JFK and 9/11
- Thread starter Trippy
- Start date
Nice drawings, where's the real photos?
This post is in response to Trippy's post 2308 in the 9/11 Poll thread.
There was apparently another type developed. Jim Marrs elaborates in his well known book on the JFK assassination, Crossfire:
However, Marrs continues by saying that most assassination researchers prefer an alternative theory that both the umbrella man and a dark complected man that was beside him may have been providing visual signals to hidden gunmen. I certainly don't see why it couldn't be both. I have previously explained this alternative theory in post 33 in this thread.
There was apparently another type developed. Jim Marrs elaborates in his well known book on the JFK assassination, Crossfire:
Assassination researcher Robert Cutler has long maintained that the umbrella may have been a sophisticated weapon that fired a dart or "flechette" filled with a paralyzing agent. Cutler's theory is supported by the 1975 testimony of a CIA weapons developer who told the Senate Intelligence Committee that just such an umbrella weapon was in the hands of the spy agency in 1963.
Charles Senseney, who developed weaponry for the CIA at Fort Detrick, Maryland, described a dart-firing weapon he developed as looking like an umbrella. He said the dart gun was silent in operation and fired through the webbing when the umbrella was open. Senseney said the CIA had orderedabout fifty such dart weapons and that they were operational in 1963.
Cutler theorized that the umbrella was used to fire a paralyzing dart into Kennedy immobilizing him for marksmen with rifles. He claims this theory accounts for the small puncture wound in Kennedy's throat described by Dallas doctors, but which was altered by the time of the Bethesday autopsy. According to Culter, this dart explains Kennedy's lack of motion during the shooting sequence. Since such a weapon existed and since both the actions of Kennedy and the "umbrella man" were consistent with the operation of such a weapon, Cutler's theory cannot be completely dismissed.
Charles Senseney, who developed weaponry for the CIA at Fort Detrick, Maryland, described a dart-firing weapon he developed as looking like an umbrella. He said the dart gun was silent in operation and fired through the webbing when the umbrella was open. Senseney said the CIA had orderedabout fifty such dart weapons and that they were operational in 1963.
Cutler theorized that the umbrella was used to fire a paralyzing dart into Kennedy immobilizing him for marksmen with rifles. He claims this theory accounts for the small puncture wound in Kennedy's throat described by Dallas doctors, but which was altered by the time of the Bethesday autopsy. According to Culter, this dart explains Kennedy's lack of motion during the shooting sequence. Since such a weapon existed and since both the actions of Kennedy and the "umbrella man" were consistent with the operation of such a weapon, Cutler's theory cannot be completely dismissed.
However, Marrs continues by saying that most assassination researchers prefer an alternative theory that both the umbrella man and a dark complected man that was beside him may have been providing visual signals to hidden gunmen. I certainly don't see why it couldn't be both. I have previously explained this alternative theory in post 33 in this thread.
Freely available on the internet from many websites.
If you're genuinely interested in seeing them, and think they might actually proove something, go find them yourself. You can't afford to pay my hourly rate as a research assistant.
Then don't argue with me.
Why wasn't the Kennedy autopsy done in Dallas? Or I can't afford that question too? What a great discussion.
The whole event and findings of the Warren commission is a cruel joke on the American people.
It was the day the U.S died, the day Freedom died, the day the owners of the United States of America decided to foreclose.
The location of the autopsy was at Jackie Kennedy's request.
Gimme a break, you know what some people are just suckers and that's all there is to it.
nietz, I think you know what side of the debate I'm on. And perhaps there is indeed some vital piece(s) of information that has to do with where the autopsy took place and the only reason I don't know about it is because I still haven't gotten that far into Jim Marrs' book Crossfire. But I don't think that calling everyone who doesn't know this (hypothetical) motherlode of information a sucker is going to help get the truth out.
Speaking of posts devoid of content...
I imagine that the autopsy was done in Dallas because teh focus was getting an answer out as quickly as possible.
It doesn't matter man, neither side will convince the other. There are those that believe everything they are told from authority and those that make up their own minds from all the data points. Of course knowing the absolute truth is impossible in most of these crimes so the argument can go on ad nauseum. It's pointless. Even Trippy doesn't really want to go over it all, and just exchange pissy little barbs. I glad to accommodate, I mean wtf that's the whole point of these threads.
I'm willing to just leave it at, I don't believe the official story. I think it's full of shit and let whoever believe whatever they want to believe.
I just wish I could afford you Trippy. You are all knowing and all powerful. How much do you charge for a blow job?
I don't really see things so black and white. I think that people encompass a spectrum, from those who can't fathom elements of the government doing such heinous things, to those who consider the possibility, to those who wholeheartedly believe that that's the way things are done sometimes. I admit that my family has already been one that is frequently skeptical of certain elements of the government and if anything, that position has grown stronger as the years have gone by. But at the same time, I firmly believe that governments are a reflection of the people they govern, and we're not all bad. There are even some who I believe are a cut above the norm.. and yes, some of them are killed. But new good leaders spring up to take their place. I for one am hopeful in the case of Obama.
Agreed. However, fairly truthful is good enough in my book.
I have put in a fair amount of effort to curtail these barbs and get to the subject at hand.
I believe the official story is full of holes as well. And while some may scoff at Oliver Stone's movie on it, the fact that such a movie exists, starring Kevin Kostner as the detective, no less, is proof in my view that there is a far stronger current of suspicion concerning this story than is currently true concerning 9/11. And even concerning 9/11, there are a fair amount of people who are suspicious of the official story, as even the poll here; and remember that this is a site in which I have seen no admin/mod state that they are suspicious of the official story and the 9/11 threads are relegated to pseudoscience.
nietz, come on, let's stick to the subject at hand
. Anyway, I thought the autopsy was done outside of Dallas?It was.
Ok, next question- was Jackie indeed the one who requested the change in the locale for the autopsy?
Doesn't matter even if that was true (which is truly laughable). It wasn't her decision.
"The choice of autopsy hospital in the Washington, D.C. area was made at the request of Mrs. Kennedy, on the basis that John F. Kennedy had been a naval officer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy
I read an interview in her own words saying this but can't find the link.
Ok. Honestly, I don't know why the location of the autopsy should be a big deal anyway. If you've read the links that Tony provided in the 9/11 Poll thread, you can see that they found evidence that suggests a conspiracy.
And yet, Kenny's wiki entry..
nietzschefan said:
Ok, but no one claimed it was her decision, just her request, that was apparently granted.