Lee Harvey Oswald was trained by the CIA, declassified memo reveals

[kyser_soze]

No kyser - read the last paragraph on the page. It says the CIA used him for Soviet assignments, in Minsk. A CIA agent. And the fact that Oswald had spent time in Russia was always touted as evidence that he was a pinko commie for whom offing presidents would be a career goal. Right!

Oh, and the last time I produced a document, and editor proclaimed it must be a forgery because it wasn't appearing in the mainstream media, was the Schoedinger vs. Bush rape lawsuit. It was genuine. Schoedinger went on to commit suicide, apparently (gunshot to the head).

Yeah, unfortunately LHO was still serving in the USMC in Japan in 1957, and it wasn't until 1959 that he made his first trip to Russia, and I find it highly unliely that while he was stationed in Japan the CIA were going to be able to second him for agency work.

Incidentally, I find Ellroys 'American Tabloid' to be just as credible and believable a version of events then any other source I've read.

However, I think the arguments over the point that he actually did it have been pretty much covered off by the recent C4 docco on it, so the remaining question is who was behind him. And do you know what? Even if it was the CIA, FBI, Mafia, Cubans or a combination of them all it doesn'tr matter anymore.

 

[Idris2002]

And do you know what? Even if it was the CIA, FBI, Mafia, Cubans or a combination of them all it doesn'tr matter anymore.

While the murder of Patrice Lumumba, unfortunately, still does.

 

[Jessiedog]

And do you know what? Even if it was the CIA, FBI, Mafia, Cubans or a combination of them all it doesn'tr matter anymore.

Well not to him, obviously!

But wouldn't it be nice to know?



Woof

 

[Idris2002]

I remember Chomsky was once asked what he thought of conspiracy theories, and his reply was that the best conspiracy from the POV of the ruling class would be to spread CTs as far as possible.

This would neutralise potential dissidents by distracting them with essentially irrelevant and pointless questions like 'who killed Kennedy'.

 

[Jazzz]

However, I think the arguments over the point that he actually did it have been pretty much covered off by the recent C4 docco on it, so the remaining question is who was behind him. And do you know what? Even if it was the CIA, FBI, Mafia, Cubans or a combination of them all it doesn'tr matter anymore.

I think it was a BBC2 documentary you were referring to. I'm really no expert at all on the JFK assassination, I know very little about it, but I knew enough to realise that this documentary was a huge straw man, cherry-picking only the conspiracy arguments that they could make a refutation of. It didn't even show the Zapruder film! How you can have a JFK assassination documentary without even a mention of the Z-word is quite beyond me. All they showed was their computer simulation, and in it they chose not to replicate JFK's head snapping backwards sharply, as his head gets blown off from behind. I wonder why that was?

 

[editor]

The thread has long since been deleted, editor.

But I have a firm memory of it, and you vigorously questioned that the document I had put up an image

I may have 'vigorously questioned' the authenticity of the document (something you might try occasionally) but I categorically know that I did not 'proclaim that it must be a forgery'.

So I'll look forward to your apology because I don't like having words put in my mouth.

 

[editor]

I think it was a BBC2 documentary you were referring to. I'm really no expert at all on the JFK assassination, I know very little about it, but I knew enough to realise that this documentary was a huge straw man, cherry-picking only the conspiracy arguments that they could make a refutation of. It didn't even show the Zapruder film!

Err, the simulation was almost entirely based on the Zapruder film, running it frame by frame and then comparing it to audio tapes and other evidence!

I do wish you'd bother to research the most basic of facts before posting up such clueless conspiracy-tastic drivel.

Here's what basic research looks like DrJ:

In the past decade he has generated a computer simulation of every frame in the Zapruder film. He began by constructing a three-dimensional scale model of Dealey Plaza, the turn from Houston Street to Elm Street, the Texas School Book Depository, the grassy knoll, where some claim a second gunman must have stood. They are all there in his animation exactly as they were in 1963.

Modern forensic investigators would undoubtedly use the same technique in a modern-day assassination. In tomorrow night’s BBC2 film, The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy, Myers explains in detail what the computer animation tells him.

"Around frame 160 is approximately the time of the first shot. Apparently a shot that missed. Governor Connally ... heard a shot … he immediately identified it as a high-powered rifle shot. And so he turned to his right, because the sound seemed to come from over his right shoulder."

Then fast forward to frames 223, 224 and those that follow. That is the moment the next bullet strikes. The president comes out from behind a sign and "we see a kind of anguished look on his face and his hands immediately go up toward his throat … but you will note both men as reacting simultaneously".
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=408&id=1287542003.

Why are you so unwilling to undertake such simple searching, DrJ before posting up such errant nonsense?

Your enthusiasm to completely swallow unchecked conspiracy bullshit off the web really makes you look very, very silly.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think it was a BBC2 documentary you were referring to. I'm really no expert at all on the JFK assassination, I know very little about it, but I knew enough to realise that this documentary was a huge straw man, cherry-picking only the conspiracy arguments that they could make a refutation of. It didn't even show the Zapruder film! How you can have a JFK assassination documentary without even a mention of the Z-word is quite beyond me. All they showed was their computer simulation, and in it they chose not to replicate JFK's head snapping backwards sharply, as his head gets blown off from behind. I wonder why that was?

As Ed has pointed out, the simulation was based on the Zapruder film, eyewitness accounts, ear witness accounts, and run through a real physics engine to determine just about any aspect of view point, what sounds could have been heard by specific witnesses etc.

Don't call something a straw man because it actually provides hard evidence that fucks up a major part of the CTs - the 'magic bullet', which was explained easily by the fact the car seating was offset, meaning that the bullet didn't have to curve round at all. This coupled with the evidence (shown) that it is more than possible for a skilled marksman to change rounds quicker than Oswald (and the guy that did it was in his 50s when he demonstrated how quickly you could change the round), the evidence the of the police officer hearing the shot and his relative position to the motorcade at the time...it pretty much crapped on all the main CTs surrounding the actual shooting bit, just didn't look at who, if anyone, was backing LHO.

 

[editor]

As Ed has pointed out, the simulation was based on the Zapruder film, eyewitness accounts, ear witness accounts, and run through a real physics engine to determine just about any aspect of view point, what sounds could have been heard by specific witnesses etc.

Yet DrJ still boasts, "I know very little about it, but I knew enough to realise that this documentary was a huge straw man"

That sentence sums up the sheer futility of entertaining any more of DrJ's conspiracy-tastic bollocks.

DrJ: once again you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Once again you have failed to undertake even the most preliminary amounts of research before making woefully clueless claims.

As I asked only a few posts ago, when are you going to learn?

 

[pk]

Oh dear.

I was willing to give Dr Jazzz the benefit of the doubt this time too.

Never mind.

Business as usual from the Icke-tastic conspiranoid camp then.



Another case of "Jazzz-Journalism"?

 

[editor]

I do hope DrJ will be along shortly to explain - in full - why he "knew enough to realise that this documentary was a huge straw man" and why he would claim that the BBC2 documentary "didn't even show the Zapruder film" when, in fact, it offered a highly scientific, frame-by-frame, in-depth analysis of that very film!

After a long string of woefully unresearched fuck ups on these boards and a tediously predictable succession of bonkers claims, his reputation - what's left of it - depends on it.

So - what's your explanation, DrJ?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

DrJazzz -

I'd just like to say 'cheers' for posting up that document, as I had not come across it before.

Personally, I prefer that you post whatever you find - whatever it's source - as I for one prefer to view as much information regarding a subject as I can.

This way, I can make up my own mind, rather than just swallowing wholesale the propaganda and lies that are constantly spoonfed by the 'mainstream' media.

 

[Jazzz]

I may have 'vigorously questioned' the authenticity of the document (something you might try occasionally) but I categorically know that I did not 'proclaim that it must be a forgery'.

So I'll look forward to your apology because I don't like having words put in my mouth.

There's really not that much difference between the two. You were extremely reluctant to admit the possibility that it was genuine (and it it isn't, then it had to be a forgery). And you put this extremely forcefully. I don't think I've been unfair in describing your position.

As for the BBC2 documentary - well I just know what I saw, not what has been googled later. I didn't hear the word 'Zapruder' mentioned once - maybe I was wrong there, but I CERTAINLY didn't see the Zapruder film being shown. In that simulation, I distinctly remember NOT seeing Kennedy's head snap backwards in the computer simulation, which it does in the Zapruder film. Anyone who has seen that cannot fail to notice it. You can see it looping on

www.jfkmurdersolved.com

How on earth can you have a JFK documentary without showing this famous film?

Up to that point, I don't care whether the simulation was based on the film, or not. At the crucial moment, truth got thrown out of the window; because it clearly looks like he's taking a killer shot from the front.

 

[editor]

Personally, I prefer that you post whatever you find - whatever it's source - as I for one prefer to view as much information regarding a subject as I can

So do you 'swallow wholesale' the information presented in these dodgy websites without bothering to check or even question the credibility or authenticity of the sources either?

My, oh my. The Internet was created for people like you. Here's a site that sounds right up your street: www.justiceforkurt.com/

 

[Jazzz]

Well here you go. The BBC2 documentary couldn't even show it (just as the recent CH4 9-11 documentary didn't even show the classic South Tower impact footage). But we can do better on Urban75. It's still chilling.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/zaplow.gif

<editor: enormous animation removed>

 

[editor]

As for the BBC2 documentary - well I just know what I saw, not what has been googled later. I didn't hear the word 'Zapruder' mentioned once - maybe I was wrong there, but I CERTAINLY didn't see the Zapruder film being shown.

You're talking out of your fucking arse and your refusal to admit to your king size blunder speaks volumes about your highly obsessive agenda.

The BBC documentary was all about the Zapruder film.

If you "didn't hear the word 'Zapruder' mentioned" than you must have had your head stuck right up your arse at the time.

There's no 'maybe' about how wrong you were. You're totally, 100% wrong and you've just made a total twat of yourself with yet another totally stupid, unresearched claim.

 

[editor]

Well here you go. The BBC2 documentary couldn't even show it

It did actually, you clueless dreamer.

But then again, I actually saw the documentary and know what was shown.
http://tinyurl.com/627tx

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

'People like me'???

If by that you mean people who like to view and absorb as much information as possible regarding a subject, rather than just believing what they are instructed to believe by lying media scum such as your beloved BBC, I guess you are right.

You don't half come across as an arrogant prick sometimes.

 

[Jazzz]

You're talking out of your fucking arse and your refusal to admit to your king size blunder speaks volumes about your highly obsessive agenda.

The BBC documentary was all about the Zapruder film.

If you "didn't hear the word 'Zapruder' mentioned" than you must have had your head stuck right up your arse at the time.

There's no 'maybe' about how wrong you were. You're totally, 100% wrong and you've just made a total twat of yourself with yet another totally stupid, unresearched claim.

I don't think so. The documentary certainly didn't show the film of the event, which I have just put on the thread. Nuts!

I didn't hear the word being mentioned either, but if they did, that's neither here nor there anyway, because they failed to show the film.

I rather think you are making a twat of yourself by constantly proclaiming I am making a twat of myself, when I'm not.

 

[editor]

You don't half come across as an arrogant prick sometimes.

Did you actually watch the BBC2 documentary, you gullible moron?

 

[editor]

I don't think so. The documentary certainly didn't show the film of the event, which I have just put on the thread.

Did you actually watch the BBC2 documentary YES/NO?

You are talking shit. It showed Kennedy being shot, frame by frame. I know that because I saw it, with my own eyes.

 

[Jazzz]

It did actually, you clueless dreamer.

But then again, I actually saw the documentary and know what was shown.
http://tinyurl.com/627tx

There's nothing in that link to say that they showed the Zapruder film. At what point in the documentary did they show it?

 

[editor]

There's nothing in that link to say that they showed the Zapruder film. At what point in the documentary did they show it?

Did you actually watch the documentary or not, DrJ?

You see, I did, and I know what I saw. And now I want to know what you're basing this statement on: "I knew enough to realise that this documentary was a huge straw man"

 

[Jazzz]

Did you actually watch the documentary or not, DrJ?

You see, I did, and I know what I saw. And now I want to know what you're basing this statement on: "I knew enough to realise that this documentary was a huge straw man"

yes I did watch the documentary, although I missed a little. That's why I'm asking at what point they showed the Zapruder film, the classic film of the event that you really can hardly have a documentary of the JFK assassination without showing many, many times. I note you describe this classic footage simply as 'enormous animation' on the last page of thread, as if you might never have seen it before.

 

[editor]

There's nothing in that link to say that they showed the Zapruder film. At what point in the documentary did they show it?

They showed it frame by frame and then compared it with the computer model. Did you not see the documentary?

 

[pk]

The BBC2 documentary couldn't even show it (SOUTH TOWER IMPACT)

Do you honestly think they were going to show every single angle of impact?

Don't kid yourself that the programme makers didn't had access to every single camera position shot that day.

Let me explain something to you Dr Jazzz, that will hopefully make you think a little.

News companies, in terms of video footage, have what are called "feed material" stations, and they "poolfeed" every single packaged story and significant live event throughout the world, to whoever will pay them.

In real terms - that means on September 11th, there will be no way of knowing just how many thousands of people have a copy of your supposedly censored camera angle.

There is NO WAY a company could broadcast pictures one day and then recall them from the global media networks after they had been fed.

The pics came from NYC.

The BBC recieving them would have been just one station out of hundreds recieving them live.

Please Dr Jazzz, understand this. Once you tape onto a video tape - it's there whatever. The eyes and tape heads of the world were on everything that came from NYC on 9/11.

In terms of news footage - nothing is "censored" or "unavailable" if you try hard enough.

It is whether it is credible or faked by sick people eager to start a feeble conspiracy that is the difference.

 

[editor]

yes I did watch the documentary, although I missed a little.

You're either lying or a fucking idiot. The central core of the documentary was Zapruder's film. It showed frame by frame footage of the film. How you could 'miss' them showing any of his footage is nothing short of incredible.

But Dale Myers, a computer animator, has been studying the assassination for more than 25 years. In the past decade he has generated a computer simulation of every frame in the Zapruder film....

"Around frame 160 is approximately the time of the first shot. Apparently a shot that missed. Governor Connally ... heard a shot … he immediately identified it as a high-powered rifle shot. And so he turned to his right, because the sound seemed to come from over his right shoulder."

Then fast forward to frames 223, 224 and those that follow. That is the moment the next bullet strikes. The president comes out from behind a sign and "we see a kind of anguished look on his face and his hands immediately go up toward his throat … but you will note both men as reacting simultaneously".

If you'd bothered to watch the documentary , you would have seen that it kept switching back between Zapruder's footage and the computer simulation.

But I don't believe you actually saw the documentary at all because Zapruder's footage was used throughout.

 

[pk]

What does Lee Harvey Oswald have to do with 9/11 anyway?

Wait hang on... rearrange the letters of his name and you get...

LARVAE SEEDY HOWL !

IT'S A REPTILE! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!

 

[Jazzz]

Whatever pk, the CH4 documentary didn't show the footage of the South Tower impact from the classic angle, behind the plane as it goes in (CNN is one of them, there are others).

They just showed it from the other side, way back, so you couldn't see the plane. You will have to ask them why they didn't. I don't think you will see the classic footage appearing again on national television.

 

[editor]

Whatever pk, the CH4 documentary didn't show the footage of the South Tower impact from the classic angle, behind the plane as it goes in (CNN is one of them, there are others)..

Err, what's this got to do with your woefully ill-informed claims about the BBC2 docu?