Txdigest.com

Slawson did not believe in 1964, and does not believe now, that Fidel Castro or the leaders of the Soviet Union or of any other foreign government were involved in the president’s murder. And he is certain that Oswald was the only gunman in Dealey Plaza.

What Slawson does suspect is that Oswald, during a long-mysterious trip to Mexico City only weeks before the assassination, encountered Cuban diplomats and Mexican civilians who were supporters of Castro’s revolution and who urged Oswald to kill the American president if he had the chance. “I think it’s very likely that people in Mexico encouraged him to do this,” Slawson told me. “And if they later came to the United States, they could have been prosecuted under American law as accessories” in the conspiracy.

He has also come to believe—again, only recently—that the CIA knew about these meetings but hid the evidence of them from the Warren Commission.

So if Diplomats from Cuba or Mexico encouraged Oswald in the assassination, wouldn’t that contradict Slawson’s opinion that foreign governments were not involved ?


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3QieGiNqT

I have long suspected LBJ was afraid that a Foreign Government was involved and didn't want another War, especially a Nuclear War.

You don't fire someone like Allen Dulles and get away with it.

Red Oak wrote:I have long suspected LBJ was afraid that a Foreign Government was involved and didn't want another War, especially a Nuclear War.

I suspect LBJ knew exactly who did it. He saw him every time he looked in the mirror.

Lord knows LBJ wasn't above a Killin....

I wouldn't be surprised if he hinted to someone what he planned to do and they gave him a wink and a nod like this person suspects. It's the reality deniers who argue he didn't fire the shot and that others were at the scene and took part that try my patience.

GRANDPA wrote:I think Oswald was the only shooter in Dallas. But I think others were involved in it. I don't know who or how. I do not think LBJ was involved in anything. Just my gut feeling. However, LBJ would have gladly strangled Bobby with his bare hands.

If Oswald shot Kennedy from behind why does the Zapruter film show his brain matter blowing out of the back of his head and not the front?

planosteve wrote:

GRANDPA wrote:I think Oswald was the only shooter in Dallas. But I think others were involved in it. I don't know who or how. I do not think LBJ was involved in anything. Just my gut feeling. However, LBJ would have gladly strangled Bobby with his bare hands.

If Oswald shot Kennedy from behind why does the Zapruter film show his brain matter blowing out of the back of his head and not the front?

Because it can react that way.
I saw a demonstration on TV of that kind of thing.
They had watermelons hanging from ropes. They shot into them and the meat blew back toward the rifle. It happened every time.

BillB wrote:

planosteve wrote:

GRANDPA wrote:I think Oswald was the only shooter in Dallas. But I think others were involved in it. I don't know who or how. I do not think LBJ was involved in anything. Just my gut feeling. However, LBJ would have gladly strangled Bobby with his bare hands.

If Oswald shot Kennedy from behind why does the Zapruter film show his brain matter blowing out of the back of his head and not the front?

Because it can react that way.
I saw a demonstration on TV of that kind of thing.
They had watermelons hanging from ropes. They shot into them and the meat blew back toward the rifle. It happened every time.

The matter inside the watermelon (or brain) begins to squirt out through the entrance bullet hole before the bullet even goes out the other side. The higher the velocity the greater the effect. If the bullet is of such massive size (such as a cannon ball) in relation to the watermelon that it simply pushes it all in front the outcome will be different.

Kennedy's head wasn't hanging from a rope as I recall. And a skull is much harder than a watermelon rhine. But, how do explain that when the bullet hits his head snaps back?

planosteve wrote:Kennedy's head wasn't hanging from a rope as I recall. But, how do explain that when the bullet hits his head snaps back?

The Limo accelerated about that time.
His head wasn't attached to a rope. It was attached to his neck and was capable of moving. That's why the test was done by making the melons capable of moving.

The involuntary reactions caused by bullet ripping through his brain are also part of the jerking movements, the energy imparted to JFK's head was less that the energy imparted to the shooters shoulder. Remember also that JFK was wearing a back brace that day that may have had something to do with his body movements.

If JFK was shot from the back, why is the large piece of his skull that was blown out in the back of his head.

planosteve wrote:If JFK was shot from the back, why is the large piece of his skull that was blown out in the back of his head.

It is actually knocked off the side of his skull from the bullet hitting it at the angle it did, which also explains the unusual amount of skull damage from that fairly low powered round.

planosteve wrote:If JFK was shot from the back, why is the large piece of his skull that was blown out in the back of his head.

If he was shot from the front, where was the shooter?
A shooter behind the grassy knoll fence would have hit him from the side and the bullet would have hit Jackie, too.
I've never heard anyone claim to have seen a shooter on the triple underpass.

BillB wrote:

planosteve wrote:If JFK was shot from the back, why is the large piece of his skull that was blown out in the back of his head.

If he was shot from the front, where was the shooter?
A shooter behind the grassy knoll fence would have hit him from the side and the bullet would have hit Jackie, too.
I've never heard anyone claim to have seen a shooter on the triple underpass.

I've never heard of any grassy patch, grassy spot, grassy hill or grassy anything called a "knoll."

It's a word that the conspiracy freaks dreamed up to sound sexy.

"He was over there on the lawn" just wouldn't work.

"He was spotted on the grassy knoll"..yeah now THAT'S the stuff of mystery novels.

GFB wrote:

BillB wrote:

planosteve wrote:If JFK was shot from the back, why is the large piece of his skull that was blown out in the back of his head.

If he was shot from the front, where was the shooter?
A shooter behind the grassy knoll fence would have hit him from the side and the bullet would have hit Jackie, too.
I've never heard anyone claim to have seen a shooter on the triple underpass.

I've never heard of any grassy patch, grassy spot, grassy hill or grassy anything called a "knoll."

It's a word that the conspiracy freaks dreamed up to sound sexy.

"He was over there on the lawn" just wouldn't work.

"He was spotted on the grassy knoll"..yeah now THAT'S the stuff of mystery novels.

The word "knoll" has been around since 1350 AD. It means a rise or a hillock.
There is a lot better stuff than that to attack the loonies for. It isn't hard to find.

They were probably behind the fence.

BillB wrote:[quote=If JFK was shot from the back, why is the large
It's a word that the conspiracy freaks dreamed up to sound sexy.

"He was over there on the lawn" just wouldn't work.

"He was spotted on the grassy knoll"..yeah now THAT'S the stuff of mystery novels.

The word "knoll" has been around since 1350 AD. It means a rise or a hillock.
There is a lot better stuff than that to attack the loonies for. It isn't hard to find.[/quote][/quote]

Not a question of the word existing.

It's a question of using it instead of ten other words that aren't as sexy.. that would have been used if people were not dreamig up conspiracies.