Ja, erzähl doch mal.Nikto schrieb:Aber nein, dem frischgebackenen Presidenten konnte es ja nicht schnell genug gehen --- warum wohl?
Du willst es offenbar genau von diesem Thema aus noch mal neu anschmeißen, das Rädchen. Hast dir kein bisschen was davon durchgelesen und von dem Artikel, der den ganzen Flug beschreibt, oder? Ich kann michj nicht erinnern, dass du dich darauf in der Folge mal bezogen hättest.
Er wird schon gewusst haben, wieso er es so eilig hatte …
Stephenson antwortete:
Du kannst dir die Tapes des Funkverkehrs von Air Force 1 anhören oder das Transkript daraufhin durchlesen.
EC145 schrieb am 10.07.2019:Und es war sicher auch der Wunsch von RFK das LBJ in Dallas an Bord der Air Force One vereidigt wurde.
Und Du scheinst die ganze resultierende Debatte die um diese Funksprüche entstand die hier dannach geführt wurden vergessen zu haben?
Ach ja? Wohl kaum! Und wurde hier auch schon belegt.
Ist das Skalpell schon da sowie die Krawatten?
Das müsstest du näher erläutern und belegen. Das würde auch das Diskussionsklima hier verbessern. Bald landen wir auf dem Niveau von "Du liegst falsch, aber ich sage nicht warum".
Du verlangst selbst mehr Logik und Seriosität in diesem Thread, also halte dich daran.
The fourth volume of the critically acclaimed biography, 'The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Passage pf Power', was released in May 2012. Written by the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author Robert A. Caro, the book went on to receive several awards and book prizes. It was also named one of the 10 Best Books of the year by The New York Times.…
The book shows how Johnson ignored the wishes of the Kennedy clan that he travel on Air Force Two and that Kennedy’s body arrived back on Air Force One with only family and friends on board as his symbolic last trip as president.…
It also details how Johnson called up JFK’s brother Bobby, then Attorney General, and demanded the legal advice on how to take the oath for president. He wanted Bobby’s approval for taking the oath on the plane, again, to give the act legitimacy. Accounts differ on whether the distraught Bobby Kennedy agreed or not.
Strohmann. Wo habe ich vom guten JFK geschrieben?
Da der Fotograf des Bildes selbst, Cecil Stoughton, den "Wink" anerkennt, stehst du so ziemlich alleine mit deiner Interpretation da.
In the sensational tapes recorded by the First Lady months after the President’s death on November 22 1963, Kennedy revealed her belief that Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons orchestrated the murder of her husband by gunman Lee Harvey Oswald. Kennedy, who later became Jackie Onassis, claimed that the Dallas murder was part of a larger conspiracy to allow Johnson to become American President in his own right.https://www.irishcentral.com/news/jackie-kennedy-lyndon-b-johnson-jfk-murder
The story is well-documented. Within a week of the assassination, RFK and Jackie Kennedy sent a friend to Moscow with a message for the leadership of the Soviet Union. As historians Aleksandr Fursenko and Tim Naftali reported in their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, "One Hell of a Gamble," Bobby and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that “despite Oswald’s connections to the communist world, the Kennedys believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents." This finding is worth repeating on the 48thanniversary of JFK's death: Jackie and Bobby Kennedy "believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents."
Naftali, now the director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library in California, told me in an email that he and his co-author learned the story from a Soviet diplomat, Georgi Bolshakov, and found his written account of Bobby and Jackie's message in the Soviet archives. In that message Bobby and Jackie sought to assure the Soviet leadership that they did not believe that Oswald acted at Castro's behest. The clear implication of the message was that Bobby and Jackie held the American right, not the international left, responsible for the crime in Dallas. "I was a little surprised what little reaction the ... story got," Naftali wrote.
https://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/the_holy_grail_of_the_jfk_story/
Wenn wir mal den vergleich mit einem ermordeten Millionär und seinem Erben heranziehen:
Nö, das muss ich nun nicht mehr. Ich darf voraussetzen, dass die Unterschiede zwischen Deutung und Fakten bekannt sind und auch von den - oder vielen - Leuten erkannt werden. Gleich im nächsten Satz willst du mir was mit Lügner unterjubeln in Bezug auf ein Buch...
Meinst du diese Aussage?
Die Bild- und Artikel-Interpretation kannst du dir ganz einfach sparen. Da hatte ich dir was zu gesagt, in etwa in der Nähe des obigen Zitats. Warum willst du das jetzt noch mal haben? DAS ist es, was hier das Diskussionsklima verdirbt. Du nimmst die Leute nicht ernst. (Erstaunlich, dass nur Nikto zum gleichen Zeitpunkt wie du die gleiche Gedächntislücke in Richtung des AF1-Themas hat.)
Groucho meinte mal, die einzigen Fakten die was taugen, wäre der Zapruder Film, wie auch die Autopsie.
Was ist denn an "falsch platzierten Strassen-Laternen" ernst zu nehmen? :D
Was ist mit der Papiertüte, fehlende Schmauchspuren am Gewehrkolben, einem Frame der einen beinahe unverletzten Hinterkopf zeigt der zuvor fast explodierte und was hat es mit diesen 17cm. der Autopsie am Kopf auf sich?Aniara schrieb:Was ist denn an "falsch platzierten Strassen-Laternen" ernst zu nehmen? :D
Solange du nur blind alles nachplapperst, was dir proteus vorkaut, ist eine Diskussion mit dir sowieso sinnlos...
Ich kann mich nicht erinnern, dass du jemals was eigenes gebracht hast, dass nicht bereits von jemanden anderen gebracht worden war, mit Ausnahme vielleicht, des Agenten der im Kofferraum sass und von dort aus JFK erschoss 😉 ... beinahe so originell wie Behind_Eyes Stealth Ufo Theorie.
Könnte daran liegen, dass du wohl noch nicht so lange dabei bist. ;)
Du musst uns auch nichts "zur Bearbeitung geben". :D Ändere doch etwas an deinem "Leien-Status" und beschäftige dich selbst mal ausgiebig mit dem Fall. Das hattest du sogar versprochen, zumindest warst du so in diese Diskussion eingestiegen. Offen und unbefangen, aber du hast eben schnell dein VT-Gesicht offenbart. ;)
Groucho meint, du könntest ihm noch ein paar Fragen beantworten:
Beitrag von Groucho (Seite 1.457)Groucho schrieb:Ja, erzähl doch mal.
Warum konnte es ihm nicht schnell genug gehen?
Welchen Vorteil hatte er dadurch?
Was wäre anders, wenn er erst in Washington vereidigt worden wäre?
Was genau möchtest du da diskutieren?
Was ist mit der Papiertüte, fehlende Schmauchspuren am Gewehrkolben, einem Frame der einen beinahe unverletzten Hinterkopf zeigt der zuvor fast explodierte und was hat es mit diesen 17cm. der Autopsie am Kopf auf sich?Ja was ist denn nun damit? Etwas Elaboration Deinerseits wäre wünschenswert und segensreich, zumindest wäre dann die Grundlage für eine Diskussion gelegt. Die einzelnen Themen können auch schön nach und nach besprochen werden!
Wann hast das letzte Mal eine substanzielle Aussage gemacht oder eine Frage gestellt, die nicht ein erhebliches Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit nahelegt?
Oder komm wieder zu Fakten.
Groucho meinte mal, die einzigen Fakten die was taugen, wäre der Zapruder Film, wie auch die Autopsie.
Auch dazu scheint ihr euch einer ernsthaften Diskussion verschliessen zu wollen.... warum?
Mit Verlaub, hierbei handelt es sich um einen russischen Stealth-Helicopter der nach akzeptierter VT-Argumentationsweise erfolgreich neben allen anderen VTs Bestand hat.
Was hat das mit "Bashing" zu tun, wenn man Zeitzeugen, Berichte und Historiker zitiert?
Wie ich anhand zahhlreicher Quellen, auch von Historikern analysierten, aufgezeigt habe, hat LBJ in der Tat auf so einen Moment gewartet.
There were two pressing questions. First, should we get airborne or wait for the body of the late president to be brought aboard? The Justice Department was urging swift departure, as was the Defense Department. Without hesitation, LBJ said flatly he would not depart Dallas until the coffin was secure on the plane. He understood intuitively that he could not leave the body of President Kennedy alone in Dallas.https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-president-is-dead-you-know/
After being informed at Parkland Hospital that Kennedy was dead, Johnson raced back to Air Force One, where he waited for Mrs. Kennedy and the body of the slain president, and made preparations to take the Oath of Office.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-new-wrinkle-in-the-jfk_b_339026
???
Ich kam zuletzt mit Stoughton und "wink". Er erkannte den Wink an, die einzige Frage ist, was hinter diesem steckte. Sogar Debunker erkennen an, dass es ein "Wink" war.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1167.html
I think Thomas' wink was basically the equivalent of a "Good Luck" handshake. Nothing more.
3. After LBJ's behavior on the plane became an issue in 1967 (with the release of the Manchester book), all of Stoughton's photos were published. With one exception. The wink photo.
4. When David Lifton contacted the LBJ Library to purchase copies of all the Stoughton photos, they sent him a copy of a print of the wink photo, as the negative had disappeared.
5. Richard Trask confirmed that the negative to the wink photo is missing from the Library.
Dein Ansatz ist aber genau das Gegenteil dessen, was du eigentlic vorhattest, nämlich den Bullshit auszusondern, Punkte abzuarbeiten und folglich auch mal Fakten festzulegen, Hierarchien zu erstellen.
This "sensitivity," moreover, was in the air and spreading. Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, whose discussions in the days after the shooting sparked the creation of the Warren Commission, testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (the "HSCA") on 8-4-78 that he sensed that the rest of the world would suspect Johnson's involvement, and that this in effect "disqualified" Johnson from leading an investigation into Kennedy's death. Katzenbach then explained that this feeling had led him to believe that "some other people of enormous prestige and above political in-fighting, political objectives, ought to review the matter and take the responsibility" of identifying Kennedy's assassin.…
He said much the same thing in subsequent testimony. On 9-21-78 he told the HSCA that his primary concern in the aftermath of the assassination was "the amount of speculation both here and abroad as to what was going on, whether there was a conspiracy of the left or a lone assassin or even in its wildest stages, a conspiracy by the then vice president to achieve the presidency, the sort of thing you have speculation about in some countries abroad where that kind of condition is normal." Egads. These words suggest that Katzenbach, who was only running the Justice Department in the aftermath of the assassination, considered Johnson's involvement unthinkable, and not really worth investigating.
And this wasn't the last time Katzenbach suggested as much. In his 2008 memoir Some of It Was Fun, Katzenbach wrote that in the days after the assassination: "Among the many conspiracy theories floating around were those that put conservative Texas racists in the picture and even some that saw LBJ as the moving force."
That Katzenbach's concern about these theories influenced the Warren Commission's investigation, moreover, seems obvious. Howard Willens, a Justice Department attorney reporting to Katzenbach, was made an assistant to Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin, and was tasked with 1) hiring the commission's junior counsel (the men tasked with performing the bulk of the commission's investigation), 2) assigning these men specific areas of investigation, 3) supplying these men with the FBI, Secret Service, and CIA reports pertinent to their areas of investigation, 4) working as a liaison between these men and the agencies creating these reports, and 5) helping to re-write the commission's own report. On 7-28-78, in Executive Session, Willens testified before the HSCA, and admitted: "there were some allegations involving President Johnson that were before the Commission and there was understandably among all persons associated with this effort a desire to investigate those allegations and satisfy the public, if possible, that these allegations were without merit."
But these allegations weren't investigated, not really. The Commission's final report amounted to a prosecutor's brief against a lone assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald, and the 26 volumes of supporting data published by the Commission contained next to nothing on Johnson or other possible conspirators.
That this "clearing" of Johnson's name was a major factor in the commission's creation is confirmed, moreover, by a memo written by Warren Commission counsel Melvin A. Eisenberg. While reporting on the Warren Commission's first staff conference of 1-20-64, Eisenberg recalled in a 2-17-64 memo that Chief Justice Warren had discussed "the circumstances under which he had accepted the chairmanship of the Commission," and had claimed he'd resisted pressure from Johnson until "The President stated that the rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson. Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives."
Eisenberg's account of Warren's statements was supported, for that matter, by Warren Commission Junior Counsel--and subsequent Senator--Arlen Specter in his 2000 memoir Passion for Truth. In Specter's account, Warren claimed that Johnson had told him "only he could lend the credibility the country and the world so desperately needed as the people tried to understand why their heroic young president had been slain. Conspiracy theories involving communists, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, the military-industrial complex, and even the new president were already swirling. The Kennedy assassination could lead America into a nuclear war that could kill 40 million people..."
And this, apparently, wasn't the only time Warren admitted Johnson's worries extended both beyond and closer to home than the possible thermo-nuclear war mentioned in his autobiography. In his biography of Warren, Ed Cray reported that Warren once confided to a friend that "There was great pressure on us to prove, first, that President Johnson was not involved, and, second, that the Russians were not involved."
Am einfachsten wäre doch, dass die Röntgenbilder manipuliert und eine falsche Fragmentspur eingefügt wurde.behind_eyes schrieb:Mit Verlaub, hierbei handelt es sich um einen russischen Stealth-Helicopter der nach akzeptierter VT-Argumentationsweise erfolgreich neben allen anderen VTs Bestand hat.
Komisch, dass dir dieses Argument erst jetzt einfällt, obwohl ich die Quelle schon mal vor ca. drei Jahren für dich verlinkt hatte.
Recorded telephone conversation between Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Russell (18th September, 1964)
Richard Russell: No, no. They're trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally, went through him and through his hand, his bone, and into his leg... I couldn't hear all the evidence and cross examine all of them. But I did read the record.... I was the only fellow there that ... suggested any change whatever in what the staff got up.' This staff business always scares me. I like to put my own views down. But we got you a pretty good report.https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKrussell.htm
Lyndon B. Johnson: Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?
Richard Russell: Well, it don't make much difference. But they said that... the commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don't believe it.
Lyndon B. Johnson: I don't either.
Mit MIR? Es geht um die Quellen, nicht um mich. Don´t shoot the messenger!
Original anzeigen (0,2 MB)Kannst du die Maße der Wunde im Z-Film mal genauer beschreiben und erläutern? Würde mich interessieren, wie man da Maße bestimmen kann.
Hört sich ganz schwer danach an, als wäre es 1963 eben nicht Standard gewesen.
