Quite possibly the best documentary I’ve viewed in ages.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Not surprisingly, you're yet again wrong, on both counts.

The speech is from April 1961, two and a half years before he died. And if you had bothered to watch it all and not simply quote mine, its a speech about the Cold War and the Soviet Union.

You're right was badly worded YouTube page I saw that said it was a JFK speech from 1963.

Second part. I think his talk about secrecy from within government and people attempting to keep secrets from the public?

Here his speech
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You're right was badly worded YouTube page I saw that said it was a JFK speech from 1963.

Second part. I think his talk about secrecy from within government and people attempting to keep secrets from the public?

Here his speech

Nope, thats a small part of the speech you have quote mined to back up your weird agenda.

This part of the speech has been around for decades in conspiracy circles. Old news. Old, pathetic news.

Quote Mine
Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

mcmoustache

King Mob wrote: »

I don't understand why people do this...

I think it's a bit like Jordan Peterson fans who post videos instead of backing up their positions themselves.

They watch these videos themselves and are made to FEEL smart after watching it. They FEEL like they have just learned something and they FEEL validated that they are smarter for watching it. However, when they try to articulate something about the video, they either draw a blank or stop themselves because they start to see the absurdity when they put it into their own words.

But, that FEELING that they got when they watched the video was very real and they can't let that go. There had to be something to it even if they can't express it properly themselves so that's why they post the video.

If only you would watch the long video, you too would get that same feeling and be a fan and therefore validate the posters feeling of smartness.

The above is just an opinion of mine and isn't backed up by anything more than guesses on my part so take it with a pinch of salt.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Nope, thats a small part of the speech you have quote mined to back up your weird agenda.

This part of the speech has been around for decades in conspiracy circles. Old news. Old, pathetic news.

Quote Mine
Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

I have to disagree, for me his talking about keeping secrets from the American public about national security, . He talks about the cold war during the speech, but you are dismissing parts of the speech were he clearly talks about people who cover up their mistakes, people who act in secret covertly, and no spending is questioned. That sounds like a warning by JFK this happens and he's going to oppose it. 

The full speech is here, let users make up their own minds about it. 
https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-newspaper-publishers-association-19610427

Cheerful Spring2

Nal, he outlines at start of speech what is about.

Quote by JFK.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

I've seen it. Should be called "Everything is a conspiracy".

Its bat**** crazy for the most part. If I remember correctly they say JFK was shot 16 times by 8 shooters or something. lol.

I dislike the video for that reason. Watched some of it and 8 assassins is not realistic, that way too many and it's a more risky operation.

I'm open to three shooter teams- three shooters, and three back up guys watching out in case they get caught. 

I know you believe Oswald acted alone.

Cheerful Spring2

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

This. Even a small hint to what it's about?

Mostly about JFK, skimmed through it. There accurate information, mixed in with conjecture and opinion. There some 9/11 information also.

The narrator believes what written in history books is false, that the world is run by undercover coverts means, and that rich men have engineered it that way. I don't necessarily quarrel with some of the suggestions in this video.

For me JFK and 9/11 are clear covert secret operations achieved by unknown people, in the background.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have to disagree, for me his talking about keeping secrets from the American public about national security, . He talks about the cold war during the speech, but you are dismissing parts of the speech were he clearly talks about people who cover up their mistakes, people who act in secret covertly, and no spending is questioned. That sounds like a warning by JFK this happens and he's going to oppose it. 

The full speech is here, let users make up their own minds about it. 
https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-newspaper-publishers-association-19610427

The speech is about the Soviet Union and resisting communism. I've no idea why its been brought up in a conspiracy forum.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I dislike the video for that reason. Watched some of it and 8 assassins is not realistic, that way too many and it's a more risky operation.

I'm open to three shooter teams- three shooters, and three back up guys watching out in case they get caught. 

I know you believe Oswald acted alone.

Yes because thats what 56 years of investigation and evidence prove. There is no evidence whatsoever for 3 teams of shooters and "three back up guys".

"Three back up guys".

lol.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Yes because thats what 56 years of investigation and evidence prove. There is no evidence whatsoever for 3 teams of shooters and "three back up guys".

"Three back up guys".

lol.

Disagree about the speech.

The evidence: The doctors all claim the back of the head got blown out behind the ear. That an exit wound. 

Entry wound is smaller. There was a second shooter based on the evidence. 

They even had to conjure up a theory that one bullet hit two people and caused multiple injuries to both Kennedy and Connelly. 

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Disagree about the speech.

Of course you do.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#.27Secret_Societies.27_speech

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Of course you do.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#.27Secret_Societies.27_speech

Quote by JFK.
This was start of his speech, he told the audience what is about..

You can believe he talking only about the Soviet Union, if you like.

JFK
"This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Quote by JFK.
This was start of his speech, he told the audience what is about..

You can believe he talking only about the Soviet Union, if you like.

JFK
"This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

Oh look another quote mine! Read or watch the whole speech. What is is with conspiracy nutters and full rounded facts? With truth?

Cold war environment (Cuban Missle Crisis was 18 months later) and it was a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association!

But yeah, hes really lifting the lid on secret societies out of the blue and thats why he was killed. Two and a half years later.

Garden variety conspiracy theories.

Granny15

Saw a brilliant doc on the Afrikaaners spreading AIDS in Africa:

It starts out looking at the assassination of UN Secretary General in 1960's but uncovers a much deeper plot:

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Hammarskj%C3%B6ld-Mads-Br%C3%BCgger/dp/B07WJJ713Q/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=Cj0KCQiA04XxBRD5ARIsAGFygj_II-uNqYqVq6iQEoAMQWHEq8omlEFJcf91Imd4-G-97UfHaSU4twYaAkooEALw_wcB&hvadid=358494089938&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=1019973&hvnetw=g&hvpos=2t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=11586862142638127598&hvtargid=kwd-753955388089&hydadcr=13959_10210617&keywords=cold+case+hammarskj%C3%B6ld&qid=1579256443&sr=8-1

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Oh look another quote mine! Read or watch the whole speech. What is is with conspiracy nutters and full rounded facts? With truth?

Cold war environment (Cuban Missle Crisis was 18 months later) and it was a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association!

But yeah, hes really lifting the lid on secret societies out of the blue and thats why he was killed. Two and a half years later.

Garden variety conspiracy theories.

Where did i say any of that in my post?

You claim the speech was solely about the Soviet Union and Cold War.

JFK outlined what the speech was about
1: greater public information
2: Official Secrecy

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Where did i say any of that in my post?

You claim the speech was solely about the Soviet Union and Cold War.

JFK outlined what the speech was about
1: greater public information
2: Official Secrecy

You don't have the attention span to read or listen to all of the speech.

Again, I've no idea why a speech about the Soviet Union and communism is being brought up on a conspiracy forum.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

You don't have the attention span to read or listen to all of the speech.

Again, I've no idea why a speech about the Soviet Union and communism is being brought up on a conspiracy forum.

It clear his talk about his own government here, not the Soviet Union.


The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It clear his talk about his own government here, not the Soviet Union.


The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

Yes, he mentions freedom of press.

So what?

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Yes, he mentions freedom of press.

So what?

Yes, it's speech to the press. He telling them his opposed to secret proceeding, secret oaths, secret societies. And that he will not allow censorship of things the public deserves to know. It also clear he worries about national security.  
Is it overly clear if his referring to his own national security state here ( miitary industrial complex) or the Soviet Union?

JFK speech.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

The Nal

Hes clearly talking about communism.

This is just weird now.

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I dislike the video for that reason. Watched some of it and 8 assassins is not realistic, that way too many and it's a more risky operation.

I'm open to three shooter teams- three shooters, and three back up guys watching out in case they get caught. 

I know you believe Oswald acted alone.

To be clear.......you think 8 shooters is too much, but 6 is believable?

The Nal

Deleted User wrote: »

To be clear.......you think 8 shooters is too much, but 6 is believable?

Oh you've seen nothing yet.

Have a wander over here.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057932231

Cheerful Spring2

Deleted User wrote: »

To be clear.......you think 8 shooters is too much, but 6 is believable?

Three shooters, and back-up team of spotters and watchers, there to stop anyone catching and running up on the three shooters firing at Kennedy.

I think there was a shooter behind Kennedy. A shooter at South Knoll, at the bridge near the grass. Another shooter at the Grassy Knoll/ Stockyard.

You can even see the fragment of a bullet hit the front/ middle windscreen of Kennedy limo. The South knoll shooter.

Cheerful Spring2

Shifty. When Dallas motorcycle policeman ran up to towards grassy knoll, about a minute after the shooting, he stopped a guy in a suit and he flashed a secret service badge and he was let go. It was later confirmed by the White House secret service that they had no people up there on Grassy Knoll. There was a con artist and imposter up there flashing a badge 

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Shifty. When Dallas motorcycle policeman ran up to towards grassy knoll, about a minute after the shooting, he stopped a guy in a suit and he flashed a secret service badge and he was let go. It was later confirmed by the White House secret service that they had no people up there on Grassy Knoll. There was a con artist and imposter up there flashing a badge 

Why?

The Nal

Youtube doing a decent job here

YouTube has nearly halved the number of conspiracy theory videos it recommends

Study here

https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/arxiv20.pdf

Dohnjoe

Google not doing a bad job changing their algorithms also, a few years back a cursory search for just about any conspiracy laden subject (911, JFK, etc) would directly bring up conspiracy results rather than factual sources - now they are a good bit down the list

It's subtle but effective. Hopefully they keep tuning it.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Google not doing a bad job changing their algorithms also, a few years back a cursory search for just about any conspiracy laden subject (911, JFK, etc) would directly bring up conspiracy results rather than factual sources - now they are a good bit down the list

It's subtle but effective. Hopefully they keep tuning it.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Why?

Why?
It is suspicious there be an individual floating around the stockyard minutes after the shooting. When a motorcycle cop saw and approached him he flashed a secret service badge.. The White house established later, secret service agents, were not guarding that area. It was Dallas not Washington DC. The secret agents travelled with Kennedy they are all accounted for during the trip.

You also don’t find it questionable Ruby shot Oswald either. Even though his life history shows him involved in gunrunning to Cuba and helping the rebels fight Castro Plus we know he had organised crime/mob connections. Who are the main JFK conspirators, the mob and the CIA.

Ruby already admitted there was a conspiracy on tape. 

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why?
It is suspicious there be an individual floating around the stockyard minutes after the shooting. When a motorcycle cop saw and approached him he flashed a secret service badge.. The White house established later, secret service agents, were not guarding that area. It was Dallas not Washington DC. The secret agents travelled with Kennedy they are all accounted for during the trip.

You also don’t find it questionable Ruby shot Oswald either. Even though his life history shows him involved in gunrunning to Cuba and helping the rebels fight Castro Plus we know he had organised crime/mob connections. Who are the main JFK conspirators, the mob and the CIA.

Ruby already admitted there was a conspiracy on tape. 

A conspiracy against him in his legal case. Nothing to do with a conspiracy involving JFK, Oswald or anything else. You know this, yet weirdly you keep on saying it. It shows a real lack of understanding and lack of knowledge.

Predicting your net post will be that quote mine of a video from Rubys press conference.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

A conspiracy against him in his legal case. Nothing to do with a conspiracy involving JFK, Oswald or anything else. You know this, yet weirdly you keep on saying it. It shows a real lack of understanding and lack of knowledge.

Predicting your net post will be that quote mine of a video from Rubys press conference.

You just twist Ruby words for an agenda. They detained him for the murder of Oswald. He told a live audience the truth would not be allowed to be told about his involvement in the murder. When asked by journalists who will not allow the truth to be told. He said the higher ups. You forget the incident in Chicago weeks before. Where there likely had another Oswald patsy set up to take the fall there for the crime. Kennedy called off the trip to Chicago after he travelled to Dallas. The suspect in Chicago had almost an identical profile to Oswald. An Ex US marine, vulnerable, and bit crazy. 

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You just twist Ruby words for an agenda. They detained him for the murder of Oswald. He told a live audience the truth would not be allowed to be told about his involvement in the murder. When asked by journalists who will not allow the truth to be told. He said the higher ups.

This is complete waffle. Puffy detail free waffle.

"A live audience". lol.

Willing to discuss other matters in the case but everyone knows this isn't true. You're hanging on one line out of context. Read about him, listen to his interview from 1966. "There is nothing to hide...there was no one else".

Like, proper details, a deeper understanding, facts. You're a hillside grazer of conspiracy theories.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You forget the incident in Chicago weeks before. Where there likely had another Oswald patsy set up to take the fall there for the crime. Kennedy called off the trip to Chicago after he travelled to Dallas. The suspect in Chicago had almost an identical profile to Oswald. An Ex US marine, vulnerable, and bit crazy. 

I haven't forgotten about it. Garden variety conspiracy theory wording. "People forget, you forget, we now know, I read somewhere, I've heard people say".

Kennedy called off the Chicago trip before Dallas. He was killed in Dallas. He wouldn't have been able to call off the Chicago trip after Dallas because he was dead.

There was also what was likely a Cuban hit squad in Chicago who the Secret Service lost when tracking them, hence the cancellation. Pro Castro Cubans hated JFK, anti Castro Cubans hated him, US military hated him, anti communists hated him, LBJ hated him. Loads of enemies.

JFK had threats made against him wherever he went. Hundreds an hundreds throughout his presidency. Three of them when he came to Ireland for example.

This proves nothing.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

This is complete waffle. Puffy detail free waffle.

"A live audience". lol.

Willing to discuss other matters in the case but everyone knows this isn't true. You're hanging on one line out of context. Read about him, listen to his interview from 1966. "There is nothing to hide...there was no one else".

Like, proper details, a deeper understanding, facts. You're a hillside grazer of conspiracy theories.



I haven't forgotten about it. Garden variety conspiracy theory wording. "People forget, you forget, we now know, I read somewhere, I've heard people say".

Kennedy called off the Chicago trip before Dallas. He was killed in Dallas. He wouldn't have been able to call off the Chicago trip after Dallas because he was dead.

There was also what was likely a Cuban hit squad in Chicago who the Secret Service lost when tracking them, hence the cancellation. Pro Castro Cubans hated JFK, anti Castro Cubans hated him, US military hated him, anti communists hated him, LBJ hated him. Loads of enemies.

JFK had threats made against him wherever he went. Hundreds an hundreds throughout his presidency. Three of them when he came to Ireland for example.

This proves nothing.

Lot of waffle here more like.
How would Oswald know the route of the motorcade?
He just bought a gun in the hope the parade might pass down that way?
A secret service agent confirmed there was a plot in Chicago to kill Kennedy.
Nothing suspious about a mob guy killing the guy who allegedly shot the president.
There nothing odd here, that Oswald was stationed in a CIA base in Japan? So He was recruited by intelligence?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Lot of waffle here more like.
How would Oswald know the route of the motorcade?

It was reported in the newspaper 4 days before.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

He just bought a gun in the hope the parade might pass down that way?

He knew the motorcade was passing by his building.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A secret agent confirmed there was a plot in Chicago to kill Kennedy.
Nothing suspious about a mob guy killing the guy who allegedly shot the president.
There nothing odd here, that Oswald was stationed in a CIA base in Japan? So He was recruited by intelligence?

Broad strokes. Loads of assumptions, no facts.

No thanks. This isn't even a JFK thread

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

It was reported in the newspaper 4 days before.





He knew the motorcade was passing by his building.



Broad strokes. Loads of assumptions, no facts.

No thanks.

When did he buy his gun again?
Are you claiming he bought it four days before the shooting?
We know Kennedy was going to Love Field, he could have gone other ways to get there on the map.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

When did he buy his gun again?

March 63. A few weeks before he tried to killed General Walker.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Are you claiming he bought it four days before the shooting?

No.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We know Kennedy was going to Love Field, he could have gone other ways to get there on the map.

JFK left Love Field to travel through the motorcade route to lunch at the Dallas Trade Mart.

So no, we don't know he was going to Love field. Literally the opposite.

Cheerful Spring2

Nal you have no clue. U-2 flights was a top secret project in the 60s. Oswald would have had to have top secret clearances to even be involved in this project. Oswald was clearly intelligence.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nal you have no clue. U-2 flights was a top secret project in the 60s. Oswald would have had to have top secret clearances to even be involved in this project. Oswald was clearly intelligence.

You're jumping around from point to point like a lunatic and posting things that are completely wrong.

Yes, Oswald was a radar operator in Japan. And California. His clearance was "confidential", not top secret.

Another thing you've got wrong.

Which of us has no clue?

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

You're jumping around from point to point like a lunatic and posting things that are completely wrong.

Yes, Oswald was a radar operator in Japan. And California. His clearance was "confidential", not top secret.

Another thing you've got wrong.

Which of has no clue?

A radar operator station that watched U2 planes flying over the Soviet Union. The base was CIA, that's well known. How does a lonely marine get picked for that job? It a job requirement that involves intelligence.

This was second highest rank known project behind the nuclear bomb. You not involved in this unless you got recruited.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A radar operator station that watched U2 planes flying over the Soviet Union. The base was CIA, that's well known. How does a lonely marine get picked for that job? It a job requirement that involves intelligence.

This was second highest rank known project behind the nuclear bomb. You not involved in this unless you got recruited.

He scored well in the radar operator course he did in the military base and was chosen based on that.

You're doing standard garden variety conspiracy theorist stuff here. Assuming its a conspiracy and then erratically looking for info to suit that agenda. Thats not how it works unfortunately.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

March 63. A few weeks before he tried to killed General Walker.



No.



JFK left Love Field to travel through the motorcade route to lunch at the Dallas Trade Mart.

So no, we don't know he was going to Love field. Literally the opposite.

The bullet was a 30.06 calibre, that hit General Walker. Was never traced to the rifle in Dallas. The bullets in Dallas are 6.5mm.

You right about the mart, i thought it was close to Love Field.
Have you the full newpaper article what to see the date on it and when it was published?

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

He scored well in the radar operator course he did in the military base and was chosen based on that.

You're doing standard garden variety conspiracy theorist stuff here. Assuming its a conspiracy and then erratically looking for info to suit that agenda. Thats not how it works unfortunately.

There hundreds of radar operators in the US military. Scoring well doesn't mean you be given the job. You have to show you can keep things secret. Oswald was intelligence. There no way he be allowed to travel to the Soviet Union if he wasn't. He saw the advanced technology and could easily have given the tech knowledge to the Soviets.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The bullet was a 30.06 calibre, that hit General Walker. Was never traced to the rifle in Dallas. The bullets in Dallas are 6.5mm.

You right about the mart, i thought it was close to Love Field.
Have you the full newpaper article what to see the date on it and when it was published?

Its available online and is common knowledge.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There hundreds of radar operators in the US military. Scoring well doesn't mean you be given the job. You have to show you can keep things secret. Oswald was intelligence. There no way he be allowed to travel to the Soviet Union if he wasn't. He saw the advanced technology and could easily have given the tech knowledge to the Soviets.

He did give info to the Soviets. Nothing they didn't know already so they tried to deport him and thats when he tried to kill himself.

They don't give out "intelligence" jobs (whatever that means) to 18 year olds. And they don't send spies to the Soviet Union with discoverable US military history experience, US names, US accents, US passports and pre authorised visas with their real name and the fact they're American. Kinda defeats the purpose.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Its available online and is common knowledge.



He did give info to the Soviets. Nothing they didn't know already so they tried to deport him and thats when he tried to kill himself.

Where exactly? Save time for me, post a link to the paper.

Oswald was intelligence. Which opens him up to be recruited as a spy. It explains why he travelled to the Soviet Union and came home and was left alone. He likely feed the Soviets fake info. It's unknown, did the Soviets know about his involvement with the U-2 project?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Where exactly? Save time for me, post a link to the paper.

It would be nice to see you do your own research.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Oswald was intelligence. Which opens him up to be recruited as a spy. It explains why he travelled to the Soviet Union and came home and was left alone. He likely feed the Soviets fake info. It's unknown, did the Soviets know about his involvement with the U-2 project

Again, you're starting from an assumption and working backwards to meet that assumption. Its not logical.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

They don't give out "intelligence" jobs (whatever that means) to 18 year olds.

What age was Snowden when he worked for NSA ( early 20s) Oswald went to Soviet Union aged 20.

You forget Oswald was involved in civil air patrol at a very young age. He spend most of his life in an orphanage. He was a hard nut already.

Whos knows someone in intelligence may have noticed he had maturity for someone this young, could keep a secret, and did not crack easily under pressure. And he was bright. Perfect candidate for intelligence field work.

jmreire

Man see's a documentary which he find's very interesting...so interesting in fact, he watches it for more than 3 hour's and is so impressed with it that he share's it with other people on a public forum, and triggers response's which beggar's belief...anyone would think that he was selling ring side seat's to a public performance..... and therefore must justify it !!! All anyone has to do is to watch 5-10 mins of the documentary, and see what they think, if they find it interesting well and good, watch it all, if not, switch over to something else,no problem. For me,all I can say is " Thank You" for sharing.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

It would be nice to see you do your own research.



Again, you're starting from an assumption and working backwards to meet that assumption. Its not logical.

You provided this paper as evidence Oswald knew the route four days before. This is a assumption. I just want to see the date the paper was printed to confirm that

Why would you overlook the evidence Oswald was stationed at CIA base in Japan. And we know he was radar operator there spying on the Soviet Union. U-2 flights is a top secret project. It not a giant leap to believe Oswald role was intelligence gathering and that requires security clearances at the very highest level.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You provided this paper as evidence Oswald knew the route four days before. This is a assumption. I just want to see the date the paper was printed to confirm that

Its not an assumption. Its fact. Why were all the people out on those specific streets to see JFK? Because the route was published on November 19th.

You could have easily googled this and found it yourself but as it doesn't suit your agenda, you didn't bother.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why would you overlook the evidence Oswald was stationed at CIA base in Japan. And we know he was radar operator there spying on Russia. U-2 flights is a top secret project. It not a giant leap to believe Oswald role was intelligence gathering and that requires security clearances at the very highest level.

I haven't overlooked it.

Yes it is a giant leap to believe Oswalds role was intelligence gathering and that requires security clearances at the very highest level. Theres no evidence whatsoever to support it. He didn't have top secret clearance. He was 17 and 18 years of age. He shot himself by accident in Japan and was also court-martialed twice. Once for the shooting and once for fighting with his Sergeant. He was demoted to private. These are not the actions of someone being recruited as a top spy. He was too young and had an attitude problem. These are facts.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What age was Snowden when he worked for NSA ( early 20s) Oswald went to Soviet Union aged 20.

You forget Oswald was involved in civil air patrol at a very young age.

I did not forget that.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Whos knows someone in intelligence may have noticed he had maturity for someone this young, could keep a secret, and did not crack easily under pressure. And he was bright. Perfect candidate for intelligence field work.

Again, no evidence at all to support that. Do you think the CIA were sending spies to Moscow by train with their real identities and passports?!

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Its not an assumption. Its fact. Why were all the people out on those specific streets to see JFK? Because the route was published on November 19th.

You could have easily googled this and found it yourself but as it doesn't suit your agenda, you didn't bother.





I haven't overlooked it.

Yes it is a giant leap to believe Oswalds role was intelligence gathering and that requires security clearances at the very highest level. Theres no evidence whatsoever to support it. He didn't have top secret clearance. He was 17 and 18 years of age. He shot himself by accident in Japan and was also court-martialed twice. Once for the shooting and once for fighting with his Sergeant. He was demoted to private. These are not the actions of someone being recruited as a top spy. He was too young and had an attitude problem. These are facts.



I did not forget that.



Again, no evidence at all to support that. Do you think the CIA were sending spies to Moscow by train with their real identities and passports?!

Your assumption is he read the paper and then learned the route that way. You have know way of nothing how he learned about the route. May have heard it said at work or somewhere else in the days before Kennedy arrived?

Debunkers like to claim he bought this Carcano rifle for killing Kennedy.  They used the link, the shooting of General Walker as evidence this rifle was used. Forgetting the bullet found at General Walker residence was not the same calibre round found in Dallas. There no evidence at all Oswald bought a Carcano rifle weeks before to Kill Kennedy and Walker. He would need to know weeks in advance the route to plan out the Kennedy killing and place himself at the TSBD for the shooting. 

Nal you constantly ignore the supporting evidence here. Oswald tried to phone an intelligence officer in Raleigh when at the Jail in Dallas. He was reaching out to get help? We know from testimony agents at the jail would not allow the the call to go through to the intelligence officer. Oswald was likely double crossed and he figured it out when Kennedy was shot and probably tried to confront one of his handlers when caught later over the phone.

You downplay his experience here.

He would not be involved in U2- Flight intelligence gathering if he was a crackpot. It was a likely a cover story (sheep- dip) So he could be passed off a civilian who the military wanted to be rid off.  Oswald travelled to the Soviet Union and back again with no questions asked about his trip. Even brought over a Russian Wife., nothing odd about that.

Hagar7

jmreire wrote: »

Man see's a documentary which he find's very interesting...so interesting in fact, he watches it for more than 3 hour's and is so impressed with it that he share's it with other people on a public forum, and triggers response's which beggar's belief...anyone would think that he was selling ring side seat's to a public performance..... and therefore must justify it !!! All anyone has to do is to watch 5-10 mins of the documentary, and see what they think, if they find it interesting well and good, watch it all, if not, switch over to something else,no problem. For me,all I can say is " Thank You" for sharing.

You’re welcome.:D