The man who solved the Kennedy assassination

salon.com ^ | Nov. 22, 2003 | David Talbot

[Mitchell]

Ping.

[Deuce]

the reason people keep searching and searching and searching and digging and digging and digging to try to find out "what really happened" is that they simply can't conceive that a piece of human debris and flotsam and jetsam like Oswald could kill the most powerful man in the world just like he was plinking cans off the top of a fence.

I don't think that's true. People have an overwhelming tendency to believe what they are told to believe. However, when the "tellers" consistently act as would someone who is highly motivated to sell you snake oil, even the most gullible become suspicious. People were told, from the first hours, before any evidence had been collected and analyzed, that LHO, acting alone, did the deed. Therefore, if there is a lot of disbelief much of it can be laid at the feet of the demeanor of the establishment in putting forth its point of view.

Having said that, I have also been squarely in the camp that LHO was a bit player (the Patsy) in a wider scheme. I revisit the issue at 20th, 30th, 40th anniversary. I will admit, probably due to the internet, that this time around, I have a far greater belief that the official story may be the correct one. Until this year, I gave zero credence to the SBT based, primarily, on the Z-film (it doesn't look like Connolly is hit in the necessary time frame) and Parkland doctors (whom I naturally believe more than a highly motivated establishment seeming to try too hard to convince me while being closed and secretive about evidence). While I still feel this way, I have seen many interpretations of the Z film to question my recollection/judgments, and I give slightly more credence to the position that the Parkland doctor's may have been confused.

My primary point here, however, is that the level of disbelief, IMO, has far less to do with your explanation, above, than it has to do with the behavior of the establishment in putting forth its version in a manner akin to a whitewash.

[Old Professer]

I typed in Oswald+Tippets in Google and got this:

Fishery in Tennessee
By Mark D. Williams
Location: Southeast Tennessee.
Section: Powerhouse at Appalachia, downstream eight miles from US 411. The Hiwassee offers a total of 19 miles from the powerhouse.

Maps: USGS Oswald Bald, McFarland, Farner.
Type of Stream: Tailwater.
Best seasons to fish: Year-round.

Species to be found: The river is heavily stocked each year but has many holdovers which survive each year. Anglers can fish for stocked rainbow, brown, and some brook trout.

Average sizes: 9-14 inches. Trout are regularly caught weighing several pounds, and trophy trout run 6-12 pounds.

Regulations: General Tennessee regulations apply except for the 3-mile trophy trout section from 2.5 miles below the powerhouse near the Big Bend Recreation Area downstream to the town of Reliance. Trophy trout regulations require artificial lures and flies, and a daily 2-fish creel limit of 14-inch minimum length.

Well-known areas and places to fish along the river: The trophy trout, no-kill zone holds big browns in the winter when large numbers of shad come through the generators. In the summer during low flow and higher temperatures, fishing can be productive in the deeper pools of the lower region. Anglers will find hard-fighting rainbows in the riffles and rapids, and heavy browns in the pools and shoals.

Recommended Equipment

Light, long tippets are often needed when the river is low and flat. In those cases, light tackle like a 3- or 4-weight rod is preferable. When the river runs high and fast, tippets can be strengthened and shortened, and rod weights can go to a 5 or 6 weight. An 8-1/2 to 9-foot rod is best for flyfishing.

[odell]

It seems accoustics is more art than science.

If it were an art then it wouldn't mean anything in regards to the assassination. You can't base a conclusion on someone's art.

It isn't though. Scientists just don't always agree. In this case we are left with a handful of people defending a theory that they had a part in promoting, against everyone else. There is no valid acoustic evidence of gunshots in Dealey Plaza.

[odell]

What CourtTV show were you watching? This program does lead toward some conclusions -- the producer does lean toward an opinion about whether Oswald worked alone and whether there was a shot fired from the Grassy Knoll (no and yes respectively) -- but in the end, we're left with conflicting facts and allowed to make up our own minds.

I clicked on that link and the article it points to totally screwed up what the Court TV program said.

The program concluded, all the forensic evidence points to Oswald and Oswald alone, and there is no evidence of gunshots on the recording.

[Destro]

Nope on your points 2 and 3.

[Destro]

I did not say they were markings of that nature since I do not know. What I did say was that if a witness saw a swastika device on Japanese planes during the Pearl attack it would be not be outside of the realm of possibilities because the swastika is a religous and good luck symbol in Japan and has been for hundreds of years. Only someone who did not know this fact would assume that it was a Nazi symbol and try to make something out of it.

[thatdewd]

Castro did not kill JFK.

Sure he did. LBJ accidentally mentioned it to Howard K. Smith.

[Destro]

Very well said-my take on this govt whitewash? Posner who did a good job debunking most (but not all) of the conspiracy myths regarding this tragedy did say there was a conspiracy! But he stated the conspiracy was after the fact to hide govt agency mistakes by the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, Dallas Police, etc.

I can take that a bit further - and it is not a great leap to do so - Oswald looks like he had some spook links - maybe he was an FBI informant or a CIA informant for both pro Castro and anti Castro groups. These agencies use such snitches all the time. It could be that he was not even an important snitch but one of many that these agencies employed. It seems Oswald lived in a fantasy world of his making where he saw himself playing a bigger role in such things. Maybe he overheard some of his important anti-Castro pals (like Ferrie and Banister) talking about how they would like to kill JFK over some beers and how they would gladly pay someone to do it. You know bullsh*t talk among queer (pun intended) folks who also had links to govt agencies like the FBI and CIA. Again none of these guys ever intended to kill JFK - it was only macho (pun intended again) talk.

Unstable Oswald, then saw an opportunity to carry out this wish and make a big name for himself and make himself a hero to these important men.

The problem is for the govt men is that if it got out they had links to Oswald (even if he was just an informant for them) it would look bad for them. So they began to cover up the fact that this lone gunman had any dealings with said authorities.

This sort of blowback exists in our time. Many of these al-Qaeda types were once intimates of our CIA but you would not go far trying to find a record in the CIA about who recruited him or how much money or training was sent his way. This obstruction leads to doubts and these doubts lead to questions then it all snowballs out of control.

That is my complicated possible explanation of it all.

[Destro]

Scientists just don't always agree.

Science is about proof. If a proof cannot be repeated with the same results by credible men (and all the acoustic people for each side are credible) it means the science (in its forensic applications at least) is not dependable.

[Destro]

I did not watch the show so I can't comment- My question was did all of you watch the same show - it seems even watching a show leads to different conclusions.

[Destro]

No what he said was that maybe some of JFKs anti-Castro stuff backfired on Kennedy. You got it backwards.

[texasbluebell]

.

[thatdewd]

No what he said was that maybe some of JFKs anti-Castro stuff backfired on Kennedy. You got it backwards.

??? What he said was: "Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got him first." I think that's pretty clear.

[Destro]

I have never read that--find source please--I have read that LBJ killed JFK so if he said that he was trying to deflect blame from himself.

[odell]

Science is about proof. If a proof cannot be repeated with the same results by credible men (and all the acoustic people for each side are credible) it means the science (in its forensic applications at least) is not dependable.

Science is practiced by people. People don't always like what the science tells them and will tend to resist it.

I know these people. DB Thomas, the National Academy scientists, Berkovitz from Court TV, etc. I've consulted with them all and vice versa. Out of that entire group of actual scientists only one, DB Thomas, maintains there are shots, and he has modified his arguments in response to new findings in such a way that they are now very weak. Even those that he still depends on have been undermined, and it certainly would not surprise me if one day he admits being wrong, but it is a naturally tendency to avoid that for as long as possible.

[Havoc]

Did you know that 50 some witnesses - pretty much ALL of the witnesses in DP stated that they either saw or heard gunshots coming from the Grassy Nole from the picket fence area OR BOTH. This isn't an issue of 'somebody in the crowd said maybe.' It is consistent testimony. Just as it is consistent testimony that secret service and Cia men were all over the grounds that day flashing credentials while there were none present in any official capacity till the motorcade arrived. Just as the Majority testimony from both Parkland hospital, the autopsy and finally Jackie kennedy - that there was a right temple entrance wound and a rear skull exit wound. This is the only investigation I've seen that so boldly and blatently throws out and covers up the testimony and evidence in favor of a cover story. Why do you suppose that is.

[Al Simmons]

Interestingly, no one can confirm that Oswald DID use the scope - because it was found separated from the rifle across the "sniper's nest"; it was also "misaligned", but I leave it to firearms experts to explain that one more fully.

In fact, I have read some expert saying that it would have been EASIER to get off the 3 shots in the time Oswald did if the scope was NOT used - quicker to re-acquire the target down an eye-sight than with a telescopic scope. So Oswald might not have used the scope after all. We will never know.

[odell]

Did you know that 50 some witnesses - pretty much ALL of the witnesses in DP stated that they either saw or heard gunshots coming from the Grassy Nole from the picket fence area OR BOTH.

That simply isn't true. A majority of the witnesses that stated an opinion said there were 3 shots, that they came from the same source, and that they came from the book depository.

[Pearman]

The problem is those map markings are not swastikas. Don't believe me? Go to your dictionary and look up "Swastika" and the accompanying picture.