18 Dead Witnesses .... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Theories and happenings too odd for the main forums.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14891163
There has been no shortage of words published and unpublished concerning the state ordered execution of JFK. I will offer up just one of many observations.

Between November 1963 and February 1967 18 witnesses to the assassination of JFK died, many under mysterious circumstances; six by gunfire, three in motor vehicle accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes. An actuary engaged by the London Times concluded that the odds against these witnesses being dead in the stated time frame were one hundred thousand trillion to one.

Other coincidences abound. The death of Dorothy Kilgallen by "heart seizure due to drugs" after she let it be known that she had information that would blow the government's version of JFK's assassination "wide open". Mrs. Earl Smith, Kilgallen's confidant was found dead TWO DAYS later of "a fatal cerebral hemorrhage".

Obviously too many coincidences for this all to be a coincidence. JFK's murder was big, very big. So big that those behind it were not in the least concerned about the obviousness of their lies and the obviousness of the extent of their cover up.
#14891166
I'm sure Lee Harvey Oswald was part of the conspiracy. If he was innocent he wouldn't have shot J. D. Tippit about 45 minutes after the assassination of Kennedy.
User avatar
By Beren
#14891201
jimjam wrote:JFK's murder was big, very big.

It's like the original sin, when you can't ask whether how someone earned his first million. All the rest is sinful, but the beginning was the worst.
User avatar
By 4cal
#14902553
The stat in the OP was blown out of the water...by the very newspaper that originally published it.

The London Times “Response” to HSCA

In a response to a letter from the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations, London Sunday Times Legal Manager Anthony Whitaker wrote: Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times editorial staff after the first edition – the one which goes to the United States – had gone out, and later editions were amended. There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong: it was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied -correctly – that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission Index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter – hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize. None of the editorial staff involved in the story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened, you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14902554
anarchist23 wrote:I'm sure Lee Harvey Oswald was part of the conspiracy. If he was innocent he wouldn't have shot J. D. Tippit about 45 minutes after the assassination of Kennedy.

You do know? That was never proven? and Oswald denied it? The cops refused to test him for gunpowder residue ...

Zam
#14902558
anarchist23 wrote:I'm sure Lee Harvey Oswald was part of the conspiracy. If he was innocent he wouldn't have shot J. D. Tippit about 45 minutes after the assassination of Kennedy.

Zamuel wrote:You do know? That was never proven? and Oswald denied it? The cops refused to test him for gunpowder residue ... Zam

Many witnessed LHO at the murder scene of J.D. Tippit...


Image
#14902673
Regardless, conspiracies based upon probability simply disregard the fact the improbable happens more often than seems probable.
The odds against me winning the lottery are so improbable as to be impossible for me, but yet someone wins on a regular basis. Probability says they should not have won.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14902720
anarchist23 wrote:Many witnessed LHO at the murder scene of J.D. Tippit...

Yeah, what would you expect to hear if he was being framed? ... Did you know that six of those witnesses said there were two men? The cops just ignored them. Did you know there were multiple witnesses who claimed Tippet and Oswald frequently ate breakfast together at a local diner? And some of those same witnesses claimed to have seen Tippet eating breakfast with Jack Ruby? More evidence that investigators just ignored. Several witnesses claimed that just prior to the shooting Tippets cruiser pulled up in front of Oswald's residence and honked, yep they were ignored.

The theories can get pretty weird, I admit that. But ignoring credible evidence is even weirder IMHO.

Zam
User avatar
By 4cal
#14902931
Zamuel wrote:Yeah, what would you expect to hear if he was being framed? ... Did you know that six of those witnesses said there were two men? The cops just ignored them. Did you know there were multiple witnesses who claimed Tippet and Oswald frequently ate breakfast together at a local diner? And some of those same witnesses claimed to have seen Tippet eating breakfast with Jack Ruby? More evidence that investigators just ignored. Several witnesses claimed that just prior to the shooting Tippets cruiser pulled up in front of Oswald's residence and honked, yep they were ignored.

The theories can get pretty weird, I admit that. But ignoring credible evidence is even weirder IMHO.

Zam


Okay...Take Tippet out of the equation.

Why is it that LHO was the only one (as memory recalls) that didn't stay in the TSBD after the shooting? Why the awkward modes of travel from the TSBD to the boarding house? Why did he pick up his handgun from the boarding house? Then why the ducking into a theater?
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14903021
4cal wrote:Okay...Take Tippet out of the equation.
Why is it that LHO was the only one (as memory recalls) that didn't stay in the TSBD after the shooting? Why the awkward modes of travel from the TSBD to the boarding house? Why did he pick up his handgun from the boarding house? Then why the ducking into a theater?


Lots of different theories about those questions. Many DO involve Tippet. I think it was typical S.N.A.F.U. My personal take on LHO is that he was a "wantabe" with a peripheral role rather than a principal one and was indeed set up as a patsy.

Morrison, the Louisiana DA. claimed the Kennedy hit was a coup-de-ta, not just an assassination.

Zam
User avatar
By 4cal
#14903024
Zamuel wrote:Lots of different theories about those questions. Many DO involve Tippet. I think it was typical S.N.A.F.U. My personal take on LHO is that he was a "wantabe" with a peripheral role rather than a principal one and was indeed set up as a patsy.

Morrison, the Louisiana DA. claimed the Kennedy hit was a coup-de-ta, not just an assassination.

Zam


ok
#14903031
Zamuel wrote:Lots of different theories about those questions. Many DO involve Tippet. I think it was typical S.N.A.F.U. My personal take on LHO is that he was a "wantabe" with a peripheral role rather than a principal one and was indeed set up as a patsy.

Morrison, the Louisiana DA. claimed the Kennedy hit was a coup-de-ta, not just an assassination.

Zam

Coup d'etat, Zam. The expression is 'coup d'etat'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27état

No need to thank me, Zam, I'm happy to help. :)
#14903041
Potemkin wrote:Coup d'etat, Zam. The expression is 'coup d'etat'. No need to thank me, Zam, I'm happy to help. :)

I alway's knew you were good for something ...
I shared your info with my spell checker, she disagrees. I can't repeat most of what she said about you (literally, some of those Cajun curses go right past me.) But it ended with "we-alls Murikins."

Zam 8)
User avatar
By 4cal
#14903815
Not that anyone cares but here is my take:

We know Kennedy was shot and killed.
We know Oswald was in the TSBD at the time of the shooting.

Everything else that happened after is up in the air.

So I rely on what happened before.

+Oswald was a marine
+He defected to the USSR
+He defected back to the US from the USSR and was able to bring his wife with him.
+He visited the Cuban and USSR embassies in Mexico City the month before Kennedy visited Dallas.

The first point was that he at least had some proficiency with a rifle. I'll let those who wish to get into the weeds about the level of proficiency do so. But he did know how to fire one and, at least, was able to use one well enough to keep his enlistment as a Marine

In 1959 he defected to the USSR. In 1961, he married and had a child. Later that year he defected back.

One source about the number of defections from Russia to the US was quoted as saying the following:


I cover some of the same material in this question in my Quora answer to Why did the Soviet Union allow Lee Harvey and Marina Oswald to leave the USSR so quickly? The short answer is that, in the 1970s, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations wrote a report called the Defector Study that compared Lee Harvey Oswald to other Americans who defected to the Soviet Union between 1958 and 1963. The Defector Study showed that Oswald's defection and return to the United States was unusual, but not totally rare. (Other defectors included a RAND Corporation employee who fell in love with his Ukrainian restaurant hostess and an Italian-American guy who didn't particularly know or care about Communism, but just thought it would be easier to get a job in the Soviet Union.) In most cases, the Soviet government would try to pump the defectors for information, but they quickly realized that practically all the defectors were useless for purposes of counterintelligence or propaganda against the United States. After realizing that most of these defectors were useless to them, the Soviet Union typically moved the defectors to some out-of-the-way factory in rural Russia, far away from Moscow, so that they couldn't do much damage. Since the Cold War was still going on, the paranoid Soviet Union still believed that many of these defectors were actually American spies.

Wikipedia opines:

Eastern Bloc emigration and defection was a point of controversy during the Cold War. After World War II, emigration restrictions were imposed by countries in the Eastern Bloc, which consisted of the Soviet Union and its satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe. Legal emigration was in most cases only possible in order to reunite families or to allow members of minority ethnic groups to return to their homelands.

Eastern Bloc governments argued that strict limits to emigration were necessary to prevent a brain drain. The United States and Western European governments argued that they represented a violation of human rights. Despite the restrictions, defections to the West occurred.


I see there are different figures about the number of persons who moved between the two at-odds super powers during the zenith of the Cold War but the numbers are all pretty low; into the 10,000 per year which isn't that large a number considering the hundreds of millions who live in each nation, the US population largely stemming from Europe at the time and one of the few factors of allowance for emigration being to reunite families. I'm happy with it being called unusual. How many get to leave Russia with their entire family after defecting there? Even less.

So that leads us to the visits to the Cuba and Russian embassies in the month before Kennedy was shot. One recurring fact from Oswald's dossier was that he was no genius when it came to espionage. Yet somehow, the misfit gave the CIA the slip when he crossed over the border, visited two embassies of our enemies, and came back across.

Here is the thing. Presidential assassinations are part of the American experience. There have been numerous attempts through out the history both before and after Kennedy. I find it difficult to believe that one of the few guys who defected to Russia, then from Russia with his family, was suddenly skilled enough to give whatever CIA handlers he had and those who were just watching the embassies the slip...just happened to be working at a medial job directly on the motorcade route.

So, I think he did, in fact, shoot the President. I don't think it is possible that he just thought it up and did it all on his own.

For one thing, his documented leaving of the TSBD. Why did he leave?
For another thing, the package he brought with him when he got a ride to work he reported was "curtain rods". Nobody found the rods.

Here is where it gets crazy (or not).

I think it's pretty much an foregone conclusion that Oswald had some assistance in this matter. Either with:
The routing of the motorcade. And/or
Emigrating from one SuperPower to another And/or
Emigrating with his family And/or
Evading the CIA in meeting with officials from Cuba and the USSR in the month before the hit on Kennedy

I think anyone would be on solid ground if they were suspicious of Soviet Involvement in the crime. If I can see it, I'm sure those on the Warren Commission can see it. Say what you want about them but make sure you include that they were probably not going to be happy with a nuclear exchange with Russia. Surely it would mean the end of the world.

I think they were faced with either reporting that it looks like the Russians were at least involved in the assassination of the President directly or through their puppet state of Cuba which would mean war...likely nuclear war started by whomever was losing.

OR

Telling Johnson that Oswald was this lone nut who just thought it up and did it; with no exit strategy, no support system in place to mount a defense, no leg to stand on with the Feds, etc...

Given the choice between the two; I think they made the right choice. Did the entire commission get together and formulate this fiction? Perhaps. Perhaps they even asked Johnson what version he preferred and LBJ was in on it. Perhaps it was just Earl Warren making the assessment. Don't know.

Democrats going back to the ‘Red Scare’ demonstrat[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6SWN3_U910 How I[…]

If you think that liberals don't understand perso[…]

How is con s ensus not better than authoritarian?[…]