JFK , his life and legacy.

[ousefox]

If it was a conspiracy why would they shoot him in such a built up area with some many people? Surely it won't have been like that for the whole journey...

[Zingari]

If it was a conspiracy why would they shoot him in such a built up area with some many people? Surely it won't have been like that for the whole journey...

It was the only part of the route that the car had to slow down to 4 -5 mph . Take a look at an aerial view of Dealy Plaza  and you'll see that the last turn is about  120 degrees ( well over a 90 degree turn anyway) 

It sounds very well planned to me 

 

[Zingari]

Regarding last turn into Dealy Plaza , here's a very short clip from Col. Fletcher Prouty 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpbHW7o0X00

[OzFox]

Wasn't he also seen in the rest room on the second floor where he bought the coke something like 90 secs after the final shot? In that time he'd supposedly packed his gun up, hid it away and ran down from the sixth floor, in a building with no lifts. Impressive! They shouldn't have charged him, they should have put him the Olympic team!

 

The building had lifts, the distance could be walked in less than 90 seconds, and he didn't buy the coke until after he'd been confronted by a policeman in the lunchroom. All Info freely available in the Warren Commission Report:

 

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#presence

 

A test was also conducted to determine the time required to walk from the southeast corner of the sixth floor to the second-floor lunchroom by stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the east aisle to the northeast corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald's rifle was actually found after the shooting. Then Howlett walked down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; 360 the second test, at a "fast walk" took 1 minute, 14 seconds. The second test. followed immediately after the first. The only interval was the time necessary to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and walk back to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end of either test run

[yorkie1999]

Badgeman did it!

[Zingari]

The building had lifts, the distance could be walked in less than 90 seconds, and he didn't buy the coke until after he'd been confronted by a policeman in the lunchroom. All Info freely available in the Warren Commission Report:

 

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#presence

 

A test was also conducted to determine the time required to walk from the southeast corner of the sixth floor to the second-floor lunchroom by stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the east aisle to the northeast corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald's rifle was actually found after the shooting. Then Howlett walked down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; 360 the second test, at a "fast walk" took 1 minute, 14 seconds. The second test. followed immediately after the first. The only interval was the time necessary to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and walk back to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end of either test run

If he hastily left the "snipers nest" , why did he stop in the rest room at all  ?

Surely he would have tried to make good his escape . It sounds very implausible to me.

 

from the link you posted ;

 

Eyewitness Identification of Assassin 

Howard L. Brennan was an eyewitness to the shooting. As indicated previously the Commission considered his testimony as probative in reaching the conclusion that the shots came from the sixth floor, southeast corner window of the Depository Building.247 (See ch. III, pp. 61-68.) Brennan also testified that Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he viewed in a police lineup on the night. of the assassination, was the man he saw fire the shots from the sixth-floor window of the Depository Building.248 When the shots were fired, Brennan was in an excellent position to observe anyone in the window. He was sitting on a concrete wall on the southwest corner of Elm and Houston Streets, looking north at the Depository Building which was directly in front of him.249 The window was approximately 120 feet away.

 

 

Is this supposed to be serious ? 

An eyewitness from 6 floors below picked him out of a police line-up ? How could anyone give a description of someone 6 floors up ? Presumably the rifle or his arm would have obscured the shooter's face . Also he'd have no idea about his height and build , clothing etc.

Why was he even looking up there until at least one of the shots were fired . and then he only have a couple of seconds at most to look at the shooter to take it all in

 

I don't believe this at all, surely this testimony is very unreliable.

Everything about the case looks like a set-up ,  

[Zingari]

I've just had a quick read about Howard  Brennan 

 

taken from WIKI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Brennan

 

A few hours later, Brennan saw Oswald on television.Later the same evening Brennan identified Oswald in a police lineup as the person who most closely resembled the man in the window but Brennan said he was unable to make a positive identification. On December 17, 1963, he told the FBI that he was sure that Oswald was the rifleman he had seen in the window.Several months later, he also testified to the Warren Commission that at the time of the lineup, he believed the assassination was part of a conspiracy, and he was afraid for the safety of himself and his family.Because Brennan declined to make a positive identification in the police lineup, the commission regarded Brennan's subsequent testimony, that he sincerely believed he saw Oswald, as probative but not conclusive evidence that Oswald was the gunman in the sixth floor window

 

Of course he couldn't possibly identify anyone ,and he identified him "after" he'd seen him on TV ,  it's ludicrous  

And why did he think it was a conspiracy , could it possibly be because he was being pressurized to say what he was told to say ? 

[OzFox]

If he hastily left the "snipers nest" , why did he stop in the rest room at all  ?

Surely he would have tried to make good his escape . It sounds very implausible to me.

 

from the link you posted ;

 

Eyewitness Identification of Assassin [/size]Howard L. Brennan was an eyewitness to the shooting. As indicated previously the Commission considered his testimony as probative in reaching the conclusion that the shots came from the sixth floor, southeast corner window of the Depository Building.247 (See ch. III, pp. 61-68.) Brennan also testified that Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he viewed in a police lineup on the night. of the assassination, was the man he saw fire the shots from the sixth-floor window of the Depository Building.248 When the shots were fired, Brennan was in an excellent position to observe anyone in the window. He was sitting [/size]on a concrete wall on the southwest corner of Elm and Houston Streets, looking north at the Depository Building which was directly in front of him.249 The window was approximately 120 feet away.[/size]

 

 

Is this supposed to be serious ? [/size]

An eyewitness from 6 floors below picked him out of a police line-up ? How could anyone give a description of someone 6 floors up ? Presumably the rifle or his arm would have obscured the shooter's face . Also he'd have no idea about his height and build , clothing etc.

Why was he even looking up there until at least one of the shots were fired . and then he only have a couple of seconds at most to look at the shooter to take it all in

 

I don't believe this at all, surely this testimony is very unreliable.

Everything about the case looks like a set-up ,

Even if someone came forward with a film in glorious technicolor, showing Oswald firing three shots from the sixth floor, you'd say it was a set up

It's not as though Oswald 'stopped' in the lunchroom, that was as far as he got before he was confronted. As to why he then bought a coke, who knows? Trying to act cool? I don't find it too hard to believe.

Not sure why you think Brennan's testimony is so difficult to accept. He wasn't the only one who saw someone at the window matching Oswalds description....age early twenties, light brown hair, slender build, light coloured shirt etc. A couple of other witnesses saw the same man in the lead up to the assassination, staring in the direction of the triple underpass.

I'm sure you'll say he was looking for his mate behind the picket fence

[Zingari]

Even if someone came forward with a film in glorious technicolor, showing Oswald firing three shots from the sixth floor, you'd say it was a set up

It's not as though Oswald 'stopped' in the lunchroom, that was as far as he got before he was confronted. As to why he then bought a coke, who knows? Trying to act cool? I don't find it too hard to believe.

Not sure why you think Brennan's testimony is so difficult to accept. He wasn't the only one who saw someone at the window matching Oswalds description....age early twenties, light brown hair, slender build, light coloured shirt etc. A couple of other witnesses saw the same man in the lead up to the assassination, staring in the direction of the triple underpass.

I'm sure you'll say he was looking for his mate behind the picket fence

Because he's 6 floors below and if you're looking up ( though goodness knows why he would be until at least after the first shot) at that angle at someone in a rifle shooting position , i doubt if you can see much of a face ( try it , either the rifle or the elbow/shoulder obscures the face) and as i said before , how would he have any idea of his height, weight clothes etc ? So where did the rest of the description of Oswald comefrom ?

Surely no one was in the room with him to give any sort of description . 

Brennan may possibly have seen someone , but i doubt if he could give any sort of reliable description. Anyone who worked in that building or even entered the building ( it wasn't secure) could have been in that window.

 

this is evidence that really would "crumble to the touch" to use your phrase 

[OzFox]

Because he's 6 floors below and if you're looking up ( though goodness knows why he would be until at least after the first shot) at that angle at someone in a rifle shooting position , i doubt if you can see much of a face ( try it , either the rifle or the elbow/shoulder obscures the face) and as i said before , how would he have any idea of his height, weight clothes etc ? So where did the rest of the description of Oswald comefrom ?

Surely no one was in the room with him to give any sort of description . 

Brennan may possibly have seen someone , but i doubt if he could give any sort of reliable description. Anyone who worked in that building or even entered the building ( it wasn't secure) could have been in that window.

 

this is evidence that really would "crumble to the touch" to use your phrase 

..which is why the Warren Commission didn't take it as a definitive ID, just a probable one. Several people gave similar descriptions remember?

Dunno what your eyesight is like, but mine is more than capable of giving a rough description of someone in a sixth floor open window 100 feet away. And your assertion that nobody would look at the window until a shot was fired is bizarre. Are you saying the crowd would only look at the floor while they were waiting for Kennedy? You're clutching at straws man!

[BoneDog]

Anyone who thinks this was an Oswald job must be very ignorant on the matter.

 

This has quite a few details on Oswald, his career and associates. Undoubtedly sheep-dipped.

 

[BoneDog]

If it was a conspiracy why would they shoot him in such a built up area with some many people? Surely it won't have been like that for the whole journey...

 

Good question. There could be numerous reasons for that.

[OzFox]

Shiiiiiiitttttt....the big guns are here.

[Zingari]

..which is why the Warren Commission didn't take it as a definitive ID, just a probable one. Several people gave similar descriptions remember?

Dunno what your eyesight is like, but mine is more than capable of giving a rough description of someone in a sixth floor open window 100 feet away. And your assertion that nobody would look at the window until a shot was fired is bizarre. Are you saying the crowd would only look at the floor while they were waiting for Kennedy? You're clutching at straws man!

Maybe so,  but if they're as reliable as Brennan's , then they're worthless., and crumble to the touch.

 How could anyone have given a description if they didn't actually see him shoot ?They would have had to have been in the same room .

It's really not a question how good your eyesight is. If someone is crouched down in a window holding a rifle,6 floors up   their shoulder /arm or the rifle itself would obliterate most of the face and no-one can see through walls to see how big he was or what he was wearing because the most anyone could have seen is the head and shoulders.

 

Try to imagine giving a complete description of this man from six floors below. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even be able to see his face as his arm would cover much of it  from a steep  angle looking upwards.He's re enacting what Oswald is supposed to have achieved , but it opens up a whole new set of questions regarding the "eyewitnesses"

Brennan only picked out Oswald "after" he'd seen him arrested on TV. Don't you think that influenced him ?  

 

Can you really not see that Brennan's "eyewitness" testimony is totally worthless?

Can you really not see that any eyewitness testimony from street level giving any sort of description of the man in the window is worthless and more likely fabricated ?

[OzFox]

Maybe so, but if they're as reliable as Brennan's , then they're worthless., and crumble to the touch.

How could anyone have given a description if they didn't actually see him shoot ?They would have had to have been in the same room .

It's really not a question how good your eyesight is. If someone is crouched down in a window holding a rifle,6 floors up their shoulder /arm or the rifle itself would obliterate most of the face and no-one can see through walls to see how big he was or what he was wearing because the most anyone could have seen is the head and shoulders.

Try to imagine giving a complete description of this man from six floors below. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even be able to see his face as his arm would cover much of it from a steep angle looking upwards.He's re enacting what Oswald is supposed to have achieved , but it opens up a whole new set of questions regarding the "eyewitnesses"

Brennan only picked out Oswald "after" he'd seen him arrested on TV. Don't you think that influenced him ?

Can you really not see that Brennan's "eyewitness" testimony is totally worthless?

Can you really not see that any eyewitness testimony from street level giving any sort of description of the man in the window is worthless and more likely fabricated ?

He didn't sit there for half an hour crouching in front of the crowd with the gun pointed out of the window. He stood at the window, he looked out of the window, he walked around behind the window. Hence why people were able to get a decent look at him. Not too difficult to understand is it?

If you'd bothered to actually read the testimonies you would know this. The only thing crumbling to the touch here is your reasoning

Fischer looked up and watched the man in the window for 10 or 15 seconds and then started watching the motorcade, which came into view on Houston Street. He said that the man held his attention until the motorcade came because the man:

...appeared uncomfortable for one, and secondly, he wasn't watching ... he didn't look like he was watching for the parade. He looked like he was looking down toward the Trinity River and the Triple Underpass down at the end--toward the end of Elm Street. And ... all the time I watched him, he never moved his head, he never--he never moved anything. Just was there transfixed.

Fischer placed the man in the easternmost window on the south side of the Depository Building on either the fifth or the sixth floor. He said that he could see the man from the middle of his chest to the top of his head, and that as he was facing the window the man was in the lower right-hand portion of the window and "seemed to be sitting a little forward." The man was dressed in a light-colored, open-neck shirt which could have been either a sports shirt or a T-shirt, and he had brown hair, a slender face and neck with light complexion, and looked to be 22 or 24 years old. The person in the window was a white man and "looked to me like he was looking straight at the Triple Underpass" down Elm Street. Boxes and cases were stacked behind him.

[Zingari]

Firstly it's interesting that he doesn't say he actually saw him shooting , bit odd ? its also a bit odd to say the man in the window looked suspicious because he wasn't watching the parade ! err what were you doing Mr Fischer looking upwards at a 6th floor window then ? Were you acting suspiciously too ?

 

Yes it really is difficult to understand because there were thousands of people around , and until the shots were fired there was no need for anyone to make mental notes of descriptions of all of them before the assassination had taken place .

 Surely you can understand that before the big event  had taken place a crowd is just a crowd , a man at a window is just that too.  There were scores of people  looking out of various windows. But of course one of them stood out because he was "acting suspiciously" ? 

 wtf does that mean?

Take another look at the layout of Main, Houston and Elm. Surely it's obvious that when the shots rang out,  there must have been a part of the motorcade directly in front of the TSBD and even more coming up Houston that would have been looking directly at the building.

There were masses of police and security guards in the motorcade that would have been right next to the entrance of the building and directly below, and also approaching the building  as the shots were being fired , but none of them reacted to it? It's just beyond belief.

 Why did no police or security guards from these cars immediately storm the building and seal it off  ? Surely out of all these police and security officers , a few would have seen and heard the same thing as the these witnesses ?

 

 

 

 

According to Fischer's testimony before the Warren Commission, the man "held my attention ... because he appeared uncomfortable ... and ... he didn't look like he was watching the parade. He looked like he was looking toward the Trinity River and the triple underpass ... 

 

Fischer then provided a thorough description of this man: "I could see from about the middle of his chest past the top of his head ... He seemed to be sitting a little forward ... he had on an open-neck shirt, but it could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color, probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt but it was open-neck and light in color."

 

He then went on to describe the man's personal appearance: "He had a slender face and neck ... and he had a light complexion ... he was a white man. And he looked to be 22 or 24 years old ... His hair seemed to be neither light nor dark ... well, it was brown ... but as to whether it was light or dark, I can't say. He couldn't have had very long hair because his hair didn't seem to take up much space - of what I could see of his head. His hair must have been short and not long."

 

Remarkably detailed as this description was, Fischer went even further when Warren Commission Assistant Counsel David W Belin asked him whether he had seen the man full face or in profile. Fischer said: "I saw it at an angle but at the same time I believe I could see the tip of his right cheek as he looked to my left."

 

On Monday 25th November 1963, a mere three days after the assassination, Fischer had been visited at his home by Dallas Detectives W E Potts and F M Turner who showed him a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald. According to Detective Potts' report: "He would not say definitely it was the man he saw, but he stated it looked like him." (Potts Exhibit B).

 

Fischer conceded that he had not seen the man's hands and so was unaware whether he was holding anything. He saw nobody with the man but observed that: "There were boxes and cases stacked all the way from the bottom to the top and from the left to the right behind him."

 

Fischer's attention had next been attracted to the presidential limousine and he watched it pass just in front of him. After it had made the wide turn from Houston Street on to Elm Street, he was watching the following cars when he heard a shot. Like many other witnesses, he likened this shot to a firecracker. He then described two further shots and made a very curious remark in his testimony: "At first, I thought there were four, but as I think about it more, there must have been just three."

 

 

 

One must query this brief statement and wonder if Fischer had been coached as to what he was expected to say. If he had been coached, however, then it had not been carried out very well and he had not learnt his lines!

It doesn't sound very reliable really . He'd been alerted to a man behaving suspiciously ( doing the same thing as himself and not watching the parade)  but didn't bother to look up after the shots started ?  

[midland_red]

in the case of JFK you have to back a conmspiracy because the offocial version is totally implausible. I'm quite convinced that the guys behind it were rogue CIA elements in leage with right wing cubans. SOme of them turned up later in the Watergate scandal in fact..google Frank Sturgis and Howard Hunt.....

[OzFox]

One must query this brief statement and wonder if Fischer had been coached as to what he was expected to say. If he had been coached, however, then it had not been carried out very well and he had not learnt his lines!

It doesn't sound very reliable really . He'd been alerted to a man behaving suspiciously ( doing the same thing as himself and not watching the parade)  but didn't bother to look up after the shots started ?

Guess that's the difference between me and you. I see observant witnesses who have no reason to lie. You see a people in a crowd who are all part of a giant conspiracy, in league with the CIA, the Mob, the Cubans etc.

With regard to the motorcade, and without ploughing thru mountains of testimony, I was under the impression most of them heard shots from the direction of the book depository. Certainly the police were cordoning it off pretty quickly

In other news, I went down to the Trade Centre today. There's a nice shiny new building where WTC7 used to stand, but you can still smell the thermite

[Zingari]

Guess that's the difference between me and you. I see observant witnesses who have no reason to lie. You see a people in a crowd who are all part of a giant conspiracy, in league with the CIA, the Mob, the Cubans etc.

With regard to the motorcade, and without ploughing thru mountains of testimony, I was under the impression most of them heard shots from the direction of the book depository. Certainly the police were cordoning it off pretty quickly

In other news, I went down to the Trade Centre today. There's a nice shiny new building where WTC7 used to stand, but you can still smell the thermite

I believe most witnesses have no reason to lie too ( that includes doctors at Partlands etc who you dismiss as mercenary book sellers)

 I believe most of the testimonies are not in contradiction if more than one shooter is considered a possibility . 

But those that acept the Warren report seem to dismiss all the testimonies that don't correspond to the theory that the assassination was done by a lone nut assassin.   

Witnesses can testify they saw shots from the hill and other witnesses can say they saw shots from the TSBD  . I don't see how any of them can be dismissed unless a pre concieved conclusion needs to be adhered to .

 

Have a great time  at the scene of the "new pearl harbour"   always good to talk to someone with a genuine interest and understanding in this fascinating subject  , even if we probably never will agree. (That is until the truth finally comes out when you'll be forced to accept i''ve been right of course     )

 

edit ;

quick question if you've got time ,

 

Why didn't the motorcade continue straight along Main instead of taking that  sharp right into Houston  and that insane left turn into Elm in

front of the TSBD ?

It doesn't look as though there was any reason for it , it wasn't passing anything else that couldn't be seen from Main.

It looks just like a trap to me and was intentionally drove into a zone that  the speed was significantly reduced to walking pace at best , and with no bodyguards on the fenders !! Doesn't it raise suspicion levels even slightly?

 

don't concern yourself too much about this on your hols though  enjoy your time in the land of deceit 

 

 

re edit ;

 

further development for anyone interested 

 

Citing CIA ‘treachery,’ federal judge calls for release of secret JFK files

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/citing-cia-treachery-federal-judge-calls-for-release-of-secret-jfk-files/

[OzFox]

edit ;

quick question if you've got time ,

Why didn't the motorcade continue straight along Main instead of taking that sharp right into Houston and that insane left turn into Elm in

front of the TSBD ?

It doesn't look as though there was any reason for it , it wasn't passing anything else that couldn't be seen from Main.

It looks just like a trap to me and was intentionally drove into a zone that the speed was significantly reduced to walking pace at best , and with no bodyguards on the fenders !! Doesn't it raise suspicion levels even slightly?

don't concern yourself too much about this on your hols though enjoy your time in the land of deceit

I'd imagine their main concern on the day was allowing as many people as possible to see the President, rather than worrying that he'd get his brains blown out. Hence the choice of route for the motorcade.

By the way, you're using a .gif ripped off the main conspiracy bashing website, and these paragraphs are on the same page as the .gif:

It seems that the "changed motorcade route" is a factoid. It never happened. Evidence was wrenched out of context, and misinterpreted. Ironically, anyone who had read the Warren Commission Report would have known the truth. That volume discussed the parade route extensively (see below). It made it clear that you have to turn on Houston and then Elm to get from Dallas' Main Street to the Stemmons Freeway. If you try driving down Main, you can get to the Stemmons only by driving over a concrete divider strip. That would be illegal, absurdly undignified for the presidential limo, and impossible for the press busses that were a part of the motorcade.

Everyone agreed that, if there was sufficient time, a motorcade through downtown Dallas would be the best way for the people to see their President. . . . According to [Kenneth] O'Donnell, "we had a motorcade wherever we went," particularly in large cities where the purpose was to let the President be seen by as many people as possible. In his experience, "it would be automatic" for the Secret Service to arrange a route which would, within the time allotted, bring the President "through an area which exposes him to the greatest number of people."

Thumbed through the book of 'Parkland' today. Looks like a good read. Certainly got good reviews.

[Zingari]

I'd imagine their main concern on the day was allowing as many people as possible to see the President, rather than worrying that he'd get his brains blown out. Hence the choice of route for the motorcade.

By the way, you're using a .gif ripped off the main conspiracy bashing website, and these paragraphs are on the same page as the .gif:

It seems that the "changed motorcade route" is a factoid. It never happened. Evidence was wrenched out of context, and misinterpreted. Ironically, anyone who had read the Warren Commission Report would have known the truth. That volume discussed the parade route extensively (see below). It made it clear that you have to turn on Houston and then Elm to get from Dallas' Main Street to the Stemmons Freeway. If you try driving down Main, you can get to the Stemmons only by driving over a concrete divider strip. That would be illegal, absurdly undignified for the presidential limo, and impossible for the press busses that were a part of the motorcade.

Everyone agreed that, if there was sufficient time, a motorcade through downtown Dallas would be the best way for the people to see their President. . . . According to [Kenneth] O'Donnell, "we had a motorcade wherever we went," particularly in large cities where the purpose was to let the President be seen by as many people as possible. In his experience, "it would be automatic" for the Secret Service to arrange a route which would, within the time allotted, bring the President "through an area which exposes him to the greatest number of people."

Thumbed through the book of 'Parkland' today. Looks like a good read. Certainly got good reviews.

No , sorry , the main priority of the detail is protection this  is paramount.   Something they did very badly on that day either through incompetence ( unlikely) or through hindrance and distraction at very high levels. Did you see the bodyguards being told to get away from the rear of JFKs car?

 

re the route;

Fast forward to 1min50 , the route is described ................."west on Main to Houston and on through the triple underpass to the trade mart" . Absolutely no mention of  a turn into  Elm  whatsoever !! The route must have been altered at some point,

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnlL-pucCj0

 

Is the announcer trying to  misdirect the public? surely such a detailed description would have mentioned it .    Or is this just another thing to be dismissed as irrelevant? 

 

regarding the concrete divider that made the direct route " undignified" i'll have to take your word for it , but i'm sure roads were closed and modified all along the route to allow free passage of the motorcade and i really can't see why this would have been so difficult . 

[OzFox]

No , sorry , the main priority of the detail is protection this  is paramount.   Something they did very badly on that day either through incompetence ( unlikely) or through hindrance and distraction at very high levels. Did you see the bodyguards being told to get away from the rear of JFKs car?

 

re the route;

Fast forward to 1min50 , the route is described ................."west on Main to Houston and on through the triple underpass to the trade mart" . Absolutely no mention of  a turn into  Elm  whatsoever !! The route must have been altered at some point,

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnlL-pucCj0

 

Is the announcer trying to  misdirect the public? surely such a detailed description would have mentioned it .    Or is this just another thing to be dismissed as irrelevant? 

 

regarding the concrete divider that made the direct route " undignified" i'll have to take your word for it , but i'm sure roads were closed and modified all along the route to allow free passage of the motorcade and i really can't see why this would have been so difficult .

Nothing sinister it. Both Dallas papers carried the full route on the morning of the assassination.

To reach the Trade Mart from Main Street the agents decided to use the Stemmons Freeway (Route No. 77), the most direct route. The only practical way for westbound traffic on Main Street to reach the northbound lanes of the Stemmons Freeway is via Elm Street, which Route No. 77 traffic is instructed to follow in this part of the city. Elm Street was to be reached from Main by turning right at Houston, going one block north and then turning left onto Elm. On this last portion of the journey, only 5 minutes from the Trade Mart, the President's motorcade would pass the Texas School Book Depository Building on the northwest corner of Houston and Elm Streets. . . .

The Elm Street approach to the Stemmons Freeway is necessary in order to avoid the traffic hazards which would otherwise exist if right turns were permitted from both Main and Elm into the freeway. To create this traffic pattern, a concrete barrier between Main and Elm Streets presents an obstacle to a right turn from Main across Elm to the access road to Stemmons Freeway and the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike. This concrete barrier extends far enough beyond the access road to make it impracticable for vehicles to turn right from Main directly to the access road. A sign located on this barrier instructs Main Street traffic not to make any turns. In conformity with these arrangements, traffic proceeding west on Main is directed to turn right at Houston in order to reach the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike, which has the same access road from Elm Street as does the Stemmons Freeway.

[Zingari]

Nothing sinister it. Both Dallas papers carried the full route on the morning of the assassination.

To reach the Trade Mart from Main Street the agents decided to use the Stemmons Freeway (Route No. 77), the most direct route. The only practical way for westbound traffic on Main Street to reach the northbound lanes of the Stemmons Freeway is via Elm Street, which Route No. 77 traffic is instructed to follow in this part of the city. Elm Street was to be reached from Main by turning right at Houston, going one block north and then turning left onto Elm. On this last portion of the journey, only 5 minutes from the Trade Mart, the President's motorcade would pass the Texas School Book Depository Building on the northwest corner of Houston and Elm Streets. . . .

The Elm Street approach to the Stemmons Freeway is necessary in order to avoid the traffic hazards which would otherwise exist if right turns were permitted from both Main and Elm into the freeway. To create this traffic pattern, a concrete barrier between Main and Elm Streets presents an obstacle to a right turn from Main across Elm to the access road to Stemmons Freeway and the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike. This concrete barrier extends far enough beyond the access road to make it impracticable for vehicles to turn right from Main directly to the access road. A sign located on this barrier instructs Main Street traffic not to make any turns. In conformity with these arrangements, traffic proceeding west on Main is directed to turn right at Houston in order to reach the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike, which has the same access road from Elm Street as does the Stemmons Freeway.

OK i'll accept that ( although i'm fairly sure if the bodyguard detail had wanted to go direct from Main to the freeway they could have stopped the other traffic)  ,

But nothing sinister about the bodyguards being told to keep away from the rear of the vehicle too ? That's a different story. 

 

This is a short vid saying that a witness saw a bullet hole in the windshield . Given your previous statement that you don't see why witnesses would lie, why do you think she's lying here? and why is the man who changed the windshield lying?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM

[OzFox]

OK i'll accept that ( although i'm fairly sure if the bodyguard detail had wanted to go direct from Main to the freeway they could have stopped the other traffic)  ,

But nothing sinister about the bodyguards being told to keep away from the rear of the vehicle too ? That's a different story. 

 

This is a short vid saying that a witness saw a bullet hole in the windshield . Given your previous statement that you don't see why witnesses would lie, why do you think she's lying here? and why is the man who changed the windshield lying?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM

 

So she could tell it went from front to back just by looking at a 'hole' in the glass could she? 

 

If she was there at all, she was probably looking at the crack caused by a bullet fragment. It's pretty well documented.

 

 

To get back to your original theme (JFK's life and legacy etc) have a gander at this. I had no idea his health problems were so severe. How he found the energy for all those alleged bonking sessions in this state is anyone's guess

 

The lifelong health problems of John F. Kennedy constitute one of the best-kept secrets of recent U.S. history—no surprise, because if the extent of those problems had been revealed while he was alive, his presidential ambitions would likely have been dashed. Kennedy, like so many of his predecessors, was more intent on winning the presidency than on revealing himself to the public. On one level this secrecy can be taken as another stain on his oft-criticized character, a deception maintained at the potential expense of the citizens he was elected to lead. Yet there is another way of viewing the silence regarding his health—as the quiet stoicism of a man struggling to endure extraordinary pain and distress and performing his presidential (and pre-presidential) duties largely undeterred by his physical suffering. Does this not also speak to his character, but in a more complex way? …

Evidence of Kennedy’s medical problems has been trickling out for years. In 1960, during the fight for the Democratic nomination, John Connally and India Edwards, aides to Lyndon B. Johnson, told the press—correctly—that Kennedy suffered from Addison’s disease, a condition of the adrenal glands characterized by a deficiency of the hormones needed to regulate blood sugar, sodium and potassium, and the response to stress. They described the problem as life-threatening and requiring regular doses of cortisone. The Kennedys publicly denied the allegation …

 

It appears that Richard Nixon may have tried at one point to gain access to Kennedy’s medical history. In the fall of 1960, as he and JFK battled in what turned out to be one of the closest presidential elections ever, thieves ransacked the office of Eugene J. Cohen, a New York endocrinologist who had been treating Kennedy for Addison’s disease. When they failed to find Kennedy’s records, which were filed under a code name, they tried unsuccessfully to break into the office of Janet Travell, an internist and pharmacologist who had been relieving Kennedy’s back pain with injections of procaine (an agent similar to lidocaine). Although the thieves remain unidentified, it is reasonable to speculate that they were Nixon operatives; the failed robberies have the aura of Watergate and of the break-in at the Beverly Hills office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.

 

Using personal letters, Navy records, and oral histories, biographers and historians over the past 20 years have begun to fill in a picture of Jack Kennedy as ill and ailment-ridden for his entire life—a far cry from the paragon of vigor (or “vigah,†in the family’s distinctive Massachusetts accent) that the Kennedys presented. After a sickly childhood he spent significant periods during his prep-school and college years in the hospital for severe intestinal ailments, infections, and what doctors thought for a time was leukemia. He suffered from ulcers and colitis as well as Addison’s disease, which necessitated the administration of regular steroid treatments. And it has been known for some time that Kennedy endured terrible back trouble. He wrote his book Profiles in Courage while recovering from back surgery in 1954 that almost killed him.

 

But the full extent of Kennedy’s medical ordeals has not been known until now. Earlier this year a small committee of Kennedy-administration friends and associates agreed to open a collection of his papers for the years 1955–63. I was given access to these newly released materials, which included X-rays and prescription records from Janet Travell’s files. Together with recent research and a growing understanding of medical science, the newly available records allow us to construct an authoritative account of JFK’s medical tribulations. And they add telling detail to a story of lifelong suffering, revealing that many of the various treatments doctors gave Kennedy, starting when he was a boy, did far more harm than good. In particular, steroid treatments that he may have received as a young man for his intestinal ailments could have compounded—and perhaps even caused—both the Addison’s disease and the degenerative back trouble that plagued him later in life. Travell’s prescription records also confirm that during his presidency—and in particular during times of stress, such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco, in April of 1961, and the Cuban missile crisis, in October of 1962—Kennedy was taking an extraordinary variety of medications: steroids for his Addison’s disease; painkillers for his back; anti-spasmodics for his colitis; antibiotics for urinary-tract infections; antihistamines for allergies; and, on at least one occasion, an anti-psychotic (though only for two days) for a severe mood change that Jackie Kennedy believed had been brought on by the antihistamines.

 

Kennedy’s charismatic appeal rested heavily on the image of youthful energy and good health he projected. This image was a myth. The real story, disconcerting though it would have been to contemplate at the time, is actually more heroic. It is a story of iron-willed fortitude in mastering the difficulties of chronic illness …

 

Kennedy’s collective health problems were not enough to deter him from running for president. Though they were a considerable burden, no one of them impressed him as life-threatening. Nor did he believe that the many medications he took would reduce his ability to work effectively; on the contrary, he saw them as ensuring his competence to deal with the demands of the office. And apparently none of his many doctors told him that were he elevated to the presidency, his health problems (or the treatments for them) could pose a danger to the country.

 

After reaching the White House, Kennedy believed it was more essential than ever to hide his afflictions. The day after his election, in response to a reporter’s question, he declared himself in “excellent†shape and dismissed the rumors of Addison’s disease as false …

A Thousand Days of Suffering

During his time in the White House, despite public indications of continuing back difficulties, Kennedy enjoyed an image of robust good health. But according to the Travell records, medical attention was a fixed part of his routine. He was under the care of an allergist, an endocrinologist, a gastroenterologist, an orthopedist, and a urologist, along with that of Janet Travell, Admiral George Burkley, and Max Jacobson, an émigré doctor from Germany who now lived in New York and had made a reputation by treating celebrities with “pep pills,†or amphetamines, that helped to combat depression and fatigue. Jacobson, whom patients called “Dr. Feelgood,†administered amphetamines and back injections of painkillers that JFK believed made him less dependent on crutches …

 

The Travell records reveal that during the first six months of his term, Kennedy suffered stomach, colon, and prostate problems, high fevers, occasional dehydration, abscesses, sleeplessness, and high cholesterol, in addition to his ongoing back and adrenal ailments. His physicians administered large doses of so many drugs that Travell kept a “Medicine Administration Record,†cataloguing injected and ingested corticosteroids for his adrenal insufficiency; procaine shots and ultrasound treatments and hot packs for his back; Lomotil, Metamucil, paregoric, phenobarbital, testosterone, and trasentine to control his diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, and weight loss; penicillin and other antibiotics for his urinary-tract infections and an abscess; and Tuinal to help him sleep. Before press conferences and nationally televised speeches his doctors increased his cortisone dose to deal with tensions harmful to someone unable to produce his own corticosteroids in response to stress. Though the medications occasionally made Kennedy groggy and tired, he did not see them as a problem. He dismissed questions about Jacobson’s injections, saying, “I don’t care if it’s horse piss. It works†…

 

Kennedy continued to need extensive medication. His condition at the time of the Cuban missile crisis is a case in point. The Travell records show that during the 13 days in October of 1962 when Moscow and Washington brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war, Kennedy took his usual doses of anti-spasmodics to control his colitis, antibiotics for a flare-up of his urinary-tract problem and a bout of sinusitis, and increased amounts of hydrocortisone and testosterone, along with salt tablets, to control his Addison’s disease and boost his energy. Judging from the tape recordings made of conversations during this time, the medications were no impediment to lucid thought during these long days; on the contrary, Kennedy would have been significantly less effective without them, and might even have been unable to function. But these medications were only one element in helping Kennedy to focus on the crisis; his extraordinary strength of will cannot be underestimated.

 

This is not to suggest that Kennedy was superhuman, or to exaggerate his ability to endure physical and emotional ills. On November 2, 1962, he took 10 additional milligrams of hydrocortisone and 10 grains of salt to boost himself before giving a brief report to the American people on the dismantling of the Soviet missile bases in Cuba. In December, Jackie complained to the president’s gastroenterologist, Russell Boles, that the antihistamines for food allergies had a “depressing action†on the president. She asked Boles to prescribe something that would assure “mood elevation without irritation to the gastrointestinal tract.†The Travell records reveal that Boles prescribed one milligram twice a day of Stelazine, an anti-psychotic that was also used as a treatment for anxiety. In two days, Kennedy showed marked improvement, and he apparently never needed the drug again …

 

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy before the president’s medical ailments could. But the evidence suggests that Kennedy’s physical condition contributed to his demise. On November 22, 1963, Kennedy was, as always, wearing a corsetlike back brace as he rode through Dallas. Oswald’s first bullet struck him in the back of the neck. Were it not for the back brace, which held him erect, the second, fatal shot to the head might not have found its mark.

 

extended version of the article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/the-medical-ordeals-of-jfk/305572/

[Rincewind]

Extended version? You mean there is more?