Quantum Leap:Lee Harvey Oswald ~ hated it

[Marsden]

My favorite part of Oliver Stoned's movie is that Seinfeld episode where the baseball player spits on Kramer and they are spoofing the scene from that movie.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

That is not a response, that is elitism. I was gonna challenge to offer me definitive proof of anything, but you have a superiority complex, and I'm just about done talking to you.

That would be the best decision. Some are content to regurgitate disproven "facts", reference habitual liars such as Posner, and ignore the witnesses who were told (by WC investigators) to either change their story, or were not called at all (e.g., Acquilla Clemons).

In Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill's book, Man of the House, JFK's longtime friend/advisor (and White House Appointments Secretary) Kenneth O'Donnell--who rode in the follow-up car to the Kennedy vehicle--stated that he told the WC that he not only witnessed the gruesome sight of JFK being shot to death, but heard shots come from the front in the direction of the fence, but was told that (to paraphrase) "it could not have happened that way" and all but ordered him to change his testimony...to "spare" the Kennedy family (and presumably to protect the nation of any potentially "damaging" outcomes from a differing account). O'Donnell regretted that decision, and he is far from the only witness to reality who was told to change their eyewitness account, or their testimony never made it into the published volumes.


On the opposite end of reality (or the acceptance of it), you have some still worshipping at the stained altar of propagandists such as Walter Cronkite, a man who--similar to "reporters" employed by other network news bureaus of the 60s--altered or omitted facts of important stories, which was inexcusable, and a marker of his character. For one example, during the summer of 1964, as the FBI and sailors searched for missing Civil Rights workers James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Godman, the corpses of several black people were found in the various swamps and rivers--a reported 8 including Charles Eddie Moore, Henry Hezekiah Dee, Herbert Oarsby, and 5 other black victims. Smaller, serious newspapers and radio stations of the time reported the series of discoveries, but the mainstream, network news channels--CBS at the top of that heap--did not. CBS' regional bureaus and field reporters were fully aware of the discoveries, but this information was suppressed, and Cronkite--the network's oft-seen town crier of the case--went along with it (expect the excuses that he was not ultimately responsible for anything he said on air...). He was hardly the bastion of absolute truth some have self-packaged and sold to themselves over the decades.

Further, this was not censorship because of gruesome details (which were not detailed on air in 1964 in any case), so there are not many truth-based reasons why part of one of the most significant stories of that decade was as buried as those 8 victims. So, trotting out certain names to bolster arguments naturally leads to the need to examine those names, their posiition on key historical events, and how the events were presented to the public.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

JFK conspiracy theories are bullshit.

THe ones that say the Mafia did all by themselves sure is, yeah.

Something did go on with the King assassination, though.

MLK was promoted as Public Enemy Nr. 1 after his anti-VIetnam War speech. Former/retired FBI agents have publicly admited that the agency had a large role in taking his out, even though it wasn't an open operation or anything. Like the Kennedy's, he posed a threat to the national security structure, and could have caused the country to bring pressured against the war and against inequality wherein, and they didn't want that.

As for the House Committee in the late 70s? Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy has quite thoroughly debunked that report.

Reclaiming History is one of the most dishonest, vile pieces of propaganda. I suggest reading James DiEugenio's book The JFK Assassination, which details how it deliberately left out information, concealed critical information, and vilified critical people involved in the conversation for the murder, including Garrison and Stone themselves.

Obviously, no appeals to reason can overcome convinced conspiracy theorists (Stone himself suggests the absence of evidence for the conspiracy--particularly the lack of even ONE (from among the hundreds necessary for his theory to hold water) participant's leaking of it--acts as proof of the conspiracy's reality). But between Bugliosi, Posner's Case Closed and the physics of the most recent experiment (let alone many other compelling refutations), I feel quite confident Stone's version is a fantasy, as are the myriad conspiracy theories floating out there.

None of those "sources" confirm anything. Posner's case has long since been debunked, and Bugliosi's is equally untruthful with the intent to prove Oswald wrong and disprove the conspiracy.

Furthermore, Oliver Stone has said time and time again that he's not a conspiracy theorist. He did not have a pony in the fight when he made the film. Its a case that he got passionate above, as we all have, when he went in deep and started seriously researching it, just like any serious, self-respecting professional would do. The ones who labeled him as a nutcase were the very same newsmedia that promoted the lone gunman theory for decades by then, and decades since, criticizing him for a rough draft that got leaked against Stone's wishes. He may be paranoid, yes, a tad more than the usual amount that anyone could or should be, but his disillusionment derives from his service. And while I served as well and can more than relate to, I can't admit to having close to his experience as a combat fighter nor can I admit that I would be as articulate or together as he seems to be. People forget that Stone's approach was to create the ultimate counter-myth to the Warren Report's myth, a response to the lies propagated and architectured by Allan Dulles, who in a student meeting following the release of the Report said, publicly, that the Zapruder film did not show the President go back and to his left, but rather on the front and downward (and this is supported by officially sanctioned sketches that depict the Warren Report's earliest conclusion, which differed from their final one as they had to account for the Zapruder film eventually).

The evidence is plain for everyone to see. If you discount Kennedy's aid, who as mentioned in the post above me said what he said but was instructed to lie "for the family's sake", if you discount the myriad of witnesses on the scene of the crime, if you discount the obviousness of the Zapruder film (which as the film says, was locked away in a vault and before its wide release in the 70's via Reviera's program, was only really seen in the Clay Shaw trial), if you discount the very fact that the government's apparatus had in that time, before and since then operated in such shady tactics and it will again if it sees it fit, if you discount the very fact that people closest to the assassination and the President himself have expressed doubt in the Warren Report (including his own family), if you discount the continuously conflicting changing reports on the weapon (it was a Masuer - no wait, it was Carcano, but wait, the shells of the bullets? damn!), if you discount the fact that the description of Oswald appearing on the radio NEVER BEING ADRESSED, EVER, if you discount Oswald's previous dealings with the FBI and the CIA, if you discount the fact that he was a normal dude who DEFECTED, at the height of the Cold War to the Soviet Union, and came back to the country without any repercussions, if you discount all the evidence that is in front of you.... Yeah, sure, there was no conspiracy.

Be reasonable. Be rational. Use your head, think for yourself. The facts speak for themselves. No matter how much character assassinations Posner and Bugliosi might try to do, the event in itself speaks for itself. If it were such an open-and-shut case, if it were so conclusively done a deal, none of us would talking about it. The newsmedia certainly wouldn't try to sell the story of the Warren Report for so long if it was so obvious. Its a story that will never go away, and I hope to live to see a day where that apparatus can be revealed. But as Dan Ellsberg said to a friend of mine, unlikely for another 50 years.

That would be the best decision. Some are content to regurgitate disproven "facts", reference habitual liars such as Posner, and ignore the witnesses who were told (by WC investigators) to either change their story, or were not called at all (e.g., Acquilla Clemons).

It is really such a relief to see someone who has a shred of sanity on this thread. I was starting to lose faith in humanity for a second.

In Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill's book, Man of the House, JFK's longtime friend/advisor (and White House Appointments Secretary) Kenneth O'Donnell--who rode in the follow-up car to the Kennedy vehicle--stated that he told the WC that he not only witnessed the gruesome sight of JFK being shot to death, but heard shots come from the front in the direction of the fence, but was told that (to paraphrase) "it could not have happened that way" and all but ordered him to change his testimony...to "spare" the Kennedy family (and presumably to protect the nation of any potentially "damaging" outcomes from a differing account). O'Donnell regretted that decision, and he is far from the only witness to reality who was told to change their eyewitness account, or their testimony never made the published volumes.

Isn't he also the one who held the Press Conference that announced in the President's death and answered a reporter's question by showing where he shot with "a bullet wound to the head" and showed a forward trajectory of the shot? Or was that a different person?

Interestingly, Earl Warren, whose name appears in the damn report, admits to being told by Lyndon Johnson to make sure it conemns Oswald, as he feared any other revelation might cause a national panic and might lead to war with the Russians or the Cubans. He also said that people would likely not find out the whole truth about the assassination for years to come.

On the opposite end of reality (or the acceptance of it), you have some still worshipping at the stained altar of propagandists such as Walter Cronkite, a man who--similar to "reporters" employed by other network news bureaus of the 60s--altered or omitted facts of important stories, which was inexcusable, and a marker of his character. For one example, during the summer of 1964, as the FBI and sailors searched for missing Civil Rights workers James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Godman, the corpses of several black people were found in the various swamps and rivers--a reported 8 including Charles Eddie Moore, Henry Hezekiah Dee, Herbert Oarsby, and 5 other black victims. Smaller, serious newspapers and radio stations of the time reported the series of discoveries, but the mainstream, network news channels--CBS at the top of that heap--did not. CBS' regional bureaus and field reporters were fully aware of the discoveries, but this information was suppressed, and Cronkite--the network's oft-seen town crier of the case--went along with it (expect the excuses that he was not ultimately responsible for anything he said on air...). He was hardly the bastion of absolute truth some have self-packaged and sold themselves for over the decades.

Further, this was not censorship because of gruesome details (which were not detailed on air in 1964 in any case), so there are not many truth-based reasons why part of one of the most significant stories of that decade was as buried as those 8 victims. So, trotting out certain names to bolster arguments naturally leads to the need to examine those names, their posiition on key historical events, and how the events were presented to the public.

I did not know this story. Thanks for sharing. I will say this about Cronkite - he did speak against the Vietnam War eventually, but only after years and years after the US's involvement with it began and until then, he was a staunch supporter of the effort, privately telling hippies to "shut it" with their demonstrations and let the "adults work on it". Pretty shameful, and regrettable that he had to view the war firsthand to finally speak against it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

You resurrected this thread from 2012, so can't you just resurrect the people involved and ask them what happened?