View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

JFK 50TH Anniversary

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 01 Dec 2013, 22:14

SydneyPSIder wrote: "...of the secret service standing down, of the extremely unsafe irregular police bike escort,..."

Could you be more specific as to what you are claiming in these two statements please? There are several theories out there and I'm not sure if you have someone specific in mind, if you're referring to the bubble top, if you're referring to JFK ordering the stand down himself, or just what. Thank you.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 01 Dec 2013, 22:30

SydneyPSIder wrote: "...of the reports of shots from the grassy knoll,..."

Again, what reports are you referring to? More people heard shots from the TSBD than from the grassy knoll. There were echos and mass chaos in the Plaza. There were no eyewitnesses to a person shooting from the grassy knoll, but there were eyewitnesses to a rifle in the window of the TSBD. There were claims of smoke from the grassy area. Have you ever shot a gun that smoked after being fired? Or are you, like Winston, a believer in what the movies depict?
Last edited by ProfWag on 01 Dec 2013, 23:20, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 01 Dec 2013, 22:42

SydneyPSIder wrote:the unlikelihood of LHO getting 3 (or was it 2?) accurate shots off from his supposed position,.

Not unlikely at all. When properly counted, he fired a shot, another one 5 seconds later and a third 5 seconds after that. More than enough time to take all 3 shots and take accurate aim as well. This has been shown over and over again that it is quite possible and wouldn't even be considered difficult. Have a look at the Zapruder film carefully. Go ahead and find it online anywhere you'd like, I'll wait. Find it? Okay, good. Now, do you see any hints as to when the first shot was taken? Oh, you don't? I don't either. That's because the first shot actually took place before he started filming after the motorcade made the turn onto Elm Street. The next hint as to a shot was while JFK had disappeared behind the street sign and he is shown holding his throat as he emerges. When a person gets shot from behind like that, is it not common that there is a slight delay between the injury and the response? Yep, sure is. So, when you put the second shot as taking place just as the limo is about to go behind the sign and then the third tragic shot of the head, there was more than ample time to get off three shots. Again, nothing mysterious about 3 shots in a proper timeline. I consider this conspiracy theory debunked. Let's move on to one more point you make and then I'm going to take a nap.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 01 Dec 2013, 23:18

SydneyPSIder wrote:"... the fact that he was elsewhere in the building at the time of the shots being fired...".

Gee, I didn't know this was a "fact!?" What evidence is there that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting? Who saw him elsewhere at the time of the shooting? You state this as fact, when, in fact, you don't know that as fact, do you? There are no witnesses who said they were with LHO at the time of the shooting, but if there is, I'd like to see it please. The testimony of the Building Supt. and Officer Baker are that they saw LHO in the second floor lunchroom and that he had nothing in his hand (not sure where the "coke" theory comes from). The time between the last shot and the time he was seen by Officer Baker on the 2nd floor was more than sufficient for him to have walked down 4 flights of stairs. I can produce their testimony if requested.
Another theory debunked. I'm tired and getting bored now and going to take a nap. Happy Theorizing!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Dec 2013, 04:38

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:So forget the umbrella, that has been put forward by various people. Not a major part of the investigation, and I see you are still playing your usual game of nit-picking at a few unimportant side issues to make the case that the main points of concern are therefore invalid. Interesting debating tactic, it's not scientific or legitimate though, of course, just the sort of thing that a pseudosceptic would do though. The potential role of the 'umbrella man' is easily the most speculative and weakest surmisation of the entire case. Removing the umbrella man from the picture does not weaken the assassination scenario one iota, it is simply an attempted explanation for why one person was standing around on a warm sunny day with an umbrella. He then claimed in 1977 to be referencing Neville Chamberlain, and to be unaware of any scrutiny or interest from investigators. (And that may or may not be true from a forensic scientific objective position of course.)
.

If it's so "unimportant" as you state, why did you mention it as evidence? I have stated over and over, I'll discuss one item at a time. Instead, you prefer to bombard the thread with accusations and innuendos. Since you won't stick to one subject, I'm forced to pick out one that I think you must feel is important. Are you going to nit-pick which one I select? It appears as such, but if you would simply pick a topic that's important to you, I wouldn't have to rely on my psychic abilities to determine what you feel is relevant to the conversation.

what an obfuscating joke.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Dec 2013, 04:42

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:"... the fact that he was elsewhere in the building at the time of the shots being fired...".

Gee, I didn't know this was a "fact!?" What evidence is there that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting? Who saw him elsewhere at the time of the shooting? You state this as fact, when, in fact, you don't know that as fact, do you? There are no witnesses who said they were with LHO at the time of the shooting, but if there is, I'd like to see it please. The testimony of the Building Supt. and Officer Baker are that they saw LHO in the second floor lunchroom and that he had nothing in his hand (not sure where the "coke" theory comes from). The time between the last shot and the time he was seen by Officer Baker on the 2nd floor was more than sufficient for him to have walked down 4 flights of stairs. I can produce their testimony if requested.
Another theory debunked. I'm tired and getting bored now and going to take a nap. Happy Theorizing!

Interesting little cover-up you're helping to engage in there.

Perhaps it didn't suit the powers that be concerning the timeline for LHO to have a Coke in his hand, so they simply crossed out the testimony that looked like it might be a problem for making a case against the patsy.

"...DRINKING A COKE" TESTIMONY CROSSED OUT

"Oswald was at the sniper's nest on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, then how is it he was seen by the building manager and a pistol-waving police officer less than 90 seconds afterwards on the second floor, standing in the lunchroom with a Coke in his hand, giving every appearance of being perfectly calm and relaxed? (The manager was Roy Truly and the policeman was Officer Marrion Baker.)

Jim Moore and other lone-gunman theorists assume that Oswald bought the Coke after the encounter with the manager and the policeman (3:53). However, the available evidence indicates Oswald purchased the Coke before the second-floor encounter (5: 50-52). Oswald had no reason to lie about when he bought the Coke. When he mentioned the Coke-buying during his questioning, he did so in passing, and he could not have known the important role the timing of this detail would subsequently play in the investigation. I agree with what David Lifton has said on this subject:

The original news accounts said that when Baker first saw Oswald, the latter was drinking a Coke. This seemingly minor fact was crucial, because if Oswald had time to operate the machine, open the bottle, and drink some soda, that would mean he was on the second floor even earlier than the Commission's reconstructions allowed. In a signed statement Officer Baker was asked to make in September 1964, at the tail-end of the investigation, he wrote: "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke." A line was drawn through "drinking a coke," and Baker initialed the corrected version. [Dallas] Police Captain Will Fritz, in his report on his interrogation of Oswald, wrote: "I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca Cola when the officer came in." If I were a juror, I would have believed Oswald already had the Coke in hand, and indeed, had drunk some of it, by the time the officer entered the lunchroom. (18:351)
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Dec 2013, 05:01

Oh, and it seems one Jack Ruby was working for none other than Richard Nixon in the years prior to the Kennedy assassination. Some pretty odd connections out there, hey? (Note "this is sensitive".)

Image

And here's a pic of a young LHO with one David Ferrie in their time together as buddies in the Civil Air Patrol:

Image

Funny how after Oswald left the Marines and the CAP he suddenly became a 'Marxist' and started convincingly spouting rehearsed dogma to the press.

And here's some more previously suppressed quotes from Jack Ruby himself:

Jack Ruby (Oswald's assassin) makes a statement to reporters after he has been permitted a new trial.

He says: Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motives. The people had , that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.

Reporter : Are these people in very high positions Jack?

Jack : Yes.



Why has nobody seen this footage at the time it was shot? Because certain people with enough power didn't want you to see it. Just like they didn't want you to see the Zapruder film. Imagine what would have happened if the American public was shown just both of these films.

Other quotes of Jack Ruby that are on film:

"Gentlemen, I want to tell the truth, but I cannot tell it here. If you want a fair shake out of me, you have to take me to Washington"

"When I mentioned about Adlai Stevenson, if he was vice president there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy " Asked if he would explain it again Ruby continued "Well the answer is the man in office now" - that man was Lyndon Johnson.

Ruby fearing for his life, and the life of his family told the Warren commission...."Well, you won't see me again. I tell you that a whole new form of government is going to take over the country, and I know I won't live to see you another time"

While Ruby is in jail, he writes this letter:

It reads: "you must believe me that I know what is taking place, so please with all my heart, you must believe me, because I am counting on you to save this country a lot of blood-shed. As soon as you get out you must read Texan looks at Lyndon ("A Texan Looks at Lyndon" by J. Evetts Haley) , and it may open your eyes to a lot of things. This man is a Nazi in the worst order."

Further on in this letter Ruby writes: "... isn't it strange that Oswald, who hasn't worked a lick most of his life, should be fortunate enough to get a job at the Book Building two weeks before the president himself didn't know as to when he was to visit Dallas, now where would a jerk like Oswald get the information that the president was coming to Dallas? Only one person could have had that information, and that man was Johnson who knew weeks in advance as to what was going to happen, because he is the one who was going to arrange the trip for the president, this had been planned long before the president himself knew about, so you can figure that one out. The only one who gained by the shooting of the president was Johnson, and he was in a car in the rear and safe when the shooting took place. What would the Russians, Castro or anyone else have to gain by eliminating the president? If Johnson was so heartbroken over Kennedy, why didn't he do something for Robert Kennedy? All he did was snub him."

This letter and Ruby's remarks to the press, suggest that Ruby became only later convinced that Johnson was a power behind the scenes. During his Warren testimony he shows no inkling of this conviction.

(Image: Standing next to a mourning Jackie, LBJ gets a wink and a smile from Congressman Albert Thomas.)

Fragment of Jack Ruby's testimony for the Warren Commisssion:

Representative FORD: Are there any questions that ought to be asked to help clarify the situation that you described?

Mr. RUBY: There is only one thing. If you don't take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen.

Maybe something can be saved, something can be done. What have you got to answer to that, Chief Justice Warren?

Chief Justice WARREN: Well, I don't know what can be done, Mr. Ruby, because I don't know what you anticipate we will encounter.

Mr. RUBY: All I know is maybe something can be saved. Because right now, I want to tell you this, I am used as a scapegoat, and there is no greater weapon that you can use to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith, especially at the terrible heinous crime such as the killing of President Kennedy.

Now maybe something can be saved. It may not be too late, whatever happens, if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me.

But if I am eliminated, there won't be any way of knowing.

Right now, when I leave your presence now, I am the only one that can bring out the truth to our President, who believes in righteousness and justice.

But he has been told, I am certain, that I was part of a plot to assassinate the President.

I know your hands are tied; you are helpless.

Chief Justice WARREN: The President will know everything that you have said, everything that you have said.

Mr. RUBY: But I won't be around, Chief Justice. I won't be around to verify these things you are going to tell the President.

Mr. TONAHILL: Who do you think is going to eliminate you, Jack?

Mr. RUBY: I have been used for a purpose, and there will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don't take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don't suffer because of what I have done.

Chief Justice WARREN: But we have taken your testimony. We have it here. It will be in permanent form for the President of the United States and for the Congress of the United States, and for the courts of the United States, and for the people of the entire world.

It is there. It will be recorded for all to see. That is the purpose of our coming here today. We feel that you are entitled to have your story told.

Mr. RUBY: You have lost me though. You have lost me, Chief Justice Warren.

Chief Justice WARREN: Lost you in what sense?

Mr. RUBY: I won't be around for you to come and question me again.

Chief Justice WARREN: Well, it is very hard for me to believe that. I am sure that everybody would want to protect you to the very limit.

Mr. RUBY: All I want is a lie detector test, and you refuse to give it to me.

Because as it stands now--and the truth serum, and any other--Pentothal--how do you pronounce it, whatever it is. And they will not give it to me, because I want to tell the truth.

And then I want to leave this world. But I don't want my people to be blamed for something that is untrue, that they claim has happened.

Chief Justice WARREN: Mr. Ruby, I promise you that you will be able to take such a test.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 17 Dec 2013, 11:35, edited 2 times in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 02 Dec 2013, 09:57

SydneyPSIder wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:"... the fact that he was elsewhere in the building at the time of the shots being fired...".

Gee, I didn't know this was a "fact!?" What evidence is there that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting? Who saw him elsewhere at the time of the shooting? You state this as fact, when, in fact, you don't know that as fact, do you? There are no witnesses who said they were with LHO at the time of the shooting, but if there is, I'd like to see it please. The testimony of the Building Supt. and Officer Baker are that they saw LHO in the second floor lunchroom and that he had nothing in his hand (not sure where the "coke" theory comes from). The time between the last shot and the time he was seen by Officer Baker on the 2nd floor was more than sufficient for him to have walked down 4 flights of stairs. I can produce their testimony if requested.
Another theory debunked. I'm tired and getting bored now and going to take a nap. Happy Theorizing!

Interesting little cover-up you're helping to engage in there.

Perhaps it didn't suit the powers that be concerning the timeline for LHO to have a Coke in his hand, so they simply crossed out the testimony that looked like it might be a problem for making a case against the patsy.

"...DRINKING A COKE" TESTIMONY CROSSED OUT

"Oswald was at the sniper's nest on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, then how is it he was seen by the building manager and a pistol-waving police officer less than 90 seconds afterwards on the second floor, standing in the lunchroom with a Coke in his hand, giving every appearance of being perfectly calm and relaxed? (The manager was Roy Truly and the policeman was Officer Marrion Baker.)

Jim Moore and other lone-gunman theorists assume that Oswald bought the Coke after the encounter with the manager and the policeman (3:53). However, the available evidence indicates Oswald purchased the Coke before the second-floor encounter (5: 50-52). Oswald had no reason to lie about when he bought the Coke. When he mentioned the Coke-buying during his questioning, he did so in passing, and he could not have known the important role the timing of this detail would subsequently play in the investigation. I agree with what David Lifton has said on this subject:

The original news accounts said that when Baker first saw Oswald, the latter was drinking a Coke. This seemingly minor fact was crucial, because if Oswald had time to operate the machine, open the bottle, and drink some soda, that would mean he was on the second floor even earlier than the Commission's reconstructions allowed. In a signed statement Officer Baker was asked to make in September 1964, at the tail-end of the investigation, he wrote: "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke." A line was drawn through "drinking a coke," and Baker initialed the corrected version. [Dallas] Police Captain Will Fritz, in his report on his interrogation of Oswald, wrote: "I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca Cola when the officer came in." If I were a juror, I would have believed Oswald already had the Coke in hand, and indeed, had drunk some of it, by the time the officer entered the lunchroom. (18:351)

Syd, I don't know what the laws are where you live, but where I live, quoting someone (in this case Michael T. Griffith) without giving the author credit is plagiarism.
Do you, yourself, have any thoughts on the matter or is it easier for you to just copy what someone else wrote and then throw out insults?
I will add a comment on this. So someone wrote on the report that Oswald was "drinking a coke," and Baker saw that this statement was incorrect and crossed it out. That certainly doesn't sound suspicious to me at all and, again, even if he did have a coke, why would that be any evidence whatsoever that he didn't shoot JFK? Again, could he not have purchased the coke earlier and had it with him on the 6th floor? Personally, I haven't seen any solid evidence other than conspiracy theories that contradict the statements of Officer Baker who said he didn't have a Coke.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Dec 2013, 10:04

ProfWag wrote:Syd, I don't know what the laws are where you live, but where I live, quoting someone (in this case Michael T. Griffith) without giving the author credit is plagiarism.
Do you, yourself, have any thoughts on the matter or is it easier for you to just copy what someone else wrote and then throw out insults?

What happened to your quote a little earlier where you started the ball rolling by stating you would not supply a reference. I've just gotten a little lax, only referencing a few of my quotes in this thread -- following your precedent. Aren't we still waiting for your reference?

Not worth 'arguing' about the Coke anymore, if you could even call it an argument, because any reasonable person would know by now there was a Coke involved.

By the way, quoting another author is not plagiarism, especially not on a bulletin board ferchrissakes. Misrepresenting another author's work as your own IS an act of plagiarism, which I'm not doing, and taking excerpts for 'fair use' is also OK. I'm sure Michael T. Griffith would love his work to reach a wider audience, and anyone can google a fragment of text and find some source sites at will.

Once again you seem to be going out of your way to raise spurious objections rather than addressing the evidence on display. This is a little like your old previous tactic of saying 'there's a typo on that website, so I'm not going to read any of it'.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 02 Dec 2013, 10:27, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 02 Dec 2013, 10:26

SydneyPSIder wrote:
And here's a pic of a young LHO with one David Ferrie in their time together as buddies in the Civil Air Patrol:

What makes you think they were "buddies in the Civil Air Patrol?" They certainly don't look like "buddies" in this picture. His mother stated, and others confirmed, that he was in the CAP for only a short time meaning 2, 3, or 4 meetings at best. This coincidence between Ferrie and LHO is just that, a coincidence.

I see little need discussing what Ruby said while sitting in jail and wanting to get out. Of course he's going to say things to 1) allow him the opportunity to get out for a time and visit D.C., 2) Perhaps reduce his sentence, and/or 3) as mentioned earlier, Ruby was a narcissist and craved attention.

Once again, nothing presented is evidence that LHO wasn't the lone shooter of JFK in Dealey Plaza. Sorry.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 02 Dec 2013, 10:28

SydneyPSIder wrote: Aren't we still waiting for your reference?

No, my reference was Garrison and his Playboy interview.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Dec 2013, 10:29

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
And here's a pic of a young LHO with one David Ferrie in their time together as buddies in the Civil Air Patrol:

What makes you think they were "buddies in the Civil Air Patrol?" They certainly don't look like "buddies" in this picture. His mother stated, and others confirmed, that he was in the CAP for only a short time meaning 2, 3, or 4 meetings at best. This coincidence between Ferrie and LHO is just that, a coincidence.

I see little need discussing what Ruby said while sitting in jail and wanting to get out. Of course he's going to say things to 1) allow him the opportunity to get out for a time and visit D.C., 2) Perhaps reduce his sentence, and/or 3) as mentioned earlier, Ruby was a narcissist and craved attention.

Once again, nothing presented is evidence that LHO wasn't the lone shooter of JFK in Dealey Plaza. Sorry.

yeah, funny old bunch of coincidences in that lot. Dallas and New Orleans are very small places apparently.

The rest of your comments, again, assessed by a reasonable person, would be judged to be diversionary and meaningless.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 02 Dec 2013, 10:37

SydneyPSIder wrote:
By the way, quoting another author is not plagiarism, especially not on a bulletin board ferchrissakes. Misrepresenting another author's work as your own IS an act of plagiarism, which I'm not doing, and taking excerpts for 'fair use' is also OK. I'm sure Michael T. Griffith would love his work to reach a wider audience, and anyone can google a fragment of text and find some source sites at will.
.

Unfortunately, quoting another is what plagiarism is all about when you don't give the original author credit. Especially in the article that you quoted and which I thought were your own thoughts, here is the title:
WHERE WAS OSWALD FROM 11:50 to 12:35 P.M.
ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION?

Michael T. Griffith
1998
@All Rights Reserved

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents ... oswald.htm

But yea, I know it happens all the time and I really don't give a crap as I'm sure I do it from time to time as well, but what does concern me is that people are posting other people's thoughts when I am most interested in is what the thoughts of the individuals are with evidence presented from all sources. Quoting a conspiracy theorist simply because he has a counter view to mine doesn't help a legitimate debate, IMHO.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 02 Dec 2013, 10:40

SydneyPSIder wrote:yeah, funny old bunch of coincidences in that lot. Dallas and New Orleans are very small places apparently.

The rest of your comments, again, assessed by a reasonable person, would be judged to be diversionary and meaningless.

Okay, speaking of diversionary, I'll ask again, what makes you (or whomever actually wrote that) think that a 15-year old boy and a CAP Captain were "buddies?"
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Dec 2013, 10:53

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:yeah, funny old bunch of coincidences in that lot. Dallas and New Orleans are very small places apparently.

The rest of your comments, again, assessed by a reasonable person, would be judged to be diversionary and meaningless.

Okay, speaking of diversionary, I'll ask again, what makes you (or whomever actually wrote that) think that a 15-year old boy and a CAP Captain were "buddies?"


Because David Ferrie interestingly claimed he had never met LHO. It would be hard to be a squadron leader over someone for some time and then forget their name and face, wouldn't it? Someone that forgetful would never be a squadron leader in the first place, surely. And all the other squadron members seem to be able to remember both people quite clearly. Reasonableness test applies again — a test which defines all judicial reasoning of which you seem unduly suspicious.

In the 1950s, David Ferrie (second from left) commanded a squadron in the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol, of which Lee Harvey Oswald (far right, rear) was a member.

Since New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s ill-fated investigation of the Kennedy assassination in the late 1960s, one of the most intriguing suspects in a possible conspiracy to kill Kennedy has been David Ferrie.

Ferrie was an eccentric New Orleans pilot who had strong ties to Cuban exile guerillas fighting against Castro. In 1963, Ferrie was hired by attorneys for Carlos Marcello, the Mafia chieftain of New Orleans. Marcello was then fighting a deportation order issued on instructions of Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Ferrie was hired to help investigate the case on Marcello’s behalf.

Marcello reportedly harbored a deep hatred for the Kennedy brothers, and there is testimony that he talked of killing the president and of hiring a “nut” to do it.

Over the years many eyewitnesses of varying degrees of credibility have stepped forward to say they saw David Ferrie and Oswald together in the summer of 1963, but there has never been any hard documentary evidence that the two men knew each other. However, in the 1950s, David Ferrie did command a New Orleans squadron of the Civil Air Patrol, a youth auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force. And in the 1950s, Lee Oswald was a cadet in the Civil Air Patrol and several of Oswald’s fellow cadets have said that Ferrie was one of Oswald’s squadron leaders.

In the research for its investigative biography of Oswald, FRONTLINE uncovered the first hard evidence linking Oswald and Ferrie — this photograph taken in 1955 at an overnight encampment of a C.A.P. search-and-rescue squadron. The photo, a group shot of several men and teenage boys around a campfire, clearly shows a young Lee Harvey Oswald on one side of the frame and David Ferrie, wearing a military helmet, on the other side.

FRONTLINE obtained this photograph from John B. Ciravolo, Jr., of New Orleans. Ciravolo was also a C.A.P. member in 1955 and says he was in the same unit with Oswald and was standing right in front of him in the photo. Ciravolo identified David Ferrie, while former C.A.P. cadet Tony Atzenhoffer, also of New Orleans, identified Oswald and Ferrie in the photograph, and Colin Hammer, who says he served with both men in the C.A.P., also identified both in the photograph.

FRONTLINE located the photographer, Chuck Frances, who says he took the picture for the C.A.P. Francis also said that when he was interviewed by the FBI, he told them Oswald and Ferrie knew each other, but he did not tell them about the photograph. The executor of Ferrie’s estate, as well as Ferrie’s godson, also picked out Ferrie.

After the Kennedy assassination, David Ferrie told investigators he never knew Lee Oswald.
“I never heard David Ferrie mention Lee Harvey Oswald,” said Layton Martens, a former C.A.P. Cadet and a close friend to Ferrie until Ferrie’s death in 1967.

But when FRONTLINE showed Martens the photograph, he identified Ferrie. “It does indicate the possibity of an association,” said Martens, “but if and to what extent is another question. Of course we’ve all been photographed with people, and we could be presented with photographs later and asked, ‘Well, do you know this person? Obviously, you must because you’ve been photographed with them.’ Well no, it’s just a photograph, and I don’t know that person. It’s just someone who happened to be in the picture.”

“As dramatic as the discovery of this photograph is after thirty years,” says Michael Sullivan, FRONTLINE executive producer for special projects, “one should be cautious in ascribing its meaning. The photograph does give much support to the eyewitnesses who say they saw Ferrie and Oswald together in the C.A.P., and it makes Ferrie’s denials that he ever knew Oswald less credible. But it does not prove that the two men were with each other in 1963, nor that they were involved in a conspiracy to kill the president.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... of-a-life/
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron