+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters (/thread-10209.html)
CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters - Greg Burnham - 19-01-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:I think the magic bullet would be more of a determiner of two separate shots on JFK and Connally than the Zapruder Film.
I think that "your" writing style, alternating from eloquent verse to imbecilic prose, is more of a "determiner" of at least two separate entities than is your IP address.
CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters - Charles Drago - 19-01-2013
The point here: How could dissemination of this fact, among so many other official acknowledgments of the truth, bring us closer to ...
WHAT, exactly?
What do we want? I've been posing this question, in print and from podiums, to my brothers and sisters in the JFK assassination research community for nearly 20 years.
I've yet to discern a consensus answer.
What will satisfy us?
How is "justice" defined in this case?
When will these factoids come together, reach critical mass, and bring about change?
Change for the better?
Because truth be told, nearly 50 years after the first questions regarding the LN conclusion were raised, the revelation that the "CIA director told RFK there were two shooters" begs a response worthy of Miles Davis:
"So what?"
CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters - Charles Drago - 19-01-2013
Andrew Gray Wrote:The snarkiness, in fighting and almost constant chorus of "you're a shill" (especially concerning JFK/RFK) in this thread is a microcosm of why this board has all of what, 10 regular posters? I remember being able to access much better and more numerous information from the previous incarnation of the board a few years back, before whatever "coup" of the board took place and turned it into what it is now. Yeah I know, I'm probably a shill, too.
Of what "coup" do you write, Mr. Gray?
How have you arrived at your tally of "10 regular posters," Mr. Gray?
I suggest you get your history right before you comment on it.
Why not open a new thread in which you offer well-considered criticism of what DPF has "become"? It will be welcomed. I promise you.
While you're at it, you might wish to proffer a compelling argument for how ignoring Sunsteinian attacks on forums such as DPF helps preserve and protect our work.
Unless, of course, you're of the opinion that no such attacks take place.
CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters - Albert Doyle - 20-01-2013
Bill Kelly Wrote:Doesn't anyone want to discuss the fact that the Director of the CIA told RFK he thought there were two people involved in the shooting?
JFKcountercoup: CIA Director told RFK Two People Shooting at JFK
Yeah, I do. This scares me because it makes you wonder how much of Fetzer's film forgery claim is correct? It begs the question what exactly did Lundal and McCone see that made them determine that? Was it the backwards movement or was it JFK's brains blowing back on to the trunk that was then altered and removed at CIA? This gives me the creeps because it opens the door to the skull flap possibly being forged-in. The reason it makes my skin crawl is because it creates the possibility, like Fetzer says, of the Zapruder Film being deliberately designed in advance in order to support pre-determined film-forgeries of wounds. Particularly, the skull flap wound. The reason this is extra creepy is because if the Parkland wounds are accurate and the parietal area, witnessed as being intact by the nurse, was undamaged that means it is possible the skull flap wound seen bursting open in Zapruder is a forgery. And if it is a forgery it makes you ask where in God's name did CIA get the film clip of a man's head being blasted open? Whose head was that and where was it shot and by whom? Of course the skull flap could still be JFK's and only the rear wound was altered.
God help anyone who references Fetzer now, but in this one case he might be right. Which only proves the biggest casualty of Fetzer's recent bizarre claims is Fetzer's own previous credible claims.
CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters - Jim DiEugenio - 20-01-2013
It doesn't mean that at all Albert.
Anyone who watches the film the first time without introduction thinks that way.
When millions saw it on TV, that was the reaction. I mean it was like an electric current went off underground.
Same as when it was in Stone's film to a new generation.
So when analysts first saw the film that night, yeah that was the reaction.
Further, in Don Adams' book, one of the gems in it is his first reaction upon seeing the film in Dallas with other FBI agents. When they walked out of the screening, he said, its obvious that he was hit by two different snipers. They said, well yeah, we all know that. But that is not what the Director wants us to say.
Same thing when Sprague's HSCA saw the film. LJ Delsa said it had to be two directions and two different calibre weapons due to the two reactions.
Because the other side has come up with so many excuses and rationalizations--Alvarez and the jet effect, Sturdivan and the neuromuscular reaction--people forget how powerful the film is as evidence. It proves conspiracy in at least four different ways.
But that's not enough for some people.
CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters - Peter Lemkin - 20-01-2013
Despite the tampering, after the fact, with the Z-film it still clearly shows conspiracy! Further, it shows that the official version, pushed by the Government and their minions, is false and was known to be false.
CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters - Jan Klimkowski - 20-01-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:Bill Kelly Wrote:Doesn't anyone want to discuss the fact that the Director of the CIA told RFK he thought there were two people involved in the shooting?
JFKcountercoup: CIA Director told RFK Two People Shooting at JFK
Yeah, I do. This scares me because it makes you wonder how much of Fetzer's film forgery claim is correct? It begs the question what exactly did Lundal and McCone see that made them determine that? Was it the backwards movement or was it JFK's brains blowing back on to the trunk that was then altered and removed at CIA? This gives me the creeps because it opens the door to the skull flap possibly being forged-in. The reason it makes my skin crawl is because it creates the possibility, like Fetzer says, of the Zapruder Film being deliberately designed in advance in order to support pre-determined film-forgeries of wounds. Particularly, the skull flap wound. The reason this is extra creepy is because if the Parkland wounds are accurate and the parietal area, witnessed as being intact by the nurse, was undamaged that means it is possible the skull flap wound seen bursting open in Zapruder is a forgery. And if it is a forgery it makes you ask where in God's name did CIA get the film clip of a man's head being blasted open? Whose head was that and where was it shot and by whom? Of course the skull flap could still be JFK's and only the rear wound was altered.
God help anyone who references Fetzer now, but in this one case he might be right. Which only proves the biggest casualty of Fetzer's recent bizarre claims is Fetzer's own previous credible claims.
Fetzer's version of Zapruder alteration, with a pre-shoot - grisly pun intended - is fantastic nonsense.
For a much more credible and achievable version of Zapruder alteration, see the thread here.
CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters - Charles Drago - 20-01-2013
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Despite the tampering, after the fact, with the Z-film it still clearly shows conspiracy! Further, it shows that the official version, pushed by the Government and their minions, is false and was known to be false.
I would add that the discovery of Z-film alteration not only was inevitable; it was part of the plan.
If we didn't discover alteration, it would have been "discovered" for us.
Which may indeed have happened ...
CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters - Albert Doyle - 20-01-2013
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:It doesn't mean that at all Albert.
Anyone who watches the film the first time without introduction thinks that way.
When millions saw it on TV, that was the reaction. I mean it was like an electric current went off underground.
Same as when it was in Stone's film to a new generation.
So when analysts first saw the film that night, yeah that was the reaction.
Further, in Don Adams' book, one of the gems in it is his first reaction upon seeing the film in Dallas with other FBI agents. When they walked out of the screening, he said, its obvious that he was hit by two different snipers. They said, well yeah, we all know that. But that is not what the Director wants us to say.
Same thing when Sprague's HSCA saw the film. LJ Delsa said it had to be two directions and two different calibre weapons due to the two reactions.
Because the other side has come up with so many excuses and rationalizations--Alvarez and the jet effect, Sturdivan and the neuromuscular reaction--people forget how powerful the film is as evidence. It proves conspiracy in at least four different ways.
But that's not enough for some people.
I don't disagree. However if the film is altered it leaves people trying to figure-out what happened treading water as far as having anything solid by which to make any determination. Which was probably their purpose. I used to give Devil's Advocate possibility to the shots shown in Zapruder but now understand the evidence is so deeply corrupted that frontal shots are being hidden. What this all comes down to is was the skull flap area undamaged at Parkland or was it miraculously pushed back in place by Jackie?
By the way, Paul Baker is an ignorable ass who isn't giving honest recognition to the facts.
CIA Director Told RFK There Were Two Shooters - Charles Drago - 20-01-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:However if the film is altered it leaves people trying to figure-out what happened treading water as far as having anything solid by which to make any determination.
WHAT???
This Three Mile Island of a sentence seems intended to invite the inference that it was written by the "Albert Doyle" of the moment -- as opposed to the "Albert Doyle" who authored previously alluded to long, relatively eloquent posts -- to stir the agent provocateur pot once again.
Two shooters. Two (or more) "Doyle" posters.
Who besides Messrs. Burnham and Josephs joins me in expressing outrage over this ongoing provocation?
And it gets worse:
Albert Doyle Wrote:By the way, Paul Baker is an ignorable ass who isn't giving honest recognition to the facts.
This is a reference by "Doyle" to an EF denizen -- an addled LNer who kisses the inverted crucifixes of McAdams and Rahn. Either "Doyle" is simply copying and pasting "his" EF drivel, or "his" intentions are to draw attention to Baker and rekindle old hostilities.