|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: FBI admits lie linking Oswald to JFK assassination |
|
|
FBI Now Admits Evidence Used to Connect Oswald to Kennedy Assassination Was Bogus
Posted December 28th, 2007 by boston911truth.org
Jonathan Elinoff
www.TruthAlliance.net
Thursday December 20, 2007
The front page of the Sunday Washington Post features, "FBI Forensic Test Full of Holes." It claims that hundreds of defendants sitting in prisons nationwide have been convicted with the help of an FBI forensic tool that has been found to be completely full of inconsistent results and has actually been discarded by the FBI for such reasons more than two years ago. But the FBI lab has failed to take or attempt to alert any of the affected defendants or courts, even though the window for appealing convictions is closing.
As early as 1991, the FBI conducted studies on the reliability of the "bullet-lead" analysis used to connect bullets found at the scene of a crime to bullets in the possession of a suspect. The studies found that lead composition of bullets in the same box didn't always match, which should have been a sign that the test was completely unreliable. Further analysis discovered that bullets packaged 15 months apart in different areas of the country in different boxes, unexpectedly matched - a gap the forensic testing originally claimed had different bullet lead make-up.
The Innocence Project is a group of individuals who have committed their time and finances to investigate claims of innocence in convicted cases where DNA testing was never available. To date, over 200 individuals have been set free due to the DNA analysis of many rape cases confirming that the child born from a rape victim's DNA didn't match the accused and convicted individual. Hopefully, they will pick this flawed forensic test up and begin to look at the tens of thousands of people estimated to have been placed in prison solely on this bogus "bullet-lead analysis."
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The test, now confirmed by the FBI's own admittance, has actually been used to connect people to crimes they never committed. The test was first initiated and used on July 8, 1964 by order of J Edgar Hoover for the Warren Commission to connect Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy. Throughout the following decades, this same test has been used to convict civil rights activists and gang members, many of which have maintained their "innocence."
The forensic test was the only major connection Oswald had to the actual scene of the crime. For Kennedy assassination researchers, this is a big leap. For years, the only evidence outside this forensic connection has been completely circumstantial. Oswald never confessed to the murder and actually stated to the public that he believed he was being made a patsy. Oswald was only picked up because an APB had been ordered in Dallas in his description, even though no one saw the shooter.
Oswald maintained that he had gone down to the parade to see the President's motorcade pass, as did everyone, when he was working that day. A famous picture surfaced that many researchers believe identifies Oswald in the doorway of the School Book Depository as the motorcade passed and was not in the sixth-floor window as he was accused to have been.
The interrogation which took place for several hours was not recorded, a violation of standard operating procedure. Oswald was murdered the next morning on live television while being transported in the parking garage at the local jail. Jack Ruby, the man who shot Oswald, was a major mafia/CIA connected nightclub owner and hated Kennedy with a passion. Kennedy's younger brother, Bobby Kennedy, was mounting a large scale war against organized crime, even though the Kennedy's had used the mafia in voter fraud crimes to get elected. The Kennedy empire was built from bootlegging alcohol in an organized crime syndicate that Joe Kennedy, John and Bobby's father, ran with connections to Al Capone. Of the many odd factors in the assassination of the former president, it turns out Jack Ruby ran bootlegging in Chicago for crime boss Al Capone in his early years as well. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
'lie' and 'bogus' are fairly strong words. I didn't see anything in that article that said the FBI deliberately skewed the results of the test.
Rather than convince me that Oswald was innocent, the use of deliberately distorted reports such as this with words like 'lie' and 'bogus' just convince me more than ever that the people still obsessed with this issue are mentally unstable. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006 Location: United States
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Rather than convince me that Oswald was innocent, the use of deliberately distorted reports such as this with words like 'lie' and 'bogus' just convince me more than ever that the people still obsessed with this issue are mentally unstable. |
Unbelievable comment, Yata �Boy! Do you know how many people you are talking about and the reason we do care? Countless scholars and other really smart people are presently active in this case.
Your comments are unwarranted. Why don't you address the issue at hand or just ignore these posts?
The fact that the government got away with this murder gave them a blank check to do whatever they wanted to in the decades following this murder. We are all so sorry to burst your bubble about the credibility of your hallowed United States. But they did kill the Kennedys, Dr. King and countless others stateside and around the world.
This is the entity you defend while calling anyone who questions otherwise ill?
Shame on you. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Why don't you address the issue at hand or just ignore these posts?
|
Because, like MoS, I think conspiracy theories result from personal mental problems and are destructive of the social fabric. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006 Location: United States
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: E Martin Schotzm MD, is Crazy says MOS, Gopher and Yata-Boy |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
Why don't you address the issue at hand or just ignore these posts?
|
Because, like MoS, I think conspiracy theories result from personal mental problems and are destructive of the social fabric. |
Then, E. Martin Schotz, M.D., a psychologist who practices in JFK's hometown of Boston, author of History Will Not Absolve Us has personal mental problems too.
And because the murder was so cleverly hidden from the American people, there were no problems with our social fabric at that time. Now that the cat is out of the bag, the government is going to have to pay the piper. That is the way things work. They shouldn't have done what they did.
History Will Not Absolve Us is an anthology. Its centerpiece is a 1995 letter from Schotz to attorney Vincent Salandria, who was one of the first to write critically of the Warren Report, and is a member of the aforementioned round-robin correspondence. The letter occupies about twenty-five pages of the book. The remaining 250-odd pages, presented as appendices, give the reader the background necessary to understand the letter's assertions. Authors whose work appear here range from Schotz to Salandria to Raymond Marcus, to Fidel Castro and Nikita Khrushchev.
One of the central theses of History Will Not Absolve Us is that the conspiracy to assassinate JFK was acceptable to the American Establishment because it did not upset our constitutional process. There really was no coup d' etat, Schotz believes; the dead president was replaced according to constitutional law, and it was business as usual. It seems to me this is a matter of semantics. Changing the head of state using the bullet over the ballot, as the expression goes, is certainly acting outside of constitutional law. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shame on you, regicide, for posting a link from another 911 conspiracy fruitcake! This guy is just another weirdo like Steven E. Jones. One of the strangest parts of History Will Not Absolve Us comes toward the end. There are two excerpts, or "dialogues," from a play written by Schotz in 1984, which he says he wrote to investigate the logic of war and the logic of peace. In one of the dialogues, JFK and Allen Dulles have a conversation in heaven (although if you accept the idea of an afterlife, it's hard to believe JFK and Dulles would end up in the same place). Kennedy is sitting in a rocking chair when Dulles comes sauntering along.
Quote: |
Dulles: (friendly) Well, hello, Jack.
Kennedy: (jumps to feet) You! You dare speak to me?
Dulles: Why Jack, what's the matter?
Kennedy: Forget the pretense, do you think I don't know it was you who was behind my assassinaton?
Dulles: Oh, it's that, is it? Taking it personally, are you?
Kennedy: You're incredible. Do you expect me to greet my assassin with open arms?
Dulles: Now hold on, Jack. It is one thing to say that I was behind your assassination. It's another thing to call me your assassin.
Kennedy: And what would you call you?
Dulles: That's not the point, Jack. It's true I was behind your assassination, but who do you think was behind me?
Kennedy: Who?
Dulles: Why the people, Jack, the American people.
Kennedy: The people??
Dulles: Yes, and if the whole truth be told, who do you think was behind them?
Kennedy: Tell me.
Dulles: You, Jack, none other than you... |
The dialogue continues. Dulles does most of the talking. He tells JFK that he, JFK, had assaulted democracy by first running on an anti-communist platform, then turning away from it after his election. And the people, Dulles says --- meaning the CIA, apparently --- had the right to correct that mistake. Dulles says that if JFK had suffered a fatal stroke instead of being assassinated, the transition of power would have worked just the same: "We didn't take over the government, we just shot you." At the end of this dialogue, Kennedy not only accepts what Dulles says, he asks his forgiveness!
Do you really expect anybody to take this seriously? Putting words in Kennedy's and Dulles's mouths by making up a play? Then again, you don't shy from quoting Crime Magazine as one of your sources, so I guess we all shouldn't be surprised.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006 Location: United States
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Shame on you, regicide, for posting a link from another 911 conspiracy fruitcake! |
Why don't your write Dr. ( MD) E. Martin Schotz and let him know what you think? Oh, thats right, you also have an MD in your pocket!
You have ascended to new lows, MOS.
Manner of Speaking wrote: |
The effing testicular lesion himself, who purports to be concerned about the assassination of Kennedy, yet doesn't hesitate to post pictures from Kennedy's autopsy that were illegally stolen from his postmortem records. |
This little-known book contains the distilled thought of a group of prominent and well-respected lawyers and psychiatrists, who were convinced as early as 1963 that Kennedy was shot by the CIA (at the behest of the military-industrial complex) for his increasingly "soft" stance toward Cuba and the USSR. The book contains facts that are both obvious and sinister, and lends credence to Schotz's assertion that almost everyone in America today "believes" in some conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but doesn't really want to know. The book's only weakness is its occasionally overly-complex language; this is not unexpected, given the profession of its authors.
MOS is getting angry again, and fails to acknowledge the pictures that show that Kennedy was shot in the back and not the back of the neck, thus invalidating the SBT.
Documents show that Warren Commission member Congressman Gerald Ford pressed the panel to change its description of the wound and place it higher in Kennedy�s body. Ford wanted the wording changed to: �A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.� The panel�s final version was: �A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.�
The arrow in the photograph below shows where the bullet had to pass through Kennedy in order to conform to the preposterous Single Bullet Theory, when the bullet actually entered Kennedy's back.

Last edited by regicide on Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
'lie' and 'bogus' are fairly strong words.
I didn't see anything in that article that said the FBI deliberately skewed the results of the test.
Rather than convince me that Oswald was innocent, the use of deliberately distorted reports such as this with words like 'lie' and 'bogus' just convince me more than ever that the people still obsessed with this issue are mentally unstable. |
Give it up Ya-ta.
Your "shilling for the man" cover was blown long ago.
Freemason fruitcake. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006 Location: United States
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
igotthisguitar wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
'lie' and 'bogus' are fairly strong words.
I didn't see anything in that article that said the FBI deliberately skewed the results of the test.
Rather than convince me that Oswald was innocent, the use of deliberately distorted reports such as this with words like 'lie' and 'bogus' just convince me more than ever that the people still obsessed with this issue are mentally unstable. |
Give it up Ya-ta.
Your "shilling for the man" cover was blown long ago.
Freemason fruitcake. |
The chickens are coming home to roost and we have got these guys in a corner. They have nothing to say, yet continue to hurl insults.
All have government ties as they were either military or in the public school system or both.
I don�t know how they recruit these guys or if they just do it out of patriotic duty, but they are obvious to spot.
But taking a losing position this long has to tell you something about their sanity.
And they question ours! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
regicide wrote: |
The chickens are coming home to roost and we have got these guys in a corner.
They have nothing to say, yet continue to hurl insults. |
"And by their fruits ye shall know them ..."
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish
Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant
http://www.ominous-valve.com/blog/25ways.html |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
'lie' and 'bogus' are fairly strong words. I didn't see anything in that article that said the FBI deliberately skewed the results of the test.
Rather than convince me that Oswald was innocent, the use of deliberately distorted reports such as this with words like 'lie' and 'bogus' just convince me more than ever that the people still obsessed with this issue are mentally unstable. |
OK, from the original Washington Post article:
"In July 1964, then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote to the commission investigating the assassination that the bureau's findings were 'not considered sufficient' to make any matches."
So the only evidence conclusively linking Oswald was insufficient, yet it was done anyway. If not "lie," what word would you prefer? Or is the Washington Post now also deliberately distorting reports? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006 Location: United States
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
bacasper wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
'lie' and 'bogus' are fairly strong words. I didn't see anything in that article that said the FBI deliberately skewed the results of the test.
Rather than convince me that Oswald was innocent, the use of deliberately distorted reports such as this with words like 'lie' and 'bogus' just convince me more than ever that the people still obsessed with this issue are mentally unstable. |
OK, from the original Washington Post article:
"In July 1964, then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote to the commission investigating the assassination that the bureau's findings were 'not considered sufficient' to make any matches."
So the only evidence conclusively linking Oswald was insufficient, yet it was done anyway. If not "lie," what word would you prefer? Or is the Washington Post now also deliberately distorting reports? |
Yata-Boy You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics.
Your backwards logic does not work here. Has the media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony 'confession' by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby?
No, they only told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story of the century, but they didn't print it, did they?
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics ? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
regi,
You made two assertions:
a. The CIA killed JFK
b. The Israelis control the US.
You ignored my question of a month or so back:
Did the Israelis order the death of JFK? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006 Location: United States
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
regi,
You made two assertions:
a. The CIA killed JFK
b. The Israelis control the US.
You ignored my question of a month or so back:
Did the Israelis order the death of JFK? |
. Yata-Boy you are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics by trying to put words in my mouth.
The CIA was exposed in a courtroom testimony 'confession' by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby.
The paper regarding the Israeli lobby is another matter.
The answer to your question is however, that unless the Israelis were able to order the Secret Service to stand down in Dallas that day, I think not.
Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman in the front seat of the Presidential Limousine, where he will stay, while the shots rang out.
The "Queen Mary" with a load eight Secret Service Agents, none of whom moved forward when the shots rang out. As you can see, it is right on top of Kennedy's limousine; in fact just a few feet away.
As you can see in the Altgen's photo, the Agents are aware of the shots. They now had over six seconds to react and move to protect the president. They are all over Johnson at this point , who is covered by Agent Rufus Youngblood and is on the floor of his limousine. Johnson's follow up car door is open and guns are drawn.
The POTUS has been shot in the back and is choking on a bullet, but NO moves to help him. In fact, an agent did move from the follow up car and was CALLED BACK. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Yata-Boy you are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics by trying to put words in my mouth.
|
Actually I'm not. I'm trying to get a clear grasp of what you think the truth is.
My main sticking point is this: The CIA removed both JFK and Nixon, but Johnson was left alone. The head of the CIA changes over time, but he is appointed by the president. I don't see how this works. What (who) is the decision-making body within (above?) the CIA?
You've never been clear about this.
I mentioned the Israelis because you said they control the US government, but from what you just wrote, you don't seem convinced they were involved in JFK's assassination.
Rather than post the same pictures over and over again, I'd like for you to explain the power structure behind the act. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|