Alkuun OneBigRedille:
"Tokihan tuokin sivusto kallistuu akselilla salaliitto-Oswald salaliiton puolelle, mutta tarkoitin ettei mitään yksittäistä salaliittoa pidetä siinä varmana, vaan esitellään eri teorioita."
Sivustosta löytyy toki luku, joka on erikseen varattu erilaisille teorioille. Tekijän sanoma ei nähdäkseni kuitenkaan ole eri salaliittoteorioilla spekulointi, vaan nimenomaan objektiivinen lähestymistapa sille, voiko virallinen versio pitää paikkansa. Hänen oma johtopäätöksensä koskien tätä avainkysymystä ei jää epäselväksi. Parasta kaikessa on kuitenkin lukijalle välittyvä tunne, että tutkija lähestyy aihetta oikeassa järjestyksessä: Tarkoitus ei siis ollut todistaa olleensa, suuntaan tai toiseen, oikeassa jo alunperin, vaan tarkoitus oli ensin tehdä ennakkoluuloton, asiallinen ja puolueeton tutkimus, ja vetää vasta sen jälkeen kaikkein todennäköisimmät johtopäätökset. Itse asiassa juuri tämä tekijä kertomansa mukaan uskoi aluksi virallista versiota, aivan kuten kuka tahansa muukin, jolla ei ollut muuta tietoa saati syytä epäillä mediassa vellovaa "totuutta". Mieli muuttui matkan varrella.
Tuossa Kaivannon mainitsemassa ketjussa, jonka avasin melkein kolme vuotta sitten, on useita linkkejä juuri OneBigRedin mainitsemalle sivustolle. Kyseinen sivusto on toki vain yksi muiden joukossa, ja asiasta kiinnostuneille erilaisia lähteitä voi enemmän kuin suositella. Siis niillekin, jotka uskovat viralliseen versioon, koska näin he saisivat ainakin näkemystä useista enemmän tai vähemmän objektiivisista tutkimuksista, jonka yksityiskohtia he voivat/saavat kyseenalaistaa (niin kuin pitääkin, jos aihetta on) ja mikäpä sen rakentavampaa, jos totuus vilpittömästi kiinnostaa. Tärkeintä kuitenkin on säilyttää ehdoton ennakkoluulottomuus ja terve kriittisyys kaikkea lukemaansa/tutkimaansa kohtaan. Väärässä olemisen myöntämiseltä välttyminen ei voi eikä saa olla itsetarkoitus.
Henkilökohtaisesti en enää nykyään jaksa olla aiheesta aivan yhtä kiinnostunut, mutta kokonaan se ei ajatuksistani katoa koskaan. Edelleen koen hyvin rassaavana sen, että virallisesti LHO mainitaan JFK:n murhaajana (ei siis aina edes epäiltynä), vaikka hänen syyllisyytensä ainoana murhaajana on äärimmäisenä epätodennäköinen, lähes mahdoton. Varmaa ainakin on, ettei kyseistä syytettä totisesti ole juridisesti pätevillä todisteilla koskaan toteen näytetty saati syytettyä rehellisessä oikeudenkäynnissä tuomittu. Kuitenkin virallinen amerikkalainen totuus esittää asian enemmän tai vähemmän kiistattomana faktana.
Warrenin komission siis päätyi siihen, että "kaikki todisteet viittaavat LHO:hon ainoana murhaajana". Copy-pastetanpa huvikseni esimerkiksi juuri The Kennedy Assassination for the Novice -sivuston erittäin pitkästä ja kiihkottoman objektiivisesta tekstistä muutamia erinomaisia yhteenvetoja, jotka ovat pääasiassa aivan loogisesti virallisista tutkimusraporteista, siis pääasiassa Warrenin Komission raportista, vedettyjä johtopäätöksiä, mutteivät tietty periaatteessa yhtään sen enempää "virallinen fakta". Varsin asiallisia vastakkaisiakin aiheeseen liityviä sivustoja on toki olemassa:
The simplest and very best way to look at this case is to use common sense.
When do you feel multiple "coincidences" become more than coincidence and start to show a sinister pattern? How many pieces of crucial evidence must disappear or be misidentified before you stop believing in them and the conclusions drawn from them?
I believe, and most police investigators would agree that, at a certain point, multiple coincidences become a pattern, rather than random events.
Can you believe that, accidentally, the president was hung out to dry, virtually under the window of a man who brought a rifle to work, that day, just in case such a scenario happened?
Can you believe that the soon-to-be assassin would carelessly show himself with rifle in hand prior to the motorcade showing up and yet go unmolested because, accidentally, there happened to be no security assigned at that exact point, as there usually should have been?
Can you believe that the Zapruder film would be accidentally broken during its developing at precisely the point when the first shots may have been fired?
Can you believe that a bullet which transversed 2 human beings, penetrated 8 different fabrics and broke or shattered 2 different bones could be found on a stretcher without the slightest hint of ever hitting anything solid, nor contain any blood or tissue which could tie it to either victim?
Can you believe that 3 trained pathologists could accidentally misrepresent the placement of 3 wounds, and then continue that mistake by testifying under oath?
Can you believe that a man with so few motor skills that he could not learn how to drive a car, could fire 3 shots, under incredible pressure, and accomplish what trained experts could not?
Can you believe that multiple federal agencies and Dallas police could mishandle and/or misidentify multiple clues in a major murder, because they were simply inept? Can you believe the same about the 3 pathologists?
Can you believe that an entire emergency room full of trained medical personnel could err in where they saw a "large, evulsive wound?"
Does it seem believable that x-rays and photographs, allegedly taken of the same body at the same time do not agree with each other OR the autopsy report done at the same time?
Was it just coincidence that the accused assassin never made it to trial, so that the evidence handling and autopsy "irregularities" could never be cross-examined?
Why is it that throughout the last 35+ years and continuing even today, members of the media, who so influence what you and I know about the world around us, would manipulate the facts to back the lone assassin conclusion?
Can you really believe that key pieces of evidence and reports on other key pieces of evidence in this case can be misplaced and disappear accidentally?
How many income tax returns do you think the Internal Revenue Service has ever lost? Would you find it believable if one belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald?
And that is just the tip of the iceberg...
Does any of that sound believable?
How about ALL of it?
---
"All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the governor's stretcher could have inflicted all the wounds."
- (Warren Commission Report, pg 95)
This statement, depicted as verified, established the most controversial and essential part of the Warren Commission's case against Lee Harvey Oswald: the legendary "Magic Bullet".
More researchers have attacked this part of the WCR case than any other. Both sides have since produced "experts" to back their beliefs. Only one side can be correct.
It is absolutely crucial to the WCR scenario that this theory be correct. If incorrect, there cannot be a single gunman.
Because of that statement, CE 399 (=Magic Bullet) became responsible for:
1) Entering JFK's neck/back at a downward angle of 18-20deg and
2) exiting his throat, possibly then nicking his tie, before
3) entering JBC, under the right arm, at a 39deg downward angle, while moving right to left, and continuing on to
4) shatter 10cm of rib, before
5) exiting just below his right nipple, headed right to left, then
6) entering and shattering the right wrist, and finally
7) exiting the wrist and wounding his left thigh, while
8) leaving a number of fragments throughout JBC, especially in his wrist and thigh and
9) leaving traces of copper on JFK's suit, then
10) leaving traces of copper in JBC's wounds and amazingly
11) losing no more than 3 grains (1/180th of an ounce) in original weight while
12) remaining virtually pristine in appearance.
---
Requiring “hard evidence” of a conspiracy is hypocritical when one realizes that they who defend the lone gunman scenario know full well that there is nothing within the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission study that can:
a) definitely place Lee Harvey Oswald, to the exclusion of all other people, on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository at 12:35PM on November 22, 1963
b) solidly prove that the single bullet theory is fact and not supposition
c) prove that whomever fired on November 22, 1963 acted alone
d) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the ballistically identifiable bullet and/or fragments allegedly recovered (including CE 399, the so-called magic bullet) actually impacted with John F. Kennedy.
---
If the Warren Commission Report was correct in its conclusions, then ALL of the following would have to be true. To defend that conclusion you must be able to explain, and believe in, each one of these statements:
1) The motorcade route through Dallas was accidentally set up to bring JFK, traveling at an extremely slow speed, within rifle range of LHO at the TSBD, the only time in recorded history that a major political figure was assassinated by someone who was unaided by others, not an insider and did not need to stalk his victim. Dallas SAIC Forrest Sorrels did this, accidentally, in direct violation of the strict Secret Service presidential motorcade security protocol.
2) LHO did not adequately plan for an escape prior to the attempt, since he left a considerable amount of money in Irving and his pistol at his Oak Cliff room. The money could have been used to leave Dallas immediately and the pistol may have been needed to escape the TSBD, had the security forces reacted properly. The failure to take the pistol is unfathomable since his only other weapon, the rifle, contained a maximum of 4 rounds of ammunition.
3) CE 139, the rifle, was transported by LHO to the TSBD, in a paper bag that showed no signs of any gun oil nor any evidence that the rifle had ever been inside it, despite bouncing around on the back seat of Buell Frazier's car all the way from Irving and while the bag was allegedly recovered on the 6th floor of the TSBD, it shows up in no police or media photographs or newsreel films where it was allegedly found.
4) Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle, the only two people to see that package, were both wrong in their estimates about the length of the bag that they saw.
5) All of the eyewitnesses who claimed to see one or more armed men in the 6th floor window of the TSBD before 12:15PM are wrong, since Oswald was seen elsewhere at that time.
6) Since Bonnie Ray Williams testified that he was eating his fried chicken and soda lunch on the 6th floor until at least 12:15PM (WC III, 168-175), we must believe that between 12:15PM and 12:30PM, LHO went from the 1st floor, where he was observed, to the 6th floor, unseen by anyone, retrieved his rifle, lined up his targets, fired 3 shots, and, within a maximum of 90 seconds, wiped the gun clean of prints, sprinted across the floor, hid the rifle, ran down 4 flights of stairs past another employee who didn't see nor hear him, found some change, bought, opened and started to drink a Coke, and was confronted by Officer Marrion Baker, without appearing nervous nor winded. While escaping he managed to run past at least 2 people who did not see him.
7) The numerous witnesses (including 10 Dallas Sheriff's Deputies) who, through the use of one or more of their senses, believed that some shots came from places other than the 6th floor of the TSBD, are all incorrect.
8) The reaction of JFK's head immediately after the impact of the fatal bullet is caused by "neuromuscular spasm" rather than Newton's Laws of Motion and it is normal that the rest of his body did not react to this spasm. Yet, this spasm was so intense that it more than overcame the momentum from the bullet.
9) The debris from JFK's head, including the "Harper Fragment", went back and to the left for reasons that overruled Newton's Laws of Momentum. If we conclude that the HSCA findings are accurate, all this debris came from an exit wound in the right front of Kennedy's head, yet went to the left rear of his position. If the "jet effect" theory, used to explain Kennedy's rearward head movement is correct, the debris which shot out of the right front of his head, somehow splattered the DPD motorcycle cops to the left rear of the limousine instead of the Connallys and Secret Service agents in front of JFK.
10) Oswald achieved 2 hits in three shots, and the one shot that missed, missed by at least 30 feet high and 21 feet to the right of his target. He achieved this while using a rifle with a misaligned scope that needed two metal shims, was mounted for a left-handed shooter and judged inaccurate at 15 yards, and possessing a firing pin so rusted that experts were later afraid to dry fire it.
11) He fired these 3 shots in 5.6 seconds.
12) He obtained this accuracy despite no evidence of ever practicing with the rifle (or ANY bolt-action rifle), owning any of the equipment necessary to maintain it, nor leaving any record of ever buying any ammunition to have practiced with.
13) Those people who saw someone believed to be Oswald, under highly visible circumstances, when he was documented to be elsewhere, are incorrect about either when it occurred or what they saw, and that these sightings could not possibly be an attempt by anyone to impersonate, and incriminate, LHO.
14) The 3 law enforcement officers who identified the rifle they found as a "7.65mm Mauser" in sworn statements they made, were all mistaken and the 5 reports that had descriptions of the rifle originally found but were missing from the files turned over to the Commission, were of no importance.
15) Despite the fact that the FBI's hand-picked experts, the HSCA Firearms Panel's experts , and numerous other experts around the world could never duplicate the shooting accuracy needed, within the time frame needed, using CE 139 in its original condition, LHO did it, under incredible pressure, on his first and only possible attempt.
16) CE 399, the "magic bullet", did all that it was alleged to do and yet, it retained all but 1/180 of an ounce of its original weight, was virtually pristine and totally devoid of any fabric striations or human matter. In addition, despite the fact that the first 4 people to handle the bullet found on the stretcher could not later identify CE 399 as that bullet, it was.
17) Despite the fact that basic trigonometry does not support the possibility for CE 399 to have wounded both men, it still did.
18) The observations of the placement of the wounds as seen by the attending medical personnel at Parkland Hospital are wrong since they disagree with the autopsy photographs and X-rays. It is therefore necessary to believe that a number of qualified doctors and nurses attempted to treat JFK while NOT KNOWING where his most prominent wound was.
19) The autopsy face sheet, death certificate, bullet holes in JFK's jacket and shirt, and FBI report and later re-enactment photographs, while all in agreement with each other, are incorrect in regards to the placement of the non-fatal wound. So is the autopsy report itself, since it agrees with neither its supporting documents and physical evidence, nor the autopsy photographs and X-rays.
20) The fatal head wound entered and exited through the back of JFK's head (autopsy report CE 391) unless it exited to the right front of his head (HSCA Medical Panel; X-rays) where it shattered his forehead to the base of the eye socket and did so without showing sufficient visible damage to be seen in the autopsy photographs.
21) The FBI report statement that Dr. Humes initially noted that there had been, "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull", is wrong.
22) All other information and conclusions derived from the original autopsy in regards to the direction of the shots is correct, despite the HSCA review of the autopsy photographs and X-rays which concluded that the non-fatal wound placement was off by 2" and the fatal bullet entrance wound being off by at least 4".
23) The HSCA testimony of Drs. Humes and Boswell shows them in agreement with the HSCA placement of the wounds and acknowledges their autopsy report mistakes in this regard.
24) HSCA exhibits F-53 and F-56, head X-rays of the President, are not in conflict with any of the autopsy photographs.
25) The fatal bullet caused damage to the scalp and brain remarkably similar to the surgery performed by pathologists while performing an autopsy, and used to recover fragments. Yet, only two of the fragments that caused them could be recovered and neither could be matched ballistically.
26) All of the witnesses who stated that they were told to remain quiet about what they knew or saw, or claimed that their actual testimony was misrepresented in the government studies, were lying or in error, and were not coerced or pressured by the conscious efforts of investigators intent on blaming Oswald.
27) Jack Ruby's actions after he murdered LHO, including his demeanor before and after being told that Oswald was dead, his statements to Earl Warren and others, and his multiple requests to be taken to Washington so that he could "tell the truth" meant nothing of importance.
28) The "Secret Service" impostors found near the picket fence on the knoll by the DPD, and earlier observed there by other witnesses, had nothing to do with the assassination or simply, never existed.
29) Despite the documented admissions of senior FBI and CIA officials that they would have suppressed any evidence uncovered that pointed to a conspiracy, they did not do so.
30) LHO also became the first major assassin in history to use public transportation to make his getaway from the scene of the crime.
31) Despite having the opportunity, means and ability to immediately leave Dallas unhindered by police, he elected to go back to his room and subsequently on to the Texas Theater, for no apparent reason.
32) In the end, it was more important for the Warren Commission to interview people who were acquainted with LHO when he was 12, than to interview all of the 200 people present in Dealey Plaza during the assassination.
33) The conclusions of the ARRB military documents expert, Douglas Horne, that 2 brain examinations were done on 2 different specimens, and the use of the examination of the wrong specimen for the record, are erroneous, despite the multitude of contradictions in recollections and FBI Special Agent Francis O'Neill's sworn statement that the brain photographs housed in the National Archives are not that of President Kennedy.
34) The multiple "coincidences" that pervade in this episode are just that, coincidences.
---
If Oswald were guilty why:
1) Did he do it? Crimes are always committed for a reason, what was his? Even the WCR couldn't answer this one. No one ever interviewed could recall him saying anything negative about JFK.
2) Did he buy and use a traceable rifle when he could have walked in off the street at any of the hundreds of gun shops in the greater Dallas-Fort Worth area and bought a rifle with no ID?
3) Was no cleaning equipment nor additional ammunition ever found?
4) Did he leave his pistol at his Oak Cliff room? Surely the possibility that he might need it to escape Dealey Plaza must have entered his mind? If he hid the rifle, surely the pistol wasn't a problem?
5) Did he leave $180.00 cash at the Paine residence, in Irving, money he might need after the assassination to escape?
6) Offer his cab to an elderly lady? Surely he would have been in a hurry to leave, especially after the bus he allegedly took first got caught in traffic.
7) Didn't he just take any outbound bus from the unguarded Greyhound terminal where he did catch the cab? Within hours he could have been hundreds of miles away, and no one would have known where to look for him.
8) Did he leave his Oak Cliff room? His employer did not have this address. Funny he would panic then, after being so cool at all the other times.
9) If he did murder Tippit, did he try to "hide out" in the Texas Theater and then draw attention to himself by entering without paying, even though he had enough money on him to buy a ticket?
10) If you think he wanted to get caught, why did he leave the TSBD and then, after being arrested, deny being the assassin? The psychology of the type assassin that Oswald is purported to be by Warren Commission defenders, someone seeking fame, is at odds with his actions. That type person readily admits that they performed the deed, they don't deny it, nor attempt escape.
11) Since there was substantial testimony by many witnesses claiming to see a rifle protruding from the 6th floor window before the motorcade arrived, we must wonder why anyone trying to assassinate a normally well guarded figure, would so casually show himself, armed, prior to his target's arrival, unless he knew that there was no protection. If he acted alone, how could he have known that? While bystanders may have believed him to be part of the President's protection, surely those real protectors who should have been in the Plaza would have known different...that would have been their job in that circumstance, had they been there.
Kuten juuri näiden liittämieni kohtien kirjoittaja ja ylläpitäjä E. C. Dorsch, Jr - joka on siis kertomansa ja kaiken järjen mukaan eri hallitusten virallisesti julkaisemat ja massiviset tutkimusraportit (tärkeimpänä siis Warren Comission Report, WCR) kokonaisuudessaan lukenut - kirjoitti, kaikki edellinen oli vain jäävuoren huippu, ja sen vuoren huipulle kiipeäminen on todella haastava ja mielenkiintoinen tehtävä, jos haluaa päästä mahdollisimman lähelle totuutta. Copy-pastettamistani kohdista useat tuntuvat varmasti liian pöyristyttäviltä, ja jotkut niistä saattavat vain vääriä johtopäätöksiä tai väärään tietoon perustuvia ollakin. Mieliin nousee epäilemättä päteviä ja arvostelevia kysymyksiä, joista useimpiin löytyy vastaus joko koko tekstistä itsestään tai peräti kumoava fakta jostain muualta. Mutta että kaikki? Ovatko kaikki "lone gunman" -teorian kiistattomasti vääräksi todistavat väitteet tosiasiassa pelkkää sontaa? Jos nimittäin LHO ainut murhaaja on, edelliseen ei logiikan mukaan ole olemassa muuta vastausta kuin "kyllä", mitään välimuotoa ei ole olemassa.
Olen tullut enemmän ja enemmän siihen lopputulokseen, ettei sillä itselleni henkilökohtaisesti enää vuonna 2004 ole edes kovin paljon merkitystä, keitä salaliittoon kuului, koska suurin osa heistä on jo haudassa, ja vaikkeivät olisikaan, juridinen heitä vastaan todistaminen on tämän massiivisen paskakasan keskeltä mahdotonta. Merkitystä on kaikesta huolimatta sillä, ettei Oswald sitä ilmeisen kertakaikkisesti ainakaan yksin voinut tehdä, ja jos näin on, herää kaikkein oleellisin kysymys: Miksei käy päinsä edes se, että myönnettäisiin toisen ampujan olemassaolo? Miksi salailu ja valehtelu edelleen jatkuu?
Tietenkin vastaus viimeiseen on ilmeinen: Skandaali, joka kunnollisesta, puolueettomasta ja virallisesta tutkimuksesta voisi seurata, saattaisi järkyttää kansakunnan perustuksia instituutiona liian pahasti. Mitä siitä seuraisi, jos (huom. jos) kävisi ilmi, että eräät (tai vain jotkut) USA:n edellisistä presidenteistä, hallituksen jäsenistä, arvostetuista eri tiedustelupalveluiden johtohenkilöistä ja osa poliisista olisi joko osallistumalla tai jälkeenpäin totuuden peittelyllä vastuussa istuvan presidentin murhasta? Ja että tämä murha luultavasti johti välillisesti esim. Vietnamin sodan kauhuihin ja moneen muuhun konfliktiin? Ja että suurin motiivi useimmille oli yhtä vanha kuin ihminenkin: raha ja valta, missä järjestyksessä kenellekin?
Seuraukset olisivat luonnollisesti katastrofaaliset. Uskonkin siis, että monet valtaapitävät, jotka eivät viralliseen totuuteen usko, mutteivät silti tee mitään, tarkoittavat toimillaan periaatteessa hyvää. Vaikka salaliitto - jonka toteen näyttämisen ei luulisi olevan liian vaikea - lopullisesti ja virallisesti myönnettäisiin, sen suorien ja/tai epäsuorien jäsenien syyllisyyttä ei, kuten sanottua, kuitenkaan kyettäisi todennäköisesti koskaan todistamaan, eikä heidän määräänsä tarkasti rajaamaan. Näin asian annetaan olla, vaikka moraaliselta kannalta tällainen toiminta kiistatta väärin onkin.
"This single-bullet explanation is the foundation of the Warren Commission's claim of a lone assassin. Once you conclude the magic bullet could not create all seven of those wounds, you'd have to conclude that there was a fourth shot and a second rifle. And if there was a second rifleman, then by definition, there had to be a conspiracy."
- Kevin Costner elokuvassa JFK
Ranger