OT: True Crime
- Thread starter Montana
- Start date
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou
I will get banned again soon, worry not.
Well you're the one who keeps quoting the Warren Commission Report, which is a work of fiction on par with the Bible.
Montana
Champion
I just realized Family of Secrets was referenced here as a source, and as someone who owns it, it’s a highly highly entertaining read as historical fiction, but it is one of the more intentionally misleading & deceptive conspiracy books I’ve ever read.
It makes some of the wildest leaps in logic I’ve seen, and intentionally plays into peoples willingness to extrapolate meaning from coincidences & inference…..he states all his “facts” in a manner that implies something nefarious, without coming out and saying it.
He does claim George HW Bush was a CIA agent in 63’ and played a huge role in killing Kennedy, (on behalf of oil companies I think it was?)….despite always claiming he was never CIA, and that’s the reason he became head of the CIA, Vice, and President later on in life.
again, fun read as pure imaginary entertainment….but worse than replies on Elon’s tweets, as a source of factual information.
Last edited:
Montana
Champion
Ive barely quoted it tbh…and have never quoted their conclusions…..and any real earnest researcher doesn’t turn a blind eye to information just because it doesn’t say what they want to hear.
I’ve read both sides, and have made them face off when they contradict one another to just who has the more accurate/plausible/logical evidence or case in each instance.
I think it’s pretty clear what the conspiracy theories get right about what the Warren Commission avoided delving into, intentionally obfuscated to protect the image of agencies, and glossed over in an attempt to tamper down any implication of Castro or Soviets being behind the assassination attempt. Also think conspiracy theorists have discovered instances where the Report is just flat out wrong….and have corrected the record.
….but the idea that the Warren Report is pure fiction, is embarrassing and kinda childish.
….I’ve been more than happy to address every point anyone wants to bring up, and happily admit when it’s extremely shady (Oswald’s wallet being a good example)
but when I’ve demonstrably shown your conspiracy claims as factually inaccurate, you just pretend it didn’t happen and skip on to your next theory.
I’d hope anyone reading this thread (likely no one but us three) is recognizing that trend.
Montana
Champion
Another valid point of contention that we haven’t touched on, is that while Axl is correct that Marina is the main source for a lot of the key information in the investigation….She also changed her opinion publicly later in life to claim that she now believed Oswald was innocent.
To the point she signed a court order to have Oswald’s body exhumed, because a UK conspiracy theorist had convinced her that a Oswald look alike had been swapped for Lee’s, and he was still alive somewhere.
So if a conspiracy theorist wants to claim she was lying before (should be noted she was never comfortable taking the step to recant her Warren commission testimony)…..they’re more than welcome.
….I think since her interviews line up so well with what others said, what the evidence said, etc…it’s a bit far fetched….especially since in 1978 at the committee for assassinations she still stood by said testimony.
To me it’s pretty clear that conspiracy theorists wove their tales for her, and convinced her he was possibly innocent, and she leaned into it….either believing it outright, or seeing an opportunity to profit from it….or both.
To the point she signed a court order to have Oswald’s body exhumed, because a UK conspiracy theorist had convinced her that a Oswald look alike had been swapped for Lee’s, and he was still alive somewhere.
So if a conspiracy theorist wants to claim she was lying before (should be noted she was never comfortable taking the step to recant her Warren commission testimony)…..they’re more than welcome.
….I think since her interviews line up so well with what others said, what the evidence said, etc…it’s a bit far fetched….especially since in 1978 at the committee for assassinations she still stood by said testimony.
To me it’s pretty clear that conspiracy theorists wove their tales for her, and convinced her he was possibly innocent, and she leaned into it….either believing it outright, or seeing an opportunity to profit from it….or both.
Last edited:
Montana
Champion
I’d also say the two Oswald’s explanation in Mexico is a tough sell…when you’ve photographed & interviewed someone that clearly wasn’t Oswald.
We do know pretty conclusively that Oswald was in Mexico at the time, as they have a treasure trove of intel, photos, memos, etc documenting his time there….but I’ve yet to hear a concrete explanation of the second Oswald other than the embassy screwed up and mistakenly thought the wrong guy was Oswald.
that said, I get why conspiracy theorists would be all over this, cause it is extremely odd…..it’s a shame too, because without that bizarre element people might focus more on the fact that communist Oswald was rejected from getting a visa both to return to Russia, or enter Cuba who he felt were the true marxists achieving a superior form of communism than the Soviets.
…and imo, it’s that pair of rejections, along with “Fair play for Cuba” being a failure, and Marina rejecting his offer of reconciling, getting a new apartment in Dallas, and moving back in together….that collectively helped push him over the edge to do what he did.
instead the Mexico trip is largely only brought up, as the “fake Oswald” story.
We do know pretty conclusively that Oswald was in Mexico at the time, as they have a treasure trove of intel, photos, memos, etc documenting his time there….but I’ve yet to hear a concrete explanation of the second Oswald other than the embassy screwed up and mistakenly thought the wrong guy was Oswald.
that said, I get why conspiracy theorists would be all over this, cause it is extremely odd…..it’s a shame too, because without that bizarre element people might focus more on the fact that communist Oswald was rejected from getting a visa both to return to Russia, or enter Cuba who he felt were the true marxists achieving a superior form of communism than the Soviets.
…and imo, it’s that pair of rejections, along with “Fair play for Cuba” being a failure, and Marina rejecting his offer of reconciling, getting a new apartment in Dallas, and moving back in together….that collectively helped push him over the edge to do what he did.
instead the Mexico trip is largely only brought up, as the “fake Oswald” story.
Last edited:
JackBurton
Well-known member
Not sure if this is a podcast yet, but interesting story. Ashton Kutcher actually had a date with one of the victims and went to her home right after she was killed(Thought blood he saw through the window was wine).
Ashley Ellerin murder: Michael Gargiulo, accused of killing Ashton Kutcher's friend and others, called a "serial sexual-thrill killer" - CBS News
Ashley Ellerin murder: Michael Gargiulo, accused of killing Ashton Kutcher's friend and others, called a "serial sexual-thrill killer" - CBS News
Montana
Champion
JFK Secret Service Agent Refutes Magic Bullet Assassination Theory
One of John F. Kennedy's Secret Service agents is breaking his silence on what happened that fateful day.
www.tmz.com
CH1
The Artist Formerly Known as chiggins.
A New JFK Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held âLone Gunmanâ Theory
In a new book, former Secret Service agent Paul Landis, largely silent for 60 years, says he found a bullet in Kennedy’s limo. A sometime presidential historian explains why that’s so significant, if true.
axlsalinger
Well-known member
To conclude the whole JFK discussion (for now), the official explanation is that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, with evidence provided by the U.S. government.
Of course, if you believe there was a conspiracy involving the CIA, then some of that evidence must have been fabricated or manipulated. Montana asked for proof of this, but if I had that I would probably be on CNN rather than posting on Forum Ice.
The first time they investigated this matter with the Warren Commission, at least 2 of the 7 members had serious doubts. The second time they investigated this matter, in 1976, the House Select Committee on Assassinations rubberstamped the Warren Commission's conclusions on Oswald (which was controversial), but also stated the following:
www.archives.gov
- The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government.
One major reason was an audio recording that has largely been discredited. But there was a massive dispute within the committee, with several members believing in conspiracy.
en.wikipedia.org
Robert Blakey, the chief counsel of the committee, later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was allegedly involved with in the months leading up to the assassination. Among these organizations was an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, which was linked to the CIA (Joannides was in fact working for the CIA in 1963). Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides should have in fact been interviewed by the HCSA, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice.[36]
In the same 2003 interview, Blakey issued a statement on the Central Intelligence Agency:
Of course, if you believe there was a conspiracy involving the CIA, then some of that evidence must have been fabricated or manipulated. Montana asked for proof of this, but if I had that I would probably be on CNN rather than posting on Forum Ice.
The first time they investigated this matter with the Warren Commission, at least 2 of the 7 members had serious doubts. The second time they investigated this matter, in 1976, the House Select Committee on Assassinations rubberstamped the Warren Commission's conclusions on Oswald (which was controversial), but also stated the following:
Summary of Findings
Summary of Findings and Recommendations Findings in the Assassination of President Kennedy Findings in the Assassination of Reverend King Recommendations of the Select Committee on Assassinations I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the Assassination of President John F...
www.archives.gov
- Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
- The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
- The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government.
One major reason was an audio recording that has largely been discredited. But there was a massive dispute within the committee, with several members believing in conspiracy.
United States House Select Committee on Assassinations - Wikipedia
Robert Blakey, the chief counsel of the committee, later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was allegedly involved with in the months leading up to the assassination. Among these organizations was an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, which was linked to the CIA (Joannides was in fact working for the CIA in 1963). Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides should have in fact been interviewed by the HCSA, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice.[36]
In the same 2003 interview, Blakey issued a statement on the Central Intelligence Agency:
According to a 2015 Politico report,[38] newly declassified documents show that CIA director John A. McCone hid evidence from the Warren Commission. According to a once-secret report[39] written in 2013 by the CIA's top in-house historian, David Robarge, the CIA admits McCone and other senior CIA officials withheld 'incendiary' information from the Warren Commission.
Montana
Champion
I love that you chose to post all the discredited info in its entirety first, before the single line discrediting it all…lol. (better than most who’d just ignore it was discredited)To conclude the whole JFK discussion (for now), the official explanation is that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, with evidence provided by the U.S. government.
Of course, if you believe there was a conspiracy involving the CIA, then some of that evidence must have been fabricated or manipulated. Montana asked for proof of this, but if I had that I would probably be on CNN rather than posting on Forum Ice.
The first time they investigated this matter with the Warren Commission, at least 2 of the 7 members had serious doubts. The second time they investigated this matter, in 1976, the House Select Committee on Assassinations rubberstamped the Warren Commission's conclusions on Oswald (which was controversial), but also stated the following:
Summary of Findings
Summary of Findings and Recommendations Findings in the Assassination of President Kennedy Findings in the Assassination of Reverend King Recommendations of the Select Committee on Assassinations I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the Assassination of President John F...- The Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President.
- Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
- The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
- The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. This deficiency was attributable in part to the failure of the Commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government.
One major reason was an audio recording that has largely been discredited. But there was a massive dispute within the committee, with several members believing in conspiracy.
…the key piece of evidence that resulted in them claiming it was a conspiracy, was because they mistakenly believed audio showed 4 shots had occurred when that 4th “shot” was conclusively proven to be an error on the experts part. Not only was it not a gun shot, it was a piece of tape from an hour after the shooting….(they’d mistakenly believed the tape ran non stop, but it was actually started & stopped by the operator, as was normal procedure.)
United States House Select Committee on Assassinations - Wikipedia
Robert Blakey, the chief counsel of the committee, later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was allegedly involved with in the months leading up to the assassination. Among these organizations was an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, which was linked to the CIA (Joannides was in fact working for the CIA in 1963). Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides should have in fact been interviewed by the HCSA, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice.[36]
In the same 2003 interview, Blakey issued a statement on the Central Intelligence Agency:
According to a 2015 Politico report,[38] newly declassified documents show that CIA director John A. McCone hid evidence from the Warren Commission. According to a once-secret report[39] written in 2013 by the CIA's top in-house historian, David Robarge, the CIA admits McCone and other senior CIA officials withheld 'incendiary' information from the Warren Commission.
I don’t think I’d argue any of this….CIA definitely tried to cover their asses by limiting how much knowledge they had of Oswald beforehand. I’m even fine if someone wants to label it “a cover-up”…..where people get off their rocker is believing that evidence they conspired to assassinate him, which is absurd imo given the evidence we have.
If anyone cares for a much more logical assessment, it’s most liked they wanted to keep anyone from mistakenly believing either Cuba or the Soviets were responsible for killing Kennedy, just a year after we narrowly missed a nuclear war, via the Cuban Missile Crisis.
so yeah, I’m guessing they felt for national security, it made sense to not disclose their plans to assassinate Castro?….
It’s also what LBJ basically says in the days following the assassination when he was recorded saying “we need to convince the public it was Oswald”…,or something to that effect, which people love to take as “frame” Oswald…..when it’s clear (imo) by that point he’d have had read plenty of the evidence conclusively pointing to Oswald, and was wanting to nip in the bud, any talk of Castro or the Soviets being involved…..for fairly obvious reasons, I’d say.
Last edited:
Montana
Champion
Montana
Champion
A New JFK Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held âLone Gunmanâ Theory
In a new book, former Secret Service agent Paul Landis, largely silent for 60 years, says he found a bullet in Kennedy’s limo. A sometime presidential historian explains why that’s so significant, if true.www.vanityfair.com
I missed that you’d posted this until just now, but glad to hear someone who knows him so closely came to broadly the same conclusion I did….the crazy thing tho, is he left out the most damning evidence of all that it’s bullshit.
The 1977 HSCA had the INAA (Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis) to testing that conclusively showed that…
* WCC = Western Cartridge Company, and MC is Mannlicher Carcano….WCC was contracted to make bullets specifically for that gun.
So we know with a ridiculously high level of certainty where the shots came from, their trajectory through the bodies, how many bullets hit Kennedy & Connally, what they were shot with, which bullet did what, and how much time there was between shots.
If there was a second shooter in Dealey Plaza that day, they simply had to have missed their shots entirely.
Last edited:
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou
I will get banned again soon, worry not.
The guy on the grassy knoll didn't miss. He scored the kill shot.
Triangulated fire. One shooter on the knoll, one in the book depository (probably not Oswald) and one on the roof of the Dal-Tex Building.
Montana
Champion
there’s so many fascinating rabbit holes one can go down when discussing the assassination, but the grassy knoll “shot from the front” might be one of the more embarrassing given the preponderance of evidence we have proving it false.
If you’re gonna quote Oliver Stone everywhere else, may as well use the verbatim line….it’s
“triangulation of fire”
if there was, he missed everything in the car & the bullet was never found.
correct, the man who delivered two bullets on target, including the kill shot. Oswald.
I’m going off memory here but I believe the bullet trajectory analysis that showed where the bullets came from, provided a cone of potential (basically further back of the head the larger the potential area the shot came from)……6th floor and I believe a portion of the Dal Tex Building….now it would need to be a 4th shot, also from a Carcano, and from the same box of bullets Oswald used….still extremely far fetched, but not as laughably impossible as the grassy knoll theory.
again, I posted the autopsy photo of Kennedy with a bullet entry would in the back of his head…..which you’ve chosen to ignore and pretend doesn’t provide he was shot from behind.….which kinda dunks on any credibility you have about looking for the truth Vs pushing your specific theory.
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou
I will get banned again soon, worry not.
Just watch the film. The kill shot came from the front. It's the one piece of evidence that the conspirators had no control over. They could not have conceived ahead of time that there would be a guy standing in the exact perfect spot with a movie camera at the exact right time to debunk their pre-planned single shooter narrative. They had the Warren Commission Report as much pre-printed before Kennedy even landed in Dallas. And they would have got away with it too, if not for that meddling Zapruder.