'long-hidden footage of second shooter' to be aired prove Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT act alone

[Chrom]

Will 'long-hidden footage of second shooter' to be aired this week prove Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT act alone?

* Texas real-estate developer Stephen Bowen claims to have footage of JFK's assassination
* He says he footage was taken by a Houston news producer on November 22, 1963
* The tape reportedly depicts a second shooter hiding in the bushes along the route of JFK's motorcade
* Bowen is hoping to sell the footage to the highest bidder

By Alex Greig


A Texas real-estate developer is in possession of footage of John F. Kennedy's motorcade from that fateful day in Dallas that he believes supports the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.

Whether or not the footage is genuine isn't yet known, but if it is, it would represent a dramatic development in a story 50 years in the making.

Following the 50th anniversary of the death of JFK, Stephen Bowen, who is also a principal in small film production company, decided the time was right to sell the footage, which reportedly depicts a second shooter, to the highest bidder.
That fateful day: John F and Jackie Kennedy in the car in which he would be assassinated

That fateful day: John F and Jackie Kennedy in the car in which he would be assassinated

According to The Wrap, Bowen acquired the film from a Houston television news producer, who had held onto it secretly for more than 40 years.

While no one has yet viewed the footage, it's said to show a second shooter hiding in the bushes along the route the presidential motorcade took on 22 November, 1963.

'You can see a guy in the bushes with a gun,' the source told The Wrap.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512339/Will-footage-second-shooter-prove-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-did-NOT-act-JFK-shooting.html?printingPage=true

[zappaman]

1. yup

[BootinUp]

2. lol nt

[Brickbat]

6. Bwahahaha!

[treestar]

13. lol

[In_The_Wind]

22. Exactly my thoughts too.

[DanTex]

37. LOL

[NutmegYankee]

51. So apt! lol.

[hobbit709]

3. And for your next magical trick?

[DrDan]

4. sure will be glad when these Kennedy CT threads dry-up . . .

[Ranchemp.]

5. I'll give this as much credence as I give the birthers,

those that say the moon landing was faked by the govt, or that 9/11 was a govt inside job.
IOW, none.

[Nye Bevan]

7. Makes sense.

Because of course putting a gunman in the bushes near a motorcade route with thousands of bystanders right there, and simultaneously planting a deranged communist with a rifle in a nearby building, is the most foolproof way of getting rid of a president.

[arcane1]

8. If you can't trust "a principal in small film production company" to have an undoctored video,

then who can you trust?

[randome]

9. And here he is!

(That was an easy one.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[DinahMoeHum]

10. (Yawn!)

[The Midway Rebel]

11. This should be good.

[treestar]

12. Hoax

No way it would take 50 years to come out.

[whistler162]

34. Not a hoax....

he just forgot to pick the film up at Fotomat!

[Octafish]

14. If true, it might convince a few skeptics.

Not those with a disinformation agenda, but the honest ones.

Thanks for the heads-up, Chrom. Fascinating report. I look forward to learning more.

[Chrom]

15. I was praying for something like this last night, something to finally expose the undeniable truth

this was the beginning of the end for our once great nation, but I still have this hope we can turn it around.

It probably is a hoax though, what kind of jerk would sit on footage like this just so long so he could make more money.

But I am still hoping....

[Ranchemp.]

16. It's a hoax,

the newsman who initially had the footage would have revealed it a long time ago, I do hope you're not hanging your hat on this "new revelation".

[BootinUp]

17. Octafish hangs his hat on literally anything

like whether someone was somewhere in Texas around about the time. You can stop hoping.

[zappaman]

19. !!!!!!

[Octafish]

25. So the new smear is I'm in it for the money?

That's disinformation or misinformation, depending on your rationale. No problem. CIA printed up instructions for their assets in the American news media (illegal at the time, but since made A-OK when "everything changed" after 9-11):

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.

CIA Instructions to Media Assets

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with (?)and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

SOURCE: http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/national/general/cia-instructions-to-media-assets-doc-1035-960/80/6210620

From 2003, first OP on DU I could find on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x765619

So rather than an open investigation, where the facts can be examined in public, the instructions call for an attack on the messenger. Could it be that the CIA has something to hide?

First: CIA agents monitored Oswald in the weeks before the assassination.

Second: Top CIA officials knew Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City before the assassination.

Third: Former CIA director, fired by JFK, Allen Dulles kept this information from the Warren Commission.

These are the FACTS most Americans SHOULD know, but they don't. Because the government and its toadies in the press say, "Case closed. Move on. Nothing to see here."

Sorry, zappaman. I've heard that story for 50 years and seen the nation nearly ruined by wars for profit. That un-democratic authoritarian garbage doesn't cut it for me.

[arcane1]

30. How is that a smear, when the guy himself says he wants to sell it to the highest bidder?

[zappaman]

46. This is just standard operating procedure.

He knows what it meant.
But he will someday have a little blue link and falsely claim I said he "was in it for the money."
Bank on it.
It's transparent and more than a little sad...

[arely staircase]

76. that will totally happen

you know it will

[zappaman]

78. Oh forgot to say

you can expect some condescension as well like...
"are you an expert in anything?" or "have you ever done anything heroic?"..you know, the usual silly putdowns.

[Major Nikon]

50. You do realize the CIA can't conduct domestic investigations, yes?

So your entire argument is strawman which starts with the premise that the CIA could start an investigation that it is forbidden by law from starting.

The FBI handles domestic investigations.

And if calling conspiracy theorists, "conspiracy theorists" (in 1976 no less) is your best evidence of a conspiracy one has to wonder about the rest. Pointing that out makes me part of the conspiracy as well, I suppose.

[Octafish]

56. Don't worry. The law never stopped CIA.

Operation CHAOS, f'r instance. Another is MKULTRA, which claimed the life of one DUer's father:

Know your BFEE: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ford Covered Up CIA Murder of American Scientist

BTW: I can't think of a single instance where I would tell you what to say or not to say. That's your business.

[Major Nikon]

62. So you wouldn't be satisfied unless the CIA broke the law?

[rhett o rick]

93. "You do realize the CIA can't conduct domestic investigations" And you are positive that they

dont?

It must be nice to be so confident in believing in what you are told. I think it's our "Christian" upbringing that teaches us we must have faith in our superiors. Faith, meaning dont look behind the curtain.

Of course it's not enough to just have blind faith we must disparage any and all that might dare suggest anything other than blind faith.

Life would be so smooth if we just take the blue pill and believed what our Big Brother Authoritarians leaders tell us. I am surprised to see "political liberal" people taking the view that usually is reserved for our conservative brothers.

[Major Nikon]

96. I'm positive the expectation of them doing so is more than a bit misguided

Whether they do or don't is irrelevant.

I'm not a Christian, never have been, and wasn't raised in a Christian household. I was taught from my earliest days to question everything including matters of faith, so I'm pretty sure you're barking up the wrong tree. It takes a lot more faith to have absolute belief in something you have no direct evidence of which describes conspiracy theories to a T. That knife cuts both ways. At least with Oswald you have a name, a chain of evidence, and a reasonable explanation of why and how he did it. That's three things more than what the conspiracy theorists have and it takes quite a bit of faith to fill in those blanks.

Just sayin'

[rhett o rick]

103. I have no problem with anyone that thinks Oswald acted alone. My problem is with those that want

to say that anyone that disagrees is a nut. These people are bullies. They cant provide a convincing argument so they think they can bully their way thru an argument with ridicule and mocking.

To me a politically liberal person that believes that Oswald acted alone would present their argument and then say that they respect that there may be those that disagree. It's the conservative mind-set that anyone that disagrees with me is an idiot.

I am not aiming this at you, just ranting.

[BootinUp]

104. There is mocking, nut calling, and bullying on all sides in a forum.

Deny reality if you wish.

To suggest that only the Oswald acted alone faction calls the other side nuts, is well nutz!

[rhett o rick]

106. Oh please. That's a sad rationalization. I wont deny that it's not 100% to 0%, but it

sure as hell aint 50-50. How many times is the phrase "CT'er" used as a disparaging comment?

And calls for open-mindedness arent equivalent to CT'er name calling.

Let me state this again. I dont care if people believe that Oswald acted alone and I do not call them names. I do get upset when they call me a CT'er, which is clearly intended to intimidate.

[Major Nikon]

105. I'm somewhat agnostic about the whole thing

If someone can come up with a better story that actually names someone and is supported by actual evidence rather than red herrings, then I'm open to looking at it, but some seem to go with throwing as much shit against the wall as they can to see what sticks, and it gets pretty tiresome sifting through it all. I'm convinced that there was no grand conspiracy and I'm convinced Oswald was the primary. The chances seem slim that anyone else was involved and even if there were it couldn't have been that many or someone would have talked by now.

[rhett o rick]

107. I agree that there are a lots of folks that like to throw shit against the wall.

I also agree that the evidence for Oswald acting alone is significant. But I am stubborn and resist when I find the government and the Corp-Media pushing hard for one theory. Also, it's my opinion that for Oswald to have acted without help, a lot of coincidences had to line up. I am not saying it's not possible, just saying it makes it less likely. I dont trust the CIA and cant believe that any politically liberal person would. And there are like 1,000 documents that are still being held from us. That makes me suspicious. One last thing, when people try to silence alternate view points by ridicule (calling people CT'ers) tends to make me resist.

[BootinUp]

113. Try 50,000. link

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/u_s_secrecy_system_literally_out_of_control/

http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/the_foia_blog/2012/01/assassination-archives-seeks-release-of-50000-jfk-documents.html

[snot]

82. 3(a): Dulles had been fired by JFK, yet became one of 7 members of the Warren Commission.

[Octafish]

84. Dulles on WC was the ultimate conflict-of-interest.

Gee.

The guy who knew about the CIA-Mafia assassination plots forgot to mention them.

The guy who knew about the CIA monitoring Oswald in the months before the assassination forgot to mention it.

The guy who knew about Oswald's intelligence background did all he could to bury the fact.

Kenn Thomas of Steamshovel Press found that James Srodes, in "Allen Dulles: Master of Spies" wrote:

"the correspondence in Dulles's personal papers shows that a major preoccupation of all the commission members was to satisfy the American public that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone and above all, had not had any ties to teh CIA, the FBI or any othe arm of the government."

Source

Small world.

[Octafish]

23. That's why I include my sources in my posts.

Readers not only can see for themselves where I got my information, they can learn more.

Reading your posts, BootInUp, tells me a lot about you, sadly.

[BootinUp]

27. Name one (1) popular conspiracy theory

Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

you have rejected after careful consideration. Note that I did not say credible but popular.

[Octafish]

41. Here you go, courtesy of Conspiracy Debunker John McAdams' website:

Know your BFEE: A Crime Line of Treason

Some DUers don't believe there's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or even a Bush Family Evil Empire.

Hey, I'm a Democrat and respect other's opinions and views.

But I do believe in the VRWC and BFEE, perhaps more accurately termed the Bush Transnational Criminal Enterprise. Here's why:

Bush Crime Line

• Vietnam
• Bay of Pigs
• Chile
• Watergate
• October Surprise
• El Salvador
• Reagan Survives Hinckley and Bush
• NAZI Ethnics for Reagan-Bush
• Voodoo Economics
• INSLAW/Promis
• Haiti
• Iraq-gate / Banca Nazionale del Lavoro arms to Saddam
• BCCI International Money Laundering for Terrorists & Intelligence Community arming Dr AQ Khan
• Savings & Loan scandal in general and Silverado in particular
• Iran-contra Guns/Drugs/Martial Law
• Gulf War I Glaspie Gives Go-Ahead
• Selection 2000 Shreds US Constitution
• Tax Cuts for UltraRich
• Criminal Justice Department
• Suicidal Environmental Policy
• ENRON Energy Policy
• 9-11 Criminal Negligence, at best; Treason, most likely
• Illegal Iraq Invasion
• Paperless Selection 2004

It’s interesting in reviewing the above list, just how much ultra-right, conservative Republican leadership has really been. More than a listing of criminality, the list demonstrates there have been many treasonous activites against “We the People” through “business opportunities” in the finance, energy, and defense industries.

There is one FAMILY name that runs through all the history, the four decades since the JFK administration. Since the very hour of President Kennedy’s death, and through the list of sinister events and unrelenting criminality noted above — a record of infamy stretching back 41 years today — appears the name George Herbert Walker Bush, a tradition continued by his son, George Walker Bush, beard of the BFEE.



DUers: Add, Discuss, Rip -- Whatever. I'd love to learn what y'all think, have to say and believe.

SOURCE http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/DU_Bush.htm

Original post on DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2748315

PS: Note Prof. McAdams even took the time to download and host the image. That's real class, DU.

PPS: I've written about all those "Conspiracy Theories" on DU and posted links showing where I got my information. Please show where I'm wrong. I've never failed to apologize and correct a mistake.

[BootinUp]

47. I'm so surprised. Not. lol.

[Octafish]

48. So, rather than being surprised by a known disinformationist, why not show where I'm wrong?

That was your point, wasn't it?

* John McAdams posed in a published interview as one Paul Nolan.

[BootinUp]

49. Just leave the post unedited so everyone else can be as not surprised

as I am.

[Octafish]

57. Where have I edited a post so people would get the wrong impression about you?

That's clear from what you write, BootInUp.

[zappaman]

61. Lol

Sooooo typical!
I'm not the least surprised!

[greyl]

31. Data-dumps give the impression of authority and distract people from simple, relevant points

under discussion.

[Archae]

35. A better term for it is "Gish gallop."

Duane Gish, a creationist, would dump so much on people he was debating, it would be impossible to refute much of what he said.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[greyl]

36. Yep, that right there. nt

[zappaman]

38. +100

The evasion of questions and the proliferation of the same old blue links is pretty tiresome.

[Ranchemp.]

39. But the blue links are so pretty,

meaningless, but pretty.

[eqfan592]

77. Had the same thought here!! nt

[Octafish]

42. How IS the Amazing Randi, greyl?

Great to read you on DU.

[greyl]

120. Did I mention distracting people?

Yes, I did.

I don't know what your comment is supposed to mean or how it's relevant.

[Logical]

18. Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? Seriously. Look it up. n-t

[msanthrope]

24. Okay...you made me laugh 'til I had to go pee! DUzy!! nt

[backwoodsbob]

54. really?

you believe that someone who has held the most valuable video in history for 50 years and now decides on the anniversary to sell it to the highest bidder is legit?

We shall see I guess

[Octafish]

58. I can't venture a guess as to its legitimacy until viewing it.

So, I'm supposed to be something less than what you expect for wanting to know what it contains. Gotcha.

[backwoodsbob]

65. wow

is that word salad of a response supposed to actually mean something?

[Octafish]

66. Yes, it does. It means to give an honest evaluation, one must first see the footage.

Until then, no one can say whether the footage is a hoax or not.

Is hostility your natural form of communication? If so, you must lead a sad existence.

By the way: One can improve reading comprehension through practice.

Best of luck to you!

[backwoodsbob]

67. we can all improve reading comprehension through practice

sadly...most ct'ers are blinder driven thruthists ala the 9/11 theories or the Kennedy was killed by some convoluted plot believers

[zappaman]

74. Yet you critique The Warren Commission Report and Bugliosi's book without reading them?

You are quite the investigator!
Best of luck to you!

[Octafish]

79. No need to lie about me, zappaman. I read the Warren report.

It's one of many books on the assassination in my library I've read, which also includes these:


Rush to Judgment -- Mark Lane

Accessories After the Fact -- Sylvia Meagher

On the Trail of the Assassins -- Jim Garrison

Whitewash -- Harold Weisberg

The Echo From Dealey Plaza -- Abraham Bolden

Plausible Denial -- Mark Lane

Spy Saga -- Philip Melanson

Treachery in Dallas -- Walt Brown

The Man Who Knew Too Much -- Dick Russell

JFK and Vietnam -- John M. Newman

Deep Politics and the Death of JFK -- Peter Dale Scott

Oswald and the CIA -- John M. Newman

The Last Investigation -- Gaeton Fonzi

Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case -- James DiEugenio

Deadly Secrets -- Warren Hinckle and William Turner

Act of Treason -- Mark North

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy -- Fletcher Prouty

Not in Your Lifetime -- Anthony Summers

Crossfire -- Jim Marrs

High Treason -- Harrison Edward Livingstone and Robert J. Groden

High Treason 2 -- Harrison Edward Livingstone

Killing the Truth -- Harrison Edward Livingstone

The Killing of a President -- Robert J. Groden

Coup d'Etat in America -- Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield

First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy -- Robert D. Morrow

Who Killed JFK? -- Carl Oglesby

Brothers -- David Talbot

A Farewell to Justice -- Joan Mellen

Family of Secrets -- Russ Baker

Breach of Trust -- Gerald D. McKnight

Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA -- Jefferson Morley

Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam -- Gareth Porter

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters -- James Douglass


Currently reading:


The Last Word -- Mark Lane


These three have been recommended to me over the past few weeks. I plan to read them in the coming months:


Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination -- Larry Hancock

Crime and Cover-Up -- Peter Dale Scott

JFK vs. CIA: The Central Intelligence Agency's Assassination of the President -- Michael Calder


How many books on the assassination have you read, zappaman? Be honest.

[zappaman]

80. 16, not counting the one you're afraid to read.

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385310450&sr=8-1&keywords=vincent+bugliosi+reclaiming+history

[Octafish]

81. Keep on lying.

I'm not afraid of any idea, book or man.

[zappaman]

89. Uh huh...

Keep telling yourself you're not afraid to read Bugliosi's book.
I can understand why it frightens you since it tears apart your beliefs about a conspiracy.

Or is it that your mind is closed?

One or the other I guess..

[Octafish]

94. Maybe when I'm done reading more important books.

Until then, you should follow your own advice.

[zappaman]

97. Thank you!

I have followed my own advice.
I did it when I read Bugliosi's book when I was utterly convinced there was a conspiracy.
That book went contrary to everything I believed about the assassination.

I'm not afraid and my mind is open.

I sincerely hope that one day your reach that point as well!

[The Midway Rebel]

91. Are you afraid of being a quaint artifact of American history?

Because that is where CTers are headed. Right to the trash pile of American history along with all those who thought the 1860 election was a conspiracy.


http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7140/old/orig7140-h/p1.htm

[Octafish]

92. How about the 2000 election? That wasn't a conspiracy, right?

As for me, I could give a darn what people think about me. It's what I know that counts.

[zappaman]

98. Now that the 5oth anniversary of the assassination has passed

with no new stunning revelations that the CTers were hoping and pining for...
you are 100% correct.

But I guess it gave some people something to do for 50 years!

[Octafish]

102. Wrong. Why spread what Allen Dulles wants you to say, zappaman?

Going by all your replies on them, I'm not surprised you don't want DU to see these examples of what we've learned since the CIA told us to "move on, nothing to see here."

JFK Conference: Bill Kelly introduced new evidence - adding Air Force One tape recordings

JFK Conference: Rex Bradford detailed the historic importance of the Church Committee

JFK Conference: Lisa Pease Discussed the Real Harm of Corrupt Soft Power

JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963

JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination

Lots of new information there, including a lot more stuff Allen Dulles doesn't want you to know about. What a coincidence.

[wildbilln864]

99. Bugliosi is such a joke!

[zappaman]

100. He was right about George Bush.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is a 2008 book by former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. It argues that George W. Bush took the United States into the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses and should be tried for murder for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. The book sold over 130,000 copies within its first three months of release.

I agree with him.

[wildbilln864]

101. yes he was right!

And I also agree but he sure gave up that endeavor after his book tour.

[pintobean]

20. That footage aired in February of 1992

It's inconclusive.

[Logical]

26. Wow, that is funny! But some CTs here will use it as proof. n-t

[Paladin]

21. Is this the level to which JFK conspiracies have deteriorated?

Jeez, this isn't just sad, it's pathetic.

[struggle4progress]

28. "Bowen is hoping to sell the footage to the highest bidder"

'Nuff said

[avaistheone1]

43. People sell legitimate historical artifacts for the best price all the time.

Perhaps he is not someone who values artifacts, and is just out to make a top dollar.

However the question still remains whether the film is legitimate or not.

imo

[arely staircase]

29. He says he footage was taken by a Houston news producer on November 22, 1963

That is one shitty news producer.

[struggle4progress]

114. Picky picky picky. News footage can easily pile up on the editor's desk, and it can take a few days

to work through it

So not all stories are aired the same day they're filmed, especially if something else big is happening: just as an example, when the fire department rescues a kindergartner's cat from a storm drain around the time arsonists burn down city hall, the kindergartner's cat footage may air, and the city hall story may just get bumped until tomorrow, cuz there's only so much time available between the commercials

[arely staircase]

116. well yeah there is that nt

[struggle4progress]

117. Fifty years, however, does seem an excessive backlog

[arely staircase]

119. but like you said

Shit piles up. Kittes rescues etc. And then at the bottom of your inbox: photo of a second shooter in the assasination ofbthe prez and you are like this must go to press as soon as I know who is willing to pay for it.

[bobclark86]

118. On the day...

when the president is assassinated? Yeah, because I'd totally worry about cat videos then...

[Archae]

32. Photo of the Grassy Knoll gunman!

I have proof!

[Ranchemp.]

33. This just in,

investigators have determined that it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald in the book suppository that fateful day, a new photo has emerged showing the actual shooter.

[lordsummerisle]

69. LOL n/t

[duffyduff]

40. Area Man Can Remember Exactly Where He Was, What He Was Doing When He Assassinated John F. Kennedy

LANGLEY, VA—Saying that he will never forget the events of that fateful day, local man Edgar Denton, 81, told reporters Friday that, five decades later, he could still recall exactly where he was and what he was doing the day he shot and killed former U.S. president John F. Kennedy.

“Everyone my age has a story about where they were when JFK was assassinated, and I’m no exception,” said Denton, emphasizing that his memories of the Friday morning in which he shouldered his M14 rifle, brought the presidential motorcade into his sights, and sent a bullet into the brain of the 35th president of the United States remain as vivid as ever. “I remember I was in Dallas at the time. Specifically, I was positioned behind a fence at street-level in Dealey Plaza right when I gunned down the president.”

“The image of everyone on the streets below panicking because I had just murdered the leader of the free world will stay with me for the rest of my life,” Denton continued.

link:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-can-remember-exactly-where-he-was-what-he,34647/

[SidDithers]

44. FFS Hosts, do your duty...

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.



Sid

[Politicalboi]

45. In the 70's Mort Saul showed a video

Of someone supposedly in the brushes. Maybe it could be the same one. I don't believe Oswald did it. I don't think Oswald shot anybody. The "shooter" in the depository brought food with him. Oswald worked in the building, why would he eat again? He was spotted in the break room eating his lunch. Then we were told the weapon was a German model, then an Italian model, and last night I heard for the first time, it was a British model. Apparently, the FBI doesn't know guns very well. All they know is to put Oswald's prints on it after he died.

[spanone]

52. i have a shrunken alien head that i'll let go for ten bucks...honest

Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)

i believe there could have been a conspiracy, but i doubt there is footage that has been hidden this long.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

53. Great Jeebus!

They're popping from the woodwork!

[stevenleser]

55. If the forum hosts are going to leave this, I'd like to hear why. The SOP violation seems obvious

This is ridiculous over the top conspiracy crap. The chance of it being true is lower than that of bigfoot being real.

[arely staircase]

59. there seems to have been an editorial decision

to allow JFK CT stuff to stay for the anniversary of the tragedy. not sure I agree.

[SidDithers]

108. Hosts generally ignore the "no conspiracy theories" part of the SOP...

Been that way for at least a year now.

When crazy ass threads about UFOs and aliens don't get locked, JFK conspiracy nonsense is surely going to be OK.

Sid

[struggle4progress]

60. "Bowen decided the 50th anniversary of JFK’s death was a good time to bring it to market"

By Jeff Sneider on November 22, 2013 @ 8:32 am
http://www.thewrap.com/jfk-assassination-new-footage-producer-stephen-bowen-lee-harvey-oswald

[HooptieWagon]

63. The National Enquirer might pay $100....

for an exclusive video thats remained hidden for 50 years. Still shots will fit nice on the front page next to rare pics of batboy, just below the "Aliens ate my grandmother" feature story.

This just goes to show that no matter how low you set the Conspiracy Theory bar, there's always someone willing to go lower.

[RagAss]

64. It's Andy Kaufman wrestling a woman !

[JHB]

68. Let's talk again AFTER it's been shown

Let's see if it shows what is claimed it shows. Until then it's simply hype.

It's not exactly the first time someone has made claims of "new evidence that will blow the lid off the Kennedy assassination".

[RagAss]

70. Could this be a still frame from the film ?

[Kaleva]

75. Proof that the 1 bullet theory is valid as Barney was only allowed to have 1 bullet.

[nyquil_man]

71. I'm already convinced just from the article.

Everything I believed about this assassination, about the Warren Commission, and about Lee Harvey Oswald has been shattered in an instant.

I'm going to need some time to process this.

[salo99]

72. almost certain to be BS

The Daily Mail has never had anything nice to say about the Kennedys. I doubt they would have reported this story if they didn't already know it will turn out to be a big disappointment for the sort of people they love to disappoint.

[gopiscrap]

73. wecome to DU

[snot]

83. NO ONE here can know whether this footage is authentic or even helpful one way or the other,

. . . because no one here has seen it.

All commentary purporting to dispute or affirm it evidences nothing more than the poor judgment and probable unreliability of the commenter.

PS: I find interesting the speed and virulence with which this thread has been attacked. I don't believe "God hates fags," but I don't waste my time disputing it. Why are they so invested in discrediting those who question whether Oswald acted alone?

[polichick]

85. What took him so long?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

87. That's what I thought

is it safe to come out now?

[polichick]

88. Honestly, it might not be safe to come out now.

[cthulu2016]

86. They had me at, "while no one has yet viewed the footage"

[GoneOffShore]

90. There's one born every minute.

[MADem]

95. 'You can see a guy in the bushes with a gun,' the source told The Wrap.

The WRAP, eh? Would that be the FISH WRAP?

[Aerows]

109. I have footage of the birth of Christ

Starting bid, $100,000, and I'll reveal it all!

[roamer65]

110. I welcome anything that could possibly bring closure to the case.

Let's see it if it does exist.

Even Nixon called the Warren Commission, "Bullshit."

[Purveyor]

112. You never know...nope. Waiting to see the film. eom

[RebelOne]

115. Same here. I'll believe it when I see it. n/r