken by a Dillard, just a few seconds after the last shot was fired. The second was taken by a Powell approximately 2 minutes later. A photographic expert, Dr Robert R Hunt, who was questioned by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was asked whether a difference between what was seen in the two pictures indicated that boxes close to the open window had been moved about at some time between the first and second pictures. Hunt replied, "That would be my only personal conclusion, that somebody or something moved boxes around in that room during the time of taking of those two pictures."

So, if Oswald had actually performed the super human feat of wiping all fingerprints from his rifle (none were found on it by the Dallas PD), carefully hiding it at the opposite end of the sixth floor, running down 8 flights of stairs without being seen by the two women who were walking down at that time, entering the cafeteria, buying a Coke, and drinking some of it before being approached by Baker and Truly while appearing calm and not out of breath, then who the heck was rearranging boxes within 2 minutes of the assassination? That's a question the Warren Commission should have asked, but never did. And neither did the FBI.

The last portion of the documentary focused on the grassy knoll area, which would have been the logical position from which the kill shot was fired. Eyewitnesses said they had seen what appeared to be gun smoke in that area, and one of those witnesses was Lee Bowers, who worked in the 14 foot high Railroad switching control tower a few hundred feet to the north of the grassy knoll. In the documentary film Rush to Judgment Bowers said that at the same time as the shots were heard, he had seen a flash of light, or smoke, in the same area at the grassy knoll where he had seen two men standing. In the documentary that I saw this morning, the tower was revisited to determine exactly what Lee's view of the picket fence and grassy knoll actually was, and it was a very good view. One of the men in the documentary film, an ex-CIA officer, was given permission to go over to the picket fence with a rifle and fire blanks at a passenger riding by in an open limo at 11 mph, the same speed as the JFK motorcade. Smoke and muzzle fire were clearly visible at the tower, and the rifleman said that he had a perfect line of sight for the head shot. I believe that this documentary will be shown again tonight at 10:00pm Eastern time on the Travel channel, and is worth watching.

By the way, 3 months after Lee was interviewed for the Rush To Judgment documentary film, he was killed when his car ran off the road and struck a concrete formation. A witness to the crash said that another car had pulled alongside Lee and had forced him off the road. While Lee had made statements before the Dallas police, as well as the FBI and the Warren Commission, he had either not specifically stated anything about the smoke or flash he had seen, or it was left out by the authorities. Lee explained that he only answered questions that he was asked, and of course no one was asking if witnesses had seen likely shooters. Many witnesses were said to have been fearful of their lives if they had disclosed anything that could have been of enough potential consequence to negate the "official" story of Oswald being the lone gunman. Lee's brother stated that Lee had confided to him a lot more than he had told the authorities, and that Lee was very fearful. One of the two women in the Book Depository stairwell, that I mentioned earlier, actually disappeared for many years after giving her testimony, as she was afraid that she would be killed.

[5150]

Rick

I really enjoy your posts as they are always full of very informative, well articulated factual

[Mad Scientist]

Rick

I really enjoy your posts as they are always full of very informative, well articulated factual

I wholeheartedly agree and second that opinion.


I seem to recall that Jackie was supposed to have written about the shooting in her memoirs. However they were to remain sealed for 50(?) years. Assuming they will be released, it sure would be interesting to learn what she wrote and why the need to have them sealed for 50 years.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

No doubt there were all sorts of 'dirty deeds' going on, before, during and after the Kennedy assasination. The Warren Commisssion was a 'cover-up', obviously, but I think its quite possible many of the 'members' were unaware of the truth i.e. unaware of WHAT they were covering up. Either as 'good soldiers' they did what they were told to do, and/or they were given some plausible reason.
John Kerry recently 'let slip' in an interview, that HE didn't believe the Warren reprot, or that oswald acted alone, but quickly shrugged off any attemt to get him to elaborate. Bobby is SAID to have stated he thought the mafia was behind it.
The Kennedy assasination and aftermath DOES clearly demonstrate something; to 'cover up' something like this, you only have to 'muddy up the waters' so much that what really happened, (and who was behind it) can't be clearly discerned; even with most people not believing the 'official' version, the goal WAS achieved ; Kennedy was killed, and THEY, whoever THEY were, 'got away with it'. THEY probably feel that the more of these books that are published, the better.
On Obummercare, discussed it with my wife, and we've decided she WON'T re-up her policy, this year. Based on something I heard on Fox news, (don't know if its accurate), we will reduce her amount of withholding to the minimum, and put the $ in the bank. What I heard was that the IRS can only collect the tax, (for not having healthcare Ins.) by holding it back from your tax 'return'. If you have no return, and end up owing, they apperently can't collect. This is similar to the way the IRS collects back-due child support, which I know something about. If you are a 'deadbeat' Mom or Dad who owes back-due child support, and you have a tax return 'coming', the IRS will divert it, so, such 'deadbeats' learn after the first year to make sure they end up owing, at the end of the year. The IRS can't (has no mechanism for it) add any of the child support obligation to the back-due taxes. Apperently, (if what I heard is accurate) they are using a smilar mechanism to collect the 'tax' of O'bummercare.
I'll find out, next year, (actually, in 2015, when I file 2014's taxes). Even if the Gov't DOES fine us, the fine won't be more than the cost of insurance, at 1% of our annual income, so 'nothing to lose'. And, I suspect there will be a LOT of people in the same boat as I and wife will be in; O'bummercare is I think, going to be a headache that never goes away; the problems with the website are just the tip. Jim

[rickoff]

@ 5150 and MadScientist:

Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate hearing that my work here is of value to readers, and also appreciate the frequent posts that you and others are making to keep this thread alive and interesting.

Rick

[rickoff]

I seem to recall that Jackie was supposed to have written about the shooting in her memoirs. However they were to remain sealed for 50(?) years. Assuming they will be released, it sure would be interesting to learn what she wrote and why the need to have them sealed for 50 years.

Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. KennedyThe Death of a President," but before the book could be published, Jackie sued and was able to keep the important stuff from publication. It is said that she had been drinking before one of the interviews and ended up saying "too much" - whatever that means. In the CIA report, "Background Survey of Books Concerning the Assassination of President Kennedy" (January, 1967), it stated: "William Manchester's not-yet-published "The Death of a President" is at this writing being purged of material personally objectionable to Mrs. Kennedy." It is uncertain why she objected and sued, though it has been suggested that she said some things about LBJ that the Kennedy family didn't want repeated in a book that was about to go public. Jackie had made it clear in the Schelsinger recordings that neither she nor JFK thought very much of LBJ, and she had also made some disparaging remarks about Martin Luther King.

It's no secret that Jackie had believed that LBJ had something to do with JFK's assassination, and Jim Marrs said that Jackie had hired a team of private investigators to investigate the assassination. No doubt she could afford the very best once she became Mrs Onassis, and spared no expense. I am sure that this group of investigators must have turned up far more than has been written about by other researchers, even including Jim Marrs. Jim's book was the basis for Oliver Stone's JFK movie, and Jim said that Stone followed it to the letter without any embellishments or straying. Anyways, one might almost think that Jackie's hiding of this report until after her children had both died would be an invitation to some nut case to kill them all off, but I believe that Jackie felt she really had no choice. Obviously she feared more for her life and the lives of her offspring if the investigative report were released, and if the investigators had concluded that the Warren Commission was correct and that Oswald was the lone assassin then she would have had nothing left to fear by releasing the report. Thus I think it is reasonable to assume that there is some very eye-opening material in the report.

[Mad Scientist]

Obviously she feared for her life and the lives of her offspring if the investigative report were released, and if the investigators had concluded that the Warren Commission was correct and that Oswald was the lone assassin then she would have had nothing left to fear by releasing the report.

That has been my feeling all along. She was either threatened or felt that she or other family members would be harmed if she publicly told what she knew.

While that would be understandable unfortunately it does tell the bad guys that they won and can continue doing whatever they want.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Let the head "GAMES" begin .....

[rickoff]

Let the head "GAMES" begin .....

It would appear that these folks are quite aware that ObummerCare stinks!

[rickoff]

That has been my feeling all along. [Jackie] was either threatened or felt that she or other family members would be harmed if she publicly told what she knew.

It would certainly seem so, MS. Another idea on this is that she was pressured by the Kennedy family to stop the book from being published, and hold back on the investigative report, because it would have led to LBJ being made a criminal, and would have negatively affected the Democrat party because of the scandal this would have caused. And they may have believed this could have a negative impact on Bobby Kennedy's quest for the Presidency. I personally don't buy into that logic, though. Even if it were the case, why the need to withhold the information until 2067, or until Caroline and John jr had both passed on? Why wasn't everything released after Bobby Kennedy's run for the Presidency was terminated by his assassination? Id say that was just a reminder to Jackie and the Kennedy family to keep their mouths shut and their memoirs stowed away.

[aljhoa]

Let the head "GAMES" begin .....

"The big lesson is that we're better off with this law than without it."

Cuz
"Too many snouts in the trough."

Al

[Mad Scientist]

Obamacare: it is hard to imagine that group of supposedly intelligent individuals (although that maybe debatable) could inadvertently concoct this total disaster of a bill and then those same people who created an agency that can listen it to all our cell phones in real time were not able to produce a working enrollment web site. How is this possible or was it done by design?

Could it be that Obamacare was never meant to be implemented? What if the real goal was a totally government run health care system, of course most people would probably be opposed to that. Thus they are left with using a problem, reaction, solution scenario.

First they create a problem, Obamacare. When seeing it the people react saying this is unacceptable and demand it must be changed. They then offer a solution, total government run health care, which in comparison now sounds reasonable.