Keine Ahnung ... aber wieso abends?behind_eyes schrieb:Ja, aber denkst du nicht auch das es diese Anrufe an diesem Abend zu Hauf gegeben hat?
Morgens lebte Kennedy noch und niemand hatte einen Hass auf Oswald. :D
Ääähh, Ruby erschoss Oswald am 24.11. um 11:21 Uhr morgens.Groucho schrieb:Morgens lebte Kennedy noch und niemand hatte einen Hass auf Oswald. :D
Weil am Abend des Attentates auch dem letztem klar war das Oswald verhaftet wurde und unter Verdacht stand.
Na und?
Ich dachte, hier geht es um einen Anruf 25 Minuten vor Ruby/Oswald.
Das hat doch nichts damit zu tun, dass man erst abends einen Hass auf Oswald hatte.
Und das in England, right?
Ok, nicht abends, sondern nachts.
Nein, im Büro eines Offiziellen in Dallas.
Genau gesagt im FBI Büro in Dallas. Deshalb hat Hoover ja das Memo angelegt.
Das Blöde ist, dass das Attentat nicht ausdrücklich erwähnt wird.JamieStarr schrieb:Das ist ja auch sehr interessant:
Two days after the assassination of John F. Kennedy a long-distance telephone operator in Mexico City monitored an international phone call. She heard one of the voices saying: "The Castro plan is being carried out. Bobby is next." The telephone numbers were traced. One number belonged to Emilio Nunez Portuondo, the Latin American Affairs editor of Willoughby's Foreign Intelligence Digest.https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwilloughbyC.htm
Man sollte die Möglichkeit erwägen, ob solche Anrufe bewusst gemacht wurden, um falsche Spuren zu legen.
gut, dann hast du genügend Zeit und Muße dich mit den von VP gesammelten Originalquellen auseinander zu setzen anstelle nur die Medien, die Hill und Blaine hofieren, zu konsumieren.
Geheimdienste brauchen Publicity, wenn sie Desinformationen streuen wollen.CptTrips schrieb:Erstere brauchen Publicity, die beiden letzteren meiden sie eher.
Tja, was wäre wohl passiert, wenn Hoover und Warren Commission Hinweise auf eine Verschwörung im Laufe der Wochen und Monate gefunden hätten?
The following document was uncovered by British researcher Malcolm Blunt and sent to us by his associate Bart Kamp. This writer, who is pretty up to speed on New Orleans, had never seen it before.https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-fbi-knew-about-david-ferrie-on-11-22-63
It is a memo of a telephone conversation between a member of the New Orleans police intelligence unit and an FBI agent working out of the New Orleans office. That call took place on the day of the assassination. The police officer, P. J. Trosclair, is telling the FBI that David Ferrie was a possible suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy. He adds some reasons why, but then he also says that he thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was friends with Ferrie. The FBI agent, J. T. Sylvester, replies that the Bureau would be interested in any information that connected the two.
Two days later, Sylvester gets more information from a local newsman about the connection of Oswald to Ferrie through the Civil Air Patrol. In other words, the FBI had information that Ferrie could be a suspect before Jim Garrison actually did. In fact, the document also says that Ray Comstock of the District Attorney’s office called the Bureau on November 25th to ask if they knew where Ferrie was.
Sylvester then calls Special Agent John Rice and Rice says he would be interested in talking to Ferrie. Apparently, this then got too hot. Because at this point, Sylvester now says he is going to call Deke DeLoach in Washington, the number three man in the Bureau, to advise him of any comments he should make about Ferrie.
The second document shows that the cover up about this was then snapped on by the Washington chiefs. They now say that Ferrie did not train Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol. And then the discreditation process begins. Jack Martin’s word could not be trusted about Ferrie. Ed Voebel who knew both Oswald and Ferrie, somehow does not have a good memory.
So who does the FBI trust? David Ferrie, who, as the reader can see, lied his head off to them. The late Vincent Bugliosi wrote that there was not a scintilla of evidence of an FBI cover up in the JFK case. Technically, as shown by this document, he was right. There was a mountain of evidence to show an FBI cover up.
Also 87 % geben dem Buch satte 4 bzw. 5 Sterne, das ist doch eine eindeutige Rückmeldung der Kunden.
Das stimmt und das bestreitet auch niemanden. Die Sache ist nur die: selbst an der glasklaresten Sache gibt es Ungereimtheiten. Selbst wenn du einen Parkzettel ziehst und den hier hochlädtst kann ich ein Projekt mit VT draus machen.sunlay schrieb:aber es gibt mindestens genauso viele Ungereimtheiten,
Und bei den von VTlern vorgeschlagenen Alternativen gibt es noch mehr Ungereimtheiten - aber da scheinen sie nicht zu stören...
Was sagst du denn zu den Originalquellen, laut denen der Secret Service der Boss bei den Sicherheitsvorkehrungen war?
Was ist an Originalquellen Lyrik? Die Frage, warum der Secret Service die Sicherheitsstandards, die wenige Tage zuvor noch gegolten hatten, in Dallas außer Kraft setzteund gewisse Elemente im Service im Nachhinein JFK verantwortlich machten sollte man nicht einfach so abtun.
Welche Ungereimtheiten meinst du? Viele der angeblichen Ungereimtheiten lassen sich durch die Eigendynamik der Ereignisse, Nichtallwissenheit, Nichtallmächtigkeit und Nichtunfehlbarkeit der Verschwörer, Aufteilung in Zellen und "Need-to-Know"-Basis, Beteiligung unterschiedlicher Lager und Perzeptionswirklichkeit erklären.
Original anzeigen (0,9 MB)Da du hier mitliest sind dir schon eventuelle Komplizen bekannt, z.B. Buell Wesley Frazier.
Das Problem ist, dass Oswald als "der wahre Attentäter", ohne
The President Has Been Shot, Charles Roberts (p. 141) A reporter for Newsweek, Roberts was on Air Force One and saw McGeorge Bundy at Andrews Air Force Base, where AF1 landed.https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?12892-The-Origin-History-of-the-term-quot-Hardcore-Punk-Rock-quot&p=125637#post125637
<quote on>
I remember looking at (McGeorge) Bundy because I was wondering if he had any word of what had happened in the world while we were in transit, whether this assassination was part of a plot. And he told me later that what he reported to the president during that flight back was that the whole world was stunned, but there was no evidence of a conspiracy at all.
<quote off>
Who would have given orders to McGeorge Bundy to repeat the lie that there was no evidence of conspiracy found in Dallas?
Bundy couldn't have made that determination sitting in the Situation Room.
Turns out there was another "quintessential WASP establishmentarian" who turned up telling a great big lie: the #3 man at the State Department, W. Averell Harriman.
The Assassination Tapes, Max Holland, pg 57:
<quote on>
At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.
<quote off>
Jack Valenti – in “A Very Human President” (1973, p3)
<quote on>
Shortly before 7:00 P.M., I escorted Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Ambassador Averell Harriman into the office. I fidgeted outside, in the middle of what would have appeared to be an objective onlooker to be a mélange of confusion. No one of the Johnson aides, Marie Fehmer, his secretary; the late Cliff Carter, his chief political agent; Bill Moyers, nor any of the rest, was quite certain of what lay ahead. We were all busy on the phone and trying to assemble what measure of office discipline we could construct.
<quote off>
Spanning the Century: The Life of W. Averell Harriman, by Rudy Abramson, pg 625:
<quote on>
He spent the afternoon helping [George] Ball [#2 man at the State Dept.], who was, if anyone truly was, running the United States government, since [Dean] Rusk [Secretary of State] and several other Cabinet members were airborne, coming home after turning back from a flight to the Far East. As darkness fell, Averell drove out to Andrews Air Force Base with Ball and Alexis Johnson, joining the official mourning party standing silently on the floodlit ramp as the President's casket was lowered from the rear door of Air Force One.
<quote off>
The Wise Men, Walter Isaacson & Evan Thomas, pg. 640:
<quote on>
[The Diem] coup [in South Vietnam] was messy. Diem's body was found riddled with bullets and stab wounds.
John Kennedy himself was shot to death three weeks later. Bill Sullivan [Harriman's chief of staff] found Averell Harriman that afternoon sitting on the edge of his chair, in front of a television set, holding his head in his hands.
<quote off>
That Lee Harvey Oswald had been in the Soviet Union was announced on the news at 4:25pm EST. Sundown in Washington DC occurred at 4:50pm EST.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/washington-dc?month=11&year=1963
How could Harriman gather "the US government's top Kremlinologists" in such a short period of time? And all of them reached the same snap decision on the basis of next to no information?
In 1963 the top three Kremlinologists were George Kennan, Charles Bohlen, and Harriman himself. According to his biography Charles Bohlen was traveling in Europe that day; according to his biography, George Kennan spent the day quietly in Princeton with Robert Oppenheimer.
Harriman went out to Andrews around sundown with George Ball and Alexis Johnson -- neither of whom were Kremlinologists.
The idea anyone could draw the snap conclusion of Soviet innocence is absurd -- unless that person knew who pulled off the plot.
