Even the government itself admitted in the 70's there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

[daws101]

1) Numerous witnesses including Secret Service Agents and local lawmen said the cadence of the shots was:

BANG.........................BANG BANG.

The last two shots were almost simultaneous. IMPOSSIBLE with the 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano. And the particular weapon recovered was not a fast acting rifle. According to one of the Warren Commission testers: "the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target"

2) Prior to November 22, 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald was a nobody. Please tell me WHY a month before the assassination someone visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald?

ear witness testimony unreliable and not evidence.
you want fries with that?

Of course it's reliable, especially when so many witnesses say the SAME thing. Especially when professionals like Secret Service Agents and police officers all say the same thing.

You only failed attempting to answer HALF my questions. What about the imposter in Mexico City?

Ear-witness testimony is unreliable…

June 14, 2010 in Uncategorized | No comments


You heard me correctly, ear-witness testimony. I know you are familiar with eye-witness testimony. That is when you see something and as a witness to what you saw testify to your recollection. You do this under oath and swear what you saw is accurate and true, so help you God. But do you have a good memory? Can your memory be influenced?

Based on my experience in interviewing and interrogating thousands of people I can tell you that people have a very hard time remembering things. Our brains are fascinating and break up your memories in to three categories: visual (what you saw), auditory (what you heard) and kinesthetic (what you felt).

When you experience something, such as a car accident, you will recall that memory with a distinct picture or short movie clip of the event; will typically remember a short sound clip (maybe what you said or the sound of the tires screeching or the car crashing) and a specific feeling of the event. It is very rare for you to have a clear movie of the event (with all the audio and feeling) after time has passed and the memory is stored long term.

It is because of this memory process that the large majority of people give unreliable and often inaccurate testimonies when recalling an event that they witnessed. What most often happens is they are testifying to what they experienced up to a year or more after it happened. Before they get to testify they are interviewed and sometimes interrogated by the police and attorneys who have forced them to commit to an exact version of the event.

When it comes time to tell your story under oath you are in performance mode. You know your script, you know how to answer questions and you remember the version of the story that you have solidified in your head by telling it so many times. It is very similar to memorizing the words to a song or watching a movie enough that you know what will happen next.

Now let’s erase that movie from your brain and just leave the audio. Could you remember what you heard? I’m confident that like memorizing the words to a song you could remember what you told the police or the attorneys, but could you remember what you really heard? My contention is that ear-witness testimony is not only unreliable, but more unreliable than eye-witness testimony. The obvious reason is that you have taken out a major segment of your memory. When doing so, the visual memory remains, but is replaced with your constructed visual memory based on what your brain imagined. This is very similar to reading a book and imagining the visual images of the characters in the scene. For each reader this visual image is unique and can impact your auditory memory.

Ear-witness testimony is unreliable…
Dan Crum the Dating Detective · Ear-witness testimony is unreliable?

 

[Bfgrn]

ear witness testimony unreliable and not evidence.
you want fries with that?

Of course it's reliable, especially when so many witnesses say the SAME thing. Especially when professionals like Secret Service Agents and police officers all say the same thing.

You only failed attempting to answer HALF my questions. What about the imposter in Mexico City?

Ear-witness testimony is unreliable…

June 14, 2010 in Uncategorized | No comments


You heard me correctly, ear-witness testimony. I know you are familiar with eye-witness testimony. That is when you see something and as a witness to what you saw testify to your recollection. You do this under oath and swear what you saw is accurate and true, so help you God. But do you have a good memory? Can your memory be influenced?

Based on my experience in interviewing and interrogating thousands of people I can tell you that people have a very hard time remembering things. Our brains are fascinating and break up your memories in to three categories: visual (what you saw), auditory (what you heard) and kinesthetic (what you felt).

When you experience something, such as a car accident, you will recall that memory with a distinct picture or short movie clip of the event; will typically remember a short sound clip (maybe what you said or the sound of the tires screeching or the car crashing) and a specific feeling of the event. It is very rare for you to have a clear movie of the event (with all the audio and feeling) after time has passed and the memory is stored long term.

It is because of this memory process that the large majority of people give unreliable and often inaccurate testimonies when recalling an event that they witnessed. What most often happens is they are testifying to what they experienced up to a year or more after it happened. Before they get to testify they are interviewed and sometimes interrogated by the police and attorneys who have forced them to commit to an exact version of the event.

When it comes time to tell your story under oath you are in performance mode. You know your script, you know how to answer questions and you remember the version of the story that you have solidified in your head by telling it so many times. It is very similar to memorizing the words to a song or watching a movie enough that you know what will happen next.

Now let’s erase that movie from your brain and just leave the audio. Could you remember what you heard? I’m confident that like memorizing the words to a song you could remember what you told the police or the attorneys, but could you remember what you really heard? My contention is that ear-witness testimony is not only unreliable, but more unreliable than eye-witness testimony. The obvious reason is that you have taken out a major segment of your memory. When doing so, the visual memory remains, but is replaced with your constructed visual memory based on what your brain imagined. This is very similar to reading a book and imagining the visual images of the characters in the scene. For each reader this visual image is unique and can impact your auditory memory.

Ear-witness testimony is unreliable…
Dan Crum the Dating Detective · Ear-witness testimony is unreliable?

WAY too many ear witness testimonies are the same. WAY too many professional (Secret Service Agents, Police and Sheriff) testimonies are the same.

There is a solid consensus that the last two shots were almost simultaneous. IMPOSSIBLE with a 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano.

Now...What about the imposter in Mexico City?

 

[daws101]

Of course it's reliable, especially when so many witnesses say the SAME thing. Especially when professionals like Secret Service Agents and police officers all say the same thing.

You only failed attempting to answer HALF my questions. What about the imposter in Mexico City?

Ear-witness testimony is unreliable…

June 14, 2010 in Uncategorized | No comments


You heard me correctly, ear-witness testimony. I know you are familiar with eye-witness testimony. That is when you see something and as a witness to what you saw testify to your recollection. You do this under oath and swear what you saw is accurate and true, so help you God. But do you have a good memory? Can your memory be influenced?

Based on my experience in interviewing and interrogating thousands of people I can tell you that people have a very hard time remembering things. Our brains are fascinating and break up your memories in to three categories: visual (what you saw), auditory (what you heard) and kinesthetic (what you felt).

When you experience something, such as a car accident, you will recall that memory with a distinct picture or short movie clip of the event; will typically remember a short sound clip (maybe what you said or the sound of the tires screeching or the car crashing) and a specific feeling of the event. It is very rare for you to have a clear movie of the event (with all the audio and feeling) after time has passed and the memory is stored long term.

It is because of this memory process that the large majority of people give unreliable and often inaccurate testimonies when recalling an event that they witnessed. What most often happens is they are testifying to what they experienced up to a year or more after it happened. Before they get to testify they are interviewed and sometimes interrogated by the police and attorneys who have forced them to commit to an exact version of the event.

When it comes time to tell your story under oath you are in performance mode. You know your script, you know how to answer questions and you remember the version of the story that you have solidified in your head by telling it so many times. It is very similar to memorizing the words to a song or watching a movie enough that you know what will happen next.

Now let’s erase that movie from your brain and just leave the audio. Could you remember what you heard? I’m confident that like memorizing the words to a song you could remember what you told the police or the attorneys, but could you remember what you really heard? My contention is that ear-witness testimony is not only unreliable, but more unreliable than eye-witness testimony. The obvious reason is that you have taken out a major segment of your memory. When doing so, the visual memory remains, but is replaced with your constructed visual memory based on what your brain imagined. This is very similar to reading a book and imagining the visual images of the characters in the scene. For each reader this visual image is unique and can impact your auditory memory.

Ear-witness testimony is unreliable…
Dan Crum the Dating Detective · Ear-witness testimony is unreliable?

WAY too many ear witness testimonies are the same. WAY too many professional (Secret Service Agents, Police and Sheriff) testimonies are the same.

There is a solid consensus that the last two shots were almost simultaneous. IMPOSSIBLE with a 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano.

Now...What about the imposter in Mexico City?

ear witness testimony is unreliable being the same or how many people has no bearing on it's validity.
beside the number of shots do not match the number of rounds found.
the mexico imposter is a red herring.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ear-witness testimony is unreliable…

June 14, 2010 in Uncategorized | No comments


You heard me correctly, ear-witness testimony. I know you are familiar with eye-witness testimony. That is when you see something and as a witness to what you saw testify to your recollection. You do this under oath and swear what you saw is accurate and true, so help you God. But do you have a good memory? Can your memory be influenced?

Based on my experience in interviewing and interrogating thousands of people I can tell you that people have a very hard time remembering things. Our brains are fascinating and break up your memories in to three categories: visual (what you saw), auditory (what you heard) and kinesthetic (what you felt).

When you experience something, such as a car accident, you will recall that memory with a distinct picture or short movie clip of the event; will typically remember a short sound clip (maybe what you said or the sound of the tires screeching or the car crashing) and a specific feeling of the event. It is very rare for you to have a clear movie of the event (with all the audio and feeling) after time has passed and the memory is stored long term.

It is because of this memory process that the large majority of people give unreliable and often inaccurate testimonies when recalling an event that they witnessed. What most often happens is they are testifying to what they experienced up to a year or more after it happened. Before they get to testify they are interviewed and sometimes interrogated by the police and attorneys who have forced them to commit to an exact version of the event.

When it comes time to tell your story under oath you are in performance mode. You know your script, you know how to answer questions and you remember the version of the story that you have solidified in your head by telling it so many times. It is very similar to memorizing the words to a song or watching a movie enough that you know what will happen next.

Now let’s erase that movie from your brain and just leave the audio. Could you remember what you heard? I’m confident that like memorizing the words to a song you could remember what you told the police or the attorneys, but could you remember what you really heard? My contention is that ear-witness testimony is not only unreliable, but more unreliable than eye-witness testimony. The obvious reason is that you have taken out a major segment of your memory. When doing so, the visual memory remains, but is replaced with your constructed visual memory based on what your brain imagined. This is very similar to reading a book and imagining the visual images of the characters in the scene. For each reader this visual image is unique and can impact your auditory memory.

Ear-witness testimony is unreliable…
Dan Crum the Dating Detective · Ear-witness testimony is unreliable?

WAY too many ear witness testimonies are the same. WAY too many professional (Secret Service Agents, Police and Sheriff) testimonies are the same.

There is a solid consensus that the last two shots were almost simultaneous. IMPOSSIBLE with a 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano.

Now...What about the imposter in Mexico City?

ear witness testimony is unreliable being the same or how many people has no bearing on it's validity.
beside the number of shots do not match the number of rounds found.
the mexico imposter is a red herring.

What do you mean a red herring?

 

[daws101]

WAY too many ear witness testimonies are the same. WAY too many professional (Secret Service Agents, Police and Sheriff) testimonies are the same.

There is a solid consensus that the last two shots were almost simultaneous. IMPOSSIBLE with a 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano.

Now...What about the imposter in Mexico City?

ear witness testimony is unreliable being the same or how many people has no bearing on it's validity.
beside the number of shots do not match the number of rounds found.
the mexico imposter is a red herring.

What do you mean a red herring?

if you don't know what a red herring is then you have no fucking business pontificating on the jfk assassination.

 

[Bfgrn]

ear witness testimony is unreliable being the same or how many people has no bearing on it's validity.
beside the number of shots do not match the number of rounds found.
the mexico imposter is a red herring.

What do you mean a red herring?

if you don't know what a red herring is then you have no fucking business pontificating on the jfk assassination.

WOW, you really are a slimy one aren't you. What are you so afraid of?

If you are saying that it didn't happen, you are wrong.

 

[daws101]

What do you mean a red herring?

if you don't know what a red herring is then you have no fucking business pontificating on the jfk assassination.

WOW, you really are a slimy one aren't you. What are you so afraid of?

If you are saying that it didn't happen, you are wrong.

lol! not slimy or afraid
you really wish I was though..
either way it's no proof you're right about the jfk assassination.
are you trying to say I don't think jfk was shot.
here's a tip: why don't you up red herring.....?

 

[Bfgrn]

if you don't know what a red herring is then you have no fucking business pontificating on the jfk assassination.

WOW, you really are a slimy one aren't you. What are you so afraid of?

If you are saying that it didn't happen, you are wrong.

lol! not slimy or afraid
you really wish I was though..
either way it's no proof you're right about the jfk assassination.
are you trying to say I don't think jfk was shot.
here's a tip: why don't you up red herring.....?

If Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut who saw that the President's motorcade was going to pass the building he worked at, and decided to shoot him, NO ONE else knew it and no one ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald.

BUT, a month before the assassination someone showed up at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald. It was an imposter.

President Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover discussed this the day after the assassination in a phone conversation.

Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the new President Johnson on the state of the investigation. Noting that the evidence against [Oswald] is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting.

LBJ: "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?"

Hoover: "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there."

LBJ Phone Calls - November 1963

 

[daws101]

WOW, you really are a slimy one aren't you. What are you so afraid of?

If you are saying that it didn't happen, you are wrong.

lol! not slimy or afraid
you really wish I was though..
either way it's no proof you're right about the jfk assassination.
are you trying to say I don't think jfk was shot.
here's a tip: why don't you up red herring.....?

If Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut who saw that the President's motorcade was going to pass the building he worked at, and decided to shoot him, NO ONE else knew it and no one ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald.

BUT, a month before the assassination someone showed up at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald. It was an imposter.

President Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover discussed this the day after the assassination in a phone conversation.

Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the new President Johnson on the state of the investigation. Noting that the evidence against [Oswald] is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting.

LBJ: "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?"

Hoover: "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there."

LBJ Phone Calls - November 1963

your point?

 

[Bfgrn]

lol! not slimy or afraid
you really wish I was though..
either way it's no proof you're right about the jfk assassination.
are you trying to say I don't think jfk was shot.
here's a tip: why don't you up red herring.....?

If Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut who saw that the President's motorcade was going to pass the building he worked at, and decided to shoot him, NO ONE else knew it and no one ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald.

BUT, a month before the assassination someone showed up at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald. It was an imposter.

President Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover discussed this the day after the assassination in a phone conversation.

Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the new President Johnson on the state of the investigation. Noting that the evidence against [Oswald] is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting.

LBJ: "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?"

Hoover: "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there."

LBJ Phone Calls - November 1963

your point?

Really? You can't figure it out?

 

[daws101]

If Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut who saw that the President's motorcade was going to pass the building he worked at, and decided to shoot him, NO ONE else knew it and no one ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald.

BUT, a month before the assassination someone showed up at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald. It was an imposter.

President Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover discussed this the day after the assassination in a phone conversation.

Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the new President Johnson on the state of the investigation. Noting that the evidence against [Oswald] is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting.

LBJ: "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?"

Hoover: "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there."

LBJ Phone Calls - November 1963

your point?

Really? You can't figure it out?

it's ancient news ...no linkage was ever proven..

 

[Bfgrn]

your point?

Really? You can't figure it out?

it's ancient news ...no linkage was ever proven..

Why was 'no linkage ever proven'?

 

[editec]

The JFK assassination and the offical report about it stinks to high heaven.

Magic bullets and lone gunmen?

Please

 

[numan]

'

Daws is being deliberately obtuse about the impostor in Mexico City.

Which is probably the best evidence so far that he is a troll representing sinister interests.

.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

'

Daws is being deliberately obtuse about the impostor in Mexico City.

Which is probably the best evidence so far that he is a troll representing sinister interests.

.

the fact DAWGSHIT ignores that these two FBI agents that were there say oswald did not do it is proof he is a troll here sent to just troll the boards.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wktzy-8BV8]Ex-FBI AGENT - OSWALD DID NOT KILL JFK - YouTube[/ame]


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sy-did-believe-single-bullet-theory-dies.html


Last surviving FBI agent at JFK autopsy who 'did not believe the single bullet theory' dies

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-single-bullet-theory-dies.html#ixzz2YxXTO1Vu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hey Numan,have you seen this video by chance? This lady was oswalds mistress.as you already know,according to Marina and others that knew oswald,Oswald liked Kennedy.

Dawgshit of course will say that Maria testified she believed oswald did it to the warren commission which is true but he of course will conveintly leave out that it was only AFTER the secret service paid a visit to her and harrassed her and the interpreter assigned to her did not translate what she said and according to Marina,she testified she believed oswald did it ONLY because they threatend to deport her children to Russia if she did not.so of COURSE she was going to testify that she thought oswald did it.

You just know she knows a lot more of what really happend than what she is telling us.after all her uncle was an intelligence officer for the KGB.

Oswalds mistress in here talks about how Oswald was actually instrumental in helping divert the first assassination site they had for him in chicago thwarting it.she also talks about how in one of his pics,he has a smirk on his face which never made sense to me because why would he smirk if he said -i did not shoot anybody.im just a patsy.

well according to her,they tampered with the photograph and made it so his frown that he had on his face is a smile instead.



that would make sense because one of the police officers who wasnt corrupt,he was with oswald in the interrogater room for a short period of time and he said the photo they said marina took of him in his backward photos holding a rifle,that oswald said it was his face but that wasnt him,that it was someone else's body and that pic was a fake.

so since they faked that PIC,makes sense they faked his pic there as well making him look like he is smiling instead of frowning like he was.

if you havent watched the video,please do so,its about an hour long.there is another video out there where she gives an interview and its 4 hours long!!!! I plan on watching that sometime soon.

 

[numan]

'
You are quite right, I.J., That photograph of Oswald holding a rifle was long ago shown to be a fake -- and a crude one, at that! For one thing, the shadows were all wrong -- and Oswald's head was a clumsy photo-job!!

Marina Oswald was made a prisoner of the Black Op junta for the rest of her life. As I recall, she even came to marry her CIA handler. That is what I call going the extra mile to keep someone under surveillance!!!

.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

You didnt answer the question though about did you know about his mistress coming out revealing how oswald successfully reverted a plot in chicago previously before dallas to kill kennedy and have you seen that video before?

oh and had you heard that before of what she mentioned of that smirk on his face in that pic was also faked to make it look like he was smiling about killing JFK? that pic was obviously fake as well just like she says since he obviously denied he did the shooting. Like i said,makes no sense why he would be smiling as agents like Posner in his book case close claim since he already said he did not kill kennedy.

that to me,always made no sense,NOW i totally understand that pic now.Just like the backyard photgraph,it ALSO was forged just like she said.

 

[numan]

'
Thank you, I.J., I knew nothing about a mistress.

If I, in some Bizarro World, wanted to assassinate someone, the last thing I would do is get photographed holding a rifle and incriminating documents!!

That in itself should be a warning sign to anyone with half a brain that there is something fishy about that photo, not to mention weird actions in Dallas by an Oswald look-alike in the weeks before the shooting.

.

 

[editec]

You didnt answer the question though about did you know about his mistress coming out revealing how oswald successfully reverted a plot in chicago previously before dallas to kill kennedy and have you seen that video before?

oh and had you heard that before of what she mentioned of that smirk on his face in that pic was also faked to make it look like he was smiling about killing JFK? that pic was obviously fake as well just like she says since he obviously denied he did the shooting. Like i said,makes no sense why he would be smiling as agents like Posner in his book case close claim since he already said he did not kill kennedy.

that to me,always made no sense,NOW i totally understand that pic now.Just like the backyard photgraph,it ALSO was forged just like she said.

As to the mechanics of who killed JFK and why?

I leave that task to scholars willing to devote their lives to separating the real information wheat from the disinformation chaff.

But just look at the official narrative holistically...it's pretty damned thin and demands that we suspend disbelief to accept it as fact:

A demented "lone gunman" with a magic bullet takes down the most powerful person in the Western world .

The same lone gunman just happened to have been a traitor who moved to Russiastay there for years, got married to a Russian national and then inexplicably was allowed to move back to the USA just in time to off JFK?

Meanwhile the list of enemies who might have wanted JFK removed reads like a Who's who of rich and powerful, both in the country and out of it, both on the side of the law, and over the line of the law too.

With the benefit of 50 years hindsight, we see that the seachange that is still occurring TO this nation STARTED on November22, 1963.

I have absolutely NO evidence to support my belief, but I believe that the JFK assonation (folowed closely by the assination of his brother) was a highly successful

COUP D ETAT​

What's more I believe that essantially the same clandestine forces that murdered our POTUS have been murdering our REPUBLIC ever since.