Video of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, incredible media access, unthinkable today.

So its the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination. Every few days, the media throws up an article mentioning the fact that most people dont believe the official story only to then imply that most of these "conspiracy theorists" are crazy.

Because of the recent attention, I found myself watching different videos and found the one above of Lee Harvey Oswald shortly after he was arrested.

And it occurred to me how incredibly different things are now. The question however, is it by design?

Look at this video, the police station is packed with reporters who have almost full access to the suspect. There are even moments when he is "permitted" to stand there and answer questions, openly stating that he's being setup as a patsy...

Compare this to current day. Take for example, the Boston "bombers". Can you imagine, even for a second, that the press might be "allowed" this type of access to the suspect?

Impossible.

Today, they put an entire city under martial law and disappeared the suspect behind a wall of heavily armed government goons.

From that point forward, the only statements to the public were made via the government which indicted the suspect, including his alleged confession.

Interestingly, as soon as he was allowed to communicate with the outside public, the phone call to his parents, he said he was not guilty...

So what happened? During Vietnam, the media was on the ground, filming and broadcasting almost everything. Many believe that the images of the mass slaughter in Vietnam helped contribute to the anti-war sentiment.

Since then, the media has had their access revoked, not even allowed to take pics of military coffins. The ban was lifted after 18 years of bloodshed, how convenient.

I guess you cant have the media asking questions which might inadvertently expose the false flag stage drama meant for the masses?

I watched a fascinating program last night on CNN about the assassination and the warren commission report. Saw some footage I've never seen before.
Times have changed indeed. It was weird watching the news anchors smoking while on air. The amount of press in the police dept. Was unreal. And was security so lax that day to where Ruby could just walk up and cap Oswald?

reply to post by gladtobehere

Whereas in Britain, even then, the media would have been told nothing (before he was charged) except "A man is helping police with their enquiries".

Personally , i think we have seen all the evidence we needed to see concerning this case . And i actually like this footage even though i know it wasn`t him , the reason i like this is because it proves - to me atleast - that my idea of how the media works is 100 - no i`ll say 99% correct to leave room for debate , lol.

Corrupt and covered in all corners of the globe - that should be murdoch`s motto .

reply to post by DISRAELI


Back then ? ..... "Black man kills most important man in the developed world" would have caused f`k`n chaos in England , lol.

reply to post by EnemyOfTheSane
How does "black man" come into the picture? That suggestion hasn't been made about LHO.
Anyway, chaos or no chaos, if he had not even been charged with doing it, he would not have been named as doing it.
If he had not been arrested, and they were still searching for him, the B.B.C. message would have been "Police are looking for a man called Lee Harvey Oswald; they believe he may be able to help them with their enquiries".
That was the code (but we knew what it meant).

reply to post by DISRAELI


In England , England ....... England ...... where black people were / are despised for no real reason other than the colour of their skin. Literally , i`ve personally witnessed a black british lad born and raised in my city get called a N.....

If you don`t know what England was like back then , even now , i`d advise you to stock up on some English education just to be sure you know what you`re coming across when you come across it .

England was / is the worst place on earth for "racism" . (or as i like to call it "afraid of wordsism" )

reply to post by EnemyOfTheSane

I was around in England back then, so I know all about it, thanks.
But this thread is about the assassination of a President and media behaviour relating to that.
Racism is a different issue and a different thread.

reply to post by EnemyOfTheSane


Not only are you off topic (Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't black) you are generalising the population of England in one sentence.
I'm also from England, it depends where you are, racism is not just one way either.

EnemyOfTheSane
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

England was / is the worst place on earth for "racism" . (or as i like to call it "afraid of wordsism" )

Prove it? but not in isolated incidents, not in racists groupings, not in racist political groupings. Thuggery though is everywhere, in any country, and from the highest to the lowest in the populations. Yours is a cheap shot.

Ok seriously, how did a LHO wacking JFK thread turn into a fro bro hate fest in limytown. Just asking.

Just trying to point out the ridiculous direction this thread is going

reply to post by gladtobehere


I have watched a documentary called Evidence of Revision part 1 (below)

www.youtube.com...


Its mainly footage of TV,news and other things before, during and after JFK was killed.

Go to 1.08:55 and watch when Oswald was shot and look at the reaction of the Chief of Police about 30 seconds later in the clip when it happens. (the film points it out if you have not seen it.)

Ya'll want to talk racism, find a nice thread about racism and have a blast.

That ISN'T the topic of this one. It is

The JFK shooting and the difference in media access to criminals in these type of cases then and now.

Carry on.

Actually, there was a fantastic show I saw last week I had never seen before. It was based off a ballistics expert doing a forensic analysis of the shot directions along with caliber sizes of known bullets related to WC report, and pathology reports released by FOIA docs on the autopsy. The end result being that this ballistic expert was convinced that the kill shot came from a secret service agent in the car directly behind, by accident, but by him non the less. The evidence was very compelling and I had never heard it before.

It also took into account no less than 22 separate witnesses that saw the AR15 in his hand and smelled gun powder "on the ground" , with a 15 mph wind coming from the overpass toward the the book depository. Which means that if all 3 shots came from the book depository, there is no way in hell anybody on the ground would smell it.Certainly not in the vicinity of the of either side of the road or near the overpass, which no less than a career military man who also happened to be a senetor from Dallas, I think, along with police officers and bystanders who all smelled the same thing.What was most compelling was that the rifle that Oswald was supposed to have used was a 6.5 mm bullet which would leave approx. a 7 mm hole, the caliber of the AR 15 was a 223 which would leave close to a 6.5 mm hole which was consistent with the pathology report.

Also contradictory info to the WC report was that Oswald's supposed rounds were FMJ rounds. " Full metal jackets" , rounds designed to penetrate, wound, and exit the body. Granted not always the case but, often was. The contradiction!

The round that penetrated JFK's skull fragmented upon impact and blew out an approx. third of his skull. Fragments were collected and Secret Service collected all evidence at the autopsy according to pathologists testimony to the WC. Also FOIA released info

reply to post by twohawks

So what you are saying, like that documentary, is that two seperate bullets from two seperate guns, from two seperate people does not a conspiracy make, and that it was a half accident and half real.

reply to post by smurfy


That in essence was what the angle of trajectory and ballistic evidence showed to be the case. One thing I didn't mention was the position of his head after the "second shot" not the first. There was a woman right behind the car position that reported to the police that she saw something hit the ground right behind the press's car and bounce debree up from the road. Her words. Can't remember his name but the gov. In the seat in front of Kennedy heard the pres say "I've been hit". The second shot aka. The mackic bullet shot was the one the hit the pres in the throat and went on to penetrate into the gov. Given the positions of the seat locations in the car the gov and his wife's seats were closer to the center of the car than where John and Jackie were sitting. Which with a FMJ round sounds plausible.

The third round however is the tricky one. Based off forensics it enters the posterior aspect of the skull below mid cranium and exited as a blast of skull forward right cranium which suggests a hallow point type of round designed to fragment on impact for maximum damage. No such rounds were reported in Oswald's gun. The second shot was consistent with a shooter from that area but not the third. After the second shot , Kennedy's head fell forward toward Jackie and away from the right side of the vehicle. Then the third shot hit and JFK's skull exploded. Which was when Jackie jumped up and reached for the parts toward the back of the vehicle.

Synopsis was that when the first shot rang out the secret service agent in the back seat of the car directly behind the pres reached for the AR. When the second shot fired the secrect service car braked which caused the agent with the AR to accidentally fall forward and then back according to eye witnesses, causing him to accidentally pull the trigger. Hence the secret service extreme cover up and acquisition of all evidence post shooting. Based off autopsy reports and individuals involved in post shooting scenario.