Ouch, Lone Nutters! DA Jim Garrison Vindicated!

[Deleted]

    Spent two hours after work today perusing a handful of the declassified JFK archives released late today.

    The 1978 HSCA CIA files on Oswald's anti-Castro associates in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 is surely a vindication of DA Jim Garrison's work, and of Oliver Stone's remarkably accurate 1992 film JFK.

     Meanwhile, the WaPo and NYT continue to blatantly lie about the CIA's ludicrous Warren Commission "Lone Nut" cover story...  

     The NYT is openly consulting with CIA shills Posner and Sabato in their fake "news" coverage of the new archives!!  

     BTW, it's sad to see Trump cave to the CIA today, but not surprising.

[Deleted]

P.S.  The ARRB, CIA and FBI have had 25-54 years to redact (and shred) these JFK files.

         Why do they suddenly need another 180 days?

       
.

[Walter]

Honestly, I don't care...at all.
Heck, roughly 75-80% of all Americans weren't even alive in 1963.
Ya think any of them care either?

[daleko]

Oct 27, 2017 10:45:04 GMT -5 Walter said:

Honestly, I don't care...at all.
Heck, roughly 75-80% of all Americans weren't even alive in 1963.
Ya think any of them care either?

Probably not a bad number. And not all of those people remember the assassination. Emphasizing you point.

[Walter]

Oct 27, 2017 11:24:47 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 27, 2017 10:45:04 GMT -5 Walter said:

Honestly, I don't care...at all.
Heck, roughly 75-80% of all Americans weren't even alive in 1963.
Ya think any of them care either?

Probably not a bad number. And not all of those people remember the assassination. Emphasizing you point.

True. I had just turned 11, and though I'm one of those who "remember where you were when...", my age group might have been about the youngest that understood what had happened. In my elementary school, I remember that with the little kids, (I was a grizzled 6th grader), by the time lunch was over, "rumor had it" that everyone in DC had been shot and "they" were on their way to our school to finish things.

[Deleted]

   Anyone who IS still interested in the subject needs to carefully study DA Jim Garrison's investigation of Oswald and his CIA (and Free Cuba Committee) associates, including Jack Ruby. 
  
    The CIA and their MSM contract propagandists-- even Shenon, Sabato, Posner, et.al. THIS WEEK(!) in the NYT-- are blatantly lying about the proven facts in the case.


Oswald Did Not Shoot President Kennedy
22november1963.org.uk/jim-garrison-oswald-jfk-conspiracy




Garrison:  If there’s one thing the Warren Commission and its 26 volumes of supportive evidence demonstrate conclusively, it’s that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot John Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Of course, the Commission concluded not only that Oswald fired at the President but that he was a marksman, that he had enough time to “fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6 seconds,” that his Mannlicher–Carcano was an accurate rifle, etc. — but all these conclusions are actually in direct contradiction of the evidence within the Commission’s own 26 volumes.

By culling and coordinating that evidence, the leading critics of the Commission have proved:

that Oswald was a mediocre shot;
that the Mannlicher–Carcano rifle he allegedly used was about the crummiest weapon on the market today;
that its telescopic sight was loose and had to be realigned before Commission experts could fire it;
that the 20–year–old ammunition he would have had to use could not have been relied on to fire accurately, if at all;
that the rifle quite possibly was taken from Oswald’s home after the assassination and planted in the Depository;
that the Commission’s own chronology of Oswald’s movements made it highly implausible for him to fire three shots, wipe the rifle clear of fingerprints — there were none found on it — hide the rifle under a stack of books and rush down four flights of stairs to the second floor, all in the few seconds it took Roy Truly and Officer Marrion Baker to rush in from the street after the shots and encounter Oswald standing beside the vending machine in the employees’ cafeteria.

I could cite additional evidence proving that Oswald didn’t fire a rifle from the sixth floor of the Depository, but it would just be a recapitulation of the excellent books of the critics, to which I refer your readers.

There are a number of factors that we’ve examined independently during the course of our investigation that also prove Oswald didn’t shoot at the President. For one thing, the nitrate test administered to Oswald on the day of the assassination clearly exonerated him of having fired a rifle within the past 24 hours. He had nitrates on both hands, but no nitrates on his cheek — which means it was impossible for him to have fired a rifle. The fact that he had nitrates on both hands is regarded in the nitrate test as a sign of innocence; it’s the same as having nitrates on neither hand. This is because so many ordinary objects leave traces of nitrate on the hands. You’re smoking a cigar, for example — tobacco contains nitrate; so if you were tested right now, you’d have nitrate on your right hand but not on your left. I’m smoking a pipe, which I interchange between my hands, so I’ll have traces of nitrate on both hands but not on my cheeks.

The morning of the assassination, Oswald was moving crates in a newly painted room, which was likely to have left traces of nitrate on both his hands. Now, of course, if the nitrate test had proved positive, and Oswald did have nitrate on one hand and on his cheek, that would still not constitute proof positive that he’d fired a gun, because the nitrates could have been left by a substance other than gunpowder. But the fact that he had no nitrate whatsoever on his cheek is ineluctable proof that he never fired a rifle that day. If he had washed his face to remove the nitrate before the test was administered, there would have been none on his hands either — unless he was in the habit of washing with gloves on.

This was a sticky problem for the Warren Commission, but they resolved it with their customary aplomb. An expert was dug up who testified that in a Mannlicher–Carcano rifle, the chamber is so tight that no nitrates are emitted upon firing; and the Commission used this testimony to dismiss the whole subject. However, the inventor of the nitrate test subsequently tested the Mannlicher–Carcano and found that it did leave nitrate traces. He was not called to testify by the Warren Commission. So the nitrate test alone is incontrovertible proof that Oswald did not fire a rifle on November 22nd.

We’ve also found some new evidence that shows that Oswald’s Mannlicher–Carcano was not the only weapon discovered in the Depository Building after the assassination. I recently traveled to New York for a conference with Richard Sprague, a brilliant man who’s been independently researching technical aspects of the assassination, and he showed me a hitherto unpublicized collection of film clips from a motion picture taken of the assassination and its aftermath. Part of the film, shot shortly after one P.M., shows the Dallas police carrying the assassination weapon out of the Book Depository. They stop for the photographers and an officer holds the rifle up above his head so that the inquisitive crowd can look at it. There’s just one little flaw here: This rifle does not have a telescopic sight, and thus cannot be Oswald’s rifle. This weapon was taken from the building approximately 20 minutes before Oswald’s Mannlicher–Carcano was “discovered” — or planted — on the premises.

To sum up: Oswald was involved in the conspiracy; shots were fired at Kennedy from the Depository but also from the grassy knoll and apparently from the Dal–Tex Building as well — but not one of them was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, and not one of them from his Mannlicher–Carcano.

[Walter]

What part of "I don't care...at all", did you not get?

[Deleted]

Oct 27, 2017 13:49:04 GMT -5 Walter said:

What part of "I don't care...at all", did you not get?

Walt,

     What part of "Anyone who IS still interested" did you not get? 

[daleko]

Oct 27, 2017 14:10:05 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Oct 27, 2017 13:49:04 GMT -5 Walter said:

What part of "I don't care...at all", did you not get?

Walt,

     What part of "Anyone who IS still interested" did you not get? 

[Deleted]

Oct 27, 2017 23:21:39 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 27, 2017 14:10:05 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Walt,

     What part of "Anyone who IS still interested" did you not get? 

Daleko,

    I don't blame you for being embarrassed.  You've been dead wrong in our JFK debates for the past few years.

    Are you still a Lone Nutter?  A guy who believes the CIA's 1975 Anti-Newtonian Great Pumpkin fairy tale about JFK's head?

[daleko]

Oct 27, 2017 23:40:15 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

    Are you still a Lone Nutter?  A guy who believes the CIA's 1975 Anti-Newtonian Great Pumpkin fairy tale about JFK's head?

You seem to like getting your JFK information from dime novels and over-hyped movies. Try watching this '77 movie, The Deep. You'll understand what happened and the plus, plus is a great scene involving Winifred Jacqueline Fraser Bisset. 

[Deleted]

Oct 28, 2017 11:56:21 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 27, 2017 23:40:15 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

    Are you still a Lone Nutter?  A guy who believes the CIA's 1975 Anti-Newtonian Great Pumpkin fairy tale about JFK's head?

You seem to like getting your JFK information from dime novels and over-hyped movies. Try watching this '77 movie, The Deep. You'll understand what happened and the plus, plus is a great scene involving Winifred Jacqueline Fraser Bisset. 

Stop lying, Daleko.  You should be ashamed of your cheesy self, frankly.

As I've told you, Harry, and Walter, repeatedly, I get my JFK information from the scholarly researchers who have completely debunked your CIA Warren Commission cover up.   Have you studied a single one of the scholarly classics debunking the copious CIA-funded Warren Commission propaganda?

When you and Walter can finally pass CIA history 101, let's have a meaningful debate.


1)  Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher

2)  JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass 

3)  Oswald and the CIA by John Newman

4)  Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane

5)  Destiny Betrayed by James DiEugenio

[daleko]

Oct 29, 2017 14:45:12 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Oct 28, 2017 11:56:21 GMT -5 daleko said:

You seem to like getting your JFK information from dime novels and over-hyped movies. Try watching this '77 movie, The Deep. You'll understand what happened and the plus, plus is a great scene involving Winifred Jacqueline Fraser Bisset. 

Stop lying, Daleko.  You should be ashamed of your cheesy self, frankly.

As I've told you, Harry, and Walter, repeatedly, I get my JFK information from the scholarly researchers

And I got mine first hand. Stop. Watch the movie or read the Wiki crib notes. Your answer for JFK lies within that movie's plot.

[Walter]

Oct 29, 2017 14:45:12 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Oct 28, 2017 11:56:21 GMT -5 daleko said:

You seem to like getting your JFK information from dime novels and over-hyped movies. Try watching this '77 movie, The Deep. You'll understand what happened and the plus, plus is a great scene involving Winifred Jacqueline Fraser Bisset. 

Stop lying, Daleko.  You should be ashamed of your cheesy self, frankly.

As I've told you, Harry, and Walter, repeatedly, I get my JFK information from the scholarly researchers who have completely debunked your CIA Warren Commission cover up.   Have you studied a single one of the scholarly classics debunking the copious CIA-funded Warren Commission propaganda?

When you and Walter can finally pass CIA history 101, let's have a meaningful debate.


1)  Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher

2)  JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass 

3)  Oswald and the CIA by John Newman

4)  Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane

5)  Destiny Betrayed by James DiEugenio

Are those folks anything like the "scholarly researchers" who bullshitted your ass about the structural engineering of the WTC buildings? Cuz I've read a few of those pieces by the idiots to whom you've pointed me and "scholarly" isn't the word I'd use to describe them....at all. "Clickbaiters", yes. "Scholars"? Uh...no.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2017 18:17:28 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 29, 2017 14:45:12 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Stop lying, Daleko.  You should be ashamed of your cheesy self, frankly.

As I've told you, Harry, and Walter, repeatedly, I get my JFK information from the scholarly researchers who have completely debunked your CIA Warren Commission cover up.   Have you studied a single one of the scholarly classics debunking the copious CIA-funded Warren Commission propaganda?

When you and Walter can finally pass CIA history 101, let's have a meaningful debate.


1)  Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher

2)  JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass 

3)  Oswald and the CIA by John Newman

4)  Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane

5)  Destiny Betrayed by James DiEugenio

Are those folks anything like the "scholarly researchers" who bullshitted your ass about the structural engineering of the WTC buildings? Cuz I've read a few of those pieces by the idiots to whom you've pointed me and "scholarly" isn't the word I'd use to describe them....at all. "Clickbaiters", yes. "Scholars"? Uh...no.

Walter,

   As the lone Harvard man on this screwball forum, I'm giving you a well deserved "F."

    No serious scientist believes the sham NIST pseudo-science "investigation" of the WTC demolition.

     Have you read the University of Alaska engineering study that debunked .the NIST scam?

     The NIST scam has been exposed by one of their own scientists.

      Don't be such a stubbornly willful idiot.

       Geez!!!  Larry Silverstein, himself, said that he told the NYFD to "pull it"-- before watching the abrupt demolition of WTC7.

       Silverstein built and owned WTC7, and had redesigned the new WTC7 before 9/11.