53 Responses

1. Wrong again. The FBI determined that the gun could not be fired twice in less than 2.6 seconds, and that was just by working the bolt as quickly as possible without taking time out to aim. The Z film showed JFK and Connally reacting to being shot 1.6 seconds (or less) apart. That was when Arlen Specter came to the rescue by proposing the single-bullet theory with both men being hit by one bullet and Connally suffering a delayed reaction to a bullet that cased five wounds to him (and two more to JFK) including a shattered rib and wrist radial bone. I guess he never took physics in school. Impact causes reactions to bullets crushing bone, not realization that you’ve been shot.

2. “LHO couldn’t have shot the rifle so quickly as the Zapruder film would mandate.”

   I wrote this a few days ago; the key-point is not so much whether the process could be competed in ~3 seconds…as much as the fact that he’d have to have time to aim before shooting the 2nd and 3rd times.

   Assuming i’m correct and this ONE point is viewed as controlling, what other theories survive?

3. No. If you had read my work you would know that I never guess, and I meticulously document everything I write. That is the responsible thing to do, and it is why my research has never been challenged. I have my suspicions, but I keep those to myself because publishing facts and publishing opinions are two very different things. The bulk of my published work has to do with the role of the media in covering (or perhaps covering-up is a better word) the assassination. I also covered the House Select Committee on Assassinations for New Times Magazine where I broke several stories, including the Acoustics findings that there were at least 5 shots from both the front and the rear.
   I do not, by the way, think that it is even debatable that Oswald did not fire any shots that day which is why I do not hesitate to state that as fact. When a panel from the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (every member of which had ties to the CIA, by the way, as its chair admitted at a conference in Bethesda in 2005) they totally ignored the science supporting the findings and instead chose to challenge it on the basis of sounds on the tape that did not line up with the assassination timeline. That would have been a valid point if the tape was an original, but it was copy, so the fact that those sounds were there in the background is easily explained. Clearly both recordings were being played back in the room, and the recorder picked up both of them. The actual acoustical patterns were gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza to the exclusion of any other location in the world. That is a proven scientific, mathematical reality, which is why the Forensic Sciences panel did not go there.

4. After your extensive research, can you provide a best-guess?

5. Robert B Sklaroff asks: “Absent pejoratives, pray tell, who did it and why?”
   I already said I don’t know who did it. I know Oswald did not do it, but private citizens lack the resources to crack this case, and the Government probably knows but won’t tell. Your question is just another cop out. You put the onus on the critics to say who did it instead of putting it on the Government. Whoever did it had the power to both pull it off and cover it up.

6. @ Jerry Policoff:

   Absent pejoratives, pray tell, who did it and why?

7. One of the problems with people like you is that you do little reading, no original research, and then you set up an untrue premise so you can knock it down.

   First of all, that CBS series was incredibly dishonest, and I have personally exposed it for the dishonest con job it really was, including an article in The Village Voice where I exposed the fact that John J. McCloy, a founder of the CIA and a member of the Warren Commission, was a secret behind-the-scenes “consultant.”

   You seem to suggest the Tippit shooting was a slam-dunk, but it wasn’t. Oswald almost certainly could not have gotten there in the time required. Most eye-witnesses described two shooters, neither of them resembling Oswald; Shells casually discarded at the scene could not be ballistically matched and did not match the casings, etc., etc. You claim the critics have never offered plausible alternatives, but they have. You just have not bothered to read them.

   You say Oswald could not have fired the shots fast enough as the Z film would mandate, and you express skepticism about the single-bullet theory but claim you have seen no cogent alternative. The s-b-t is absurd and was only put forward because it was the only way they could account for Oswald being the lone assassin since Connally and JFK were hit too closely together for separate bullets to have caused those wounds from Oswald’s rifle. The obvious, and much more credible explanation is multiple shots fired by multiple gunmen, a theory confirmed by the acoustics findings of the House Select Committee. Some supposed studies claim to have bebunked those findings, but they did no such thing, and the debunkers are themselves suspect for their supposed debunking methodology.

   There is a mammoth amount of credible forensic literature proving the assassination was a conspiracy. Claiming it does not exist is the only way people like you can deny the obvious, but it does exist. Most of the supposed case used to “convict” Oswald was based on supposed evidence that has since been exposed as “junk science.” Such evidence is no longer even permissible in a court of law.

   I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a researcher and historian who has helped expose the greatest government/media cover-up in my lifetime. As for Oliver Stone, I suggest you read “JFK: The Book Of the Film” by Jane Rusconi. It includes footnotes that document virtually all of the claims made in the film. It also includes an anthology of articles about the film (pro and con) including the one I wrote for The Village Voice. I have mixed feelings about Garrison, but it was a brilliant and honest film, its critics notwithstanding.

8. I’ve been skeptical of the Warren Commission report ever since the airing of Walter Cronkite’s 4-part analysis thereof; I recall acquiring the transcript and concluding that LHO couldn’t have shot the rifle so quickly as the Zapruder film would mandate.

   But the Tippit shooting was proximate to the theater where LHO was captured and, even when noting Garrison’s claims, no one ever appeared to have credibly proffered an alternative murderer [or multiple murderers]; also, no one tied together the 2 shootings.

   That’s the problem I have with conspiracy theorists such as yourself, for they infrequently articulate a counter-scenario that, itself, would be subject to cogent critique; i’ve been open-minded regarding JFK [Castro, The Mob, LBJ] and have discounted Specter’s single-pristine-on-the-stretcher-bullet theory, but haven’t read a cogent alternative.

9. No, Oswald did not shoot Tippit either, and that is my conclusion based on the evidence. I won’t try to prove that to you because you are an idiot devoid of intellectual capacity. You are not worth any more of my time.
   I have been widely published in respectable magazines and book anthologies and have appeared on mainstream news programs on this subject. I was commended as one of the more responsible Warren Commission critics by one of the chief investigators of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in his book “The Last Investigation” (they also ruled it was a conspiracy, by the way).
   Did you even know that the term “conspiracy theorist” was popularized by the CIA in a memo to its station chiefs and media assets on how to discredit the critics of the lone assassin conclusion. Their propaganda was aimed at morons like you, and it clearly succeeded in your case. This memo is not a conspiracy theory or fake news. It was declassified many years ago.

10. @ Jerry Policoff:

    I have not retrenched from my original claim about “irrefutable” information impugning the institutions you defend (ACORN/PP); indeed, you are shown to be guilty of the same “selectivity” that you (falsely) claim has impugned evidence of impropriety.

    If you now claim Oswald didn’t shoot JFK (alone or as part of a group-assassination), then why did he shoot Tippett? Or do you dispute that as well?

    As a conspiracy-theorist, you appear sadly to be consistent in your thinking…for your “facts” must be molded to your apparent ideology.

11. Mr. Sklaroff:
    I remind you of your original post:
    “It’s so much fun to watch this Dem circular-firing-squad in-action … although the misinformation therein is overwhelming; for example, when D2 suggests the ACORN-scam was over-hyped, he conveniently forgets that immediate resignations/firings were generated because of the irrefutable nature of the videos O’Keefe released.”

    You have backtracked significantly from your original praise of O’Keefe’s “irrefutable” tapes. What is at issue here is not PP or Acorn which can be debated ad infinite. It is your own credibility.

    I have no idea why you insert JFK into this exchange, though I suspect I know significantly more about it than you do. I do not know who killed JFK, but I do know it was not Lee Harvey Oswald who had neither the skill with a rifle nor the opportunity to have done it. At least six witnesses support his claim that he was downstairs both before and immediately after the shots were fired. I am not going to waste any more time discussing JFK or anything else with you.

12. @ Jerry Policoff:

    Your selectivity when reciting history is problematic.

    Regarding O’Keefe, there were multiple admissions of error and resignations triggered by his revelations, not withstanding the outlandish nature of how they were acquired; admittedly, in his racket, there were times that he went overboard [remember 60 Minutes, of old?].

    Regarding PP, there were numerous undoctored tapes depicting [while sipping wine] how gestational age would determine the quality of the parts; again, I know of the inserted video illustrative of an audio commentary, but the major point made yielded [again, admittedly] prompt employee-firings.

    BTW, who killed JFK?

13. Okay Mr. Sklaroff. Since you seem intent in putting your ignorance on display, I will oblige you one last time. You claim that “the tapes clearly showed the PP-physicians gauging the worth of organs of aborted fetuses based, for example, on the gestational age.” Not even close. You are confusing the Acorn tape with the equally dishonest and malisciously edited Planned Parenthood tapes. O’Keefe’s tapes did not purport to show any such thing regarding Acorn, and O’Keefe ended up having to pay a $100,000 settlement to Acorn employee Juan Carlos Vera for smearing him via his edits of the tape.
    The completely unrelated Planned Parenthood tapes, not executed by O’Keefe, were also severely edited with an 8-minute segment removed to make it look like an answer to a different question was an incriminating answer to an earlier question.
    Planned Parenthood was making fetal tissue available for researh, and was charging a small fee to cover its costs, but they were not selling body parts as the edited tapes falsely claimed. That would have been illegal, and PP was not doing it. Your continued dissemination of lies and you refusal to research any of your deceitful claims speaks for itself.

14. It’s so typical of libs who, when losing arguments, decide it’s game-over rather than attempting to counter truth; the tapes clearly showed the PP-physicians gauging the worth of organs of aborted fetuses based, for example, on the gestational age and, thus, unilateral declarations [“We’re done.”] reflect despicable anti-intellectualism [absent name-calling, which is another method to avoid engaging in documentation].

15. Uh, noooo. because those tapes were maliciously edited and the Acorn workers were totally cleared.
    Are you for real? You make totally unwarranted charges based on discredited edited tapes, and then you just pivot into more disinformation when someone calls you out. We’re done. I have no time for idiots like you.

16. @ Jerry Policoff:

    And I suppose you don’t have any problem with the PP-tapes showing sale of body-parts, either, eh?

17. If anyone is ever wanting for an extra serving of misinformation PoliticsPa is the place to go.
    Wow Mr. Sklaroff, what a fountain of knowledge you are.
    You are correct that “immediate resignations/firings were generated by the O’Keefe tapes, but “irrefutable” ??? Hardly. It was a rush to judgment based on heavily edited tapes designed to create a misleading impression of their activities.
    It cost ACORN most of its funding, and forced it into bankruptcy, but several independent investigations absolved ACORN of any criminal activity, and O’keefe & Co. were thoroughly discredited.

18. It’s so much fun to watch this Dem circular-firing-squad in-action … although the misinformation therein is overwhelming; for example, when D2 suggests the ACORN-scam was over-hyped, he conveniently forgets that immediate resignations/firings were generated because of the irrefutable nature of the videos O’Keefe released.

19. Barrick’s Einwohner:
    I haven’t a clue who James Maurer was, but obviously he didn’t put much stock in voting his conscience. I do. Why do any of you care about how others vote? What is the point of free elections if those of us who refuse to vote for the corrupt Democrat or the corrupt Republican are endlessly harrassed and second-guessed by those who favord an Establishment candidate? Besides I did not want either Hillary or Donald and thought both were equally bad for different reasons. Just because you don’t agree does not suggest that I should have voted for either of them. Get a life.

    David Diano:
    My dislike of Hillary has nothing whatsoever to do with Bernie Sanders. I would not have voted for her back in 2008 either if she had gotten the nomination. And why should I vote for someone I consider a rabid war monger and neoliberal just because she won the primary? Would you have voted for Sestak if he had won the primary? Clearly the answer is no. So your criticism of me for not voting for Clinton even though she did win the primary is blatant hypocrisy.
    I guess you missed the well-documented evidence that the media, the Democratric Establishment, the DNC, etc. all had their thumb on the scale for Hillary. You act as if these campaigns were fought on a level playing field. I pulled an average of the stretch-run polls in the battleground states leading up to the Democratic Convention. In every single one of those states Sanders polled significantly better than Clinton against Trump. In fact he also ran far ahead of Trump in those polls while Hillary trailed him in most of those polls.
    As far as I am concerned Clinton stole the nomination, and if she hadn’t Sanders would now be President-elect. One thing the polls showed unequivocally was that Sanders played very well with Independents and Hillary played horribly. Independents represented 31% of the votes according to exit polls, and they clearly carried the day for Trump. They also would likely have carried the day for Sanders. The Democrats know how to interpret this stuff, and they did not care. They preferred losing with Hillary than winning with Bernie. I repeat, the Democrats elected Trump, not I. I feel no shame whatsoever for my Stein vote, and I welcome your scorn.

20. Jerry, who have the discipline of the late great Socialist James H. Maurer who once said, ” I would rather vote for what I want and can’t get, than vote for what I don’t want and can get.”

21. Pat doesn’t want the job he’s happy where he’s at. R’s are stroking him but he’s much smarter than that. His district is so gerrymandered.
    Rumor is he could run, most likely wont. But if he did the R’s would run Tom McGarrigle in his place.

22. Jerry Policoff-

    1) Hillary won the primary legitimately over Bernie by about 55% to 45%. Bernie was too extreme and inexperienced to win, and a clear majority of Dems chose Hillary. Bernie had PLENTY of money to mount his campaign and get out his message.

    2) No alteration of the rules would have made a difference, because there were places where the rule changes proposed for the places he lost, would have cost him votes in the place he won.

    3) Hillary is clearly “closer” to your beliefs that Trump and Stein wasn’t viable. So, your vote for her instead of Hillary brought Trump one vote closer to victory, and shot yourself in the foot (again).

    4) So, yes, you helped elect Trump and have to live with your shame (and the scorn of those that opposed Trump). Your conscience is “clear” because you are intellectually incapable of understanding what you did wrong.

23. You just don’t get it David. First of all I don’t accept the premises you state as fact, not do I consider Casey to be a moderate. Regardless, I will not help enable the corrupt undemocratic process by which the Democratic machine denies the voters an opportunity to choose their own candidates. Yes, Trump is awful, but so is Hillary, and her bellicose neoliberal philosophy was likely to get us into a war with Russia.
    I did not elect Toomey or Trump. The corrupt Democratic machine did, and the Republicans will continue to win these elections as long as the Democrats are permitted to put their thumb on the scale to insure that their corporate shills are insured their place on the ballot. My conscience is clear.

24. Jerry Policoff-

    I agree you are a “progressive Democrat”. However, you are easily tricked by conservatives like Sestak who pretend to be progressive. Also, you lack the common sense to vote for a moderate Dem against a conservative Rep in the general election, foolishly believing that you are honoring some “principle” by throwing away your vote on a write-in who is no longer in the running. Your vote for Jill Stein just helped Trump and no one else.

    That’s funny that you are upset about the “Jump” and “How High”, because that is EXACTLY Sestak’s attitude toward his staff, underlings, and down-ticket candidates.

    Casey didn’t vote to cut ACORN when they were being demonized by those fake undercover videos. That’s a pretty liberal vote considering the pressure to defund them. (I think Sestak did vote for the cuts)

25. Donald Trump and Pat Toomey are grateful for Mr. Policoff’s support. They couldn’t have won without his help.

26. Love to see Pat run. Then maybe we can get a chance for a win for Congress. He won’t win the Senate race, unless we listen to power brokers who will support another bad candidate for the Senate. If Casey bows out, Murphy would be great. Sestak in the house. We will win all the important seats in Pennsylvania because Trump will have imploded. His choices for running the country will be a complete disaster and Pennsylvanians will come home.

27. Smarter: I do not consider how many potential votes a person can get unless they share enough of my political philosophy for me to feel comfortable voting for them. I could never vote for Trump, but I also think Hillary is a pathological liar and a died-in-the wool neoliberal who would adapt a reckless foreign policy that would put in serious jeopardy of inciting WW III. In this case my vote for Stein was my way of saying “none of the above,” and I wish we would put such an option on the ballot so voters could freely display their disgust at both parties and their nominees.

28. Meehan would be a legitimate challenge….two boring guys but Meehan can raise the $$$ to compete

29. Here’s the real question — does anyone outside of David Diano’s mother’s basement know who HE is?

30. Here’s the real question — does anyone outside of David Diano’s basement know who HE is?

31. It never ceases to amaze me how many people post here while lacking the courage to use their real names.

32. **more than Hillary, that is to say.

33. Jerry – Jill Stein got about 140,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, combined. Trump got about 85,000 votes more in those 3 states, combined. Just some food for thought on your Jill Stein vote.

34. CASEY IS TOAST, JUST LIKE TOM HAGEN.

35. …

    BOB CASEY isn’t running for reelection even though the DSCC and Schumer have asked him too (practically begging.) TOM WOLF is retiring after one-term due to health reasons, will announce in January. Casey is preparing for a run for Governor in 2018. If progressive and D’s want a fairer redistricting it’s essential they hold onto the Gov Mansion in 2018. Smart move for Dems to rally around the Casey name to keep the mansion blue during redistricting. Word is that he’ll tap KATIE MCGINTY, Erie Executive KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Allegheny Co. Controller CHELSA WAGNER or former State Rep. JENNIFER MANN for Lt. Gov. similar to what he did with Wagner in 2002 (Wagner actually almost won the Lt. Gov. primary in 2002, outperformed Casey for Gov.)

    The really interesting news is that former Congressman and current US Undersecretary of the Army PATRICK MURPHY is being floated as the first choice to replace Casey in D.C. DSCC is not worried about Sestak, they don’t believe he’ll run this time after being embarrassed in the April primary. Other names mentioned are JOE TORSELLA (probably by Rendell; Torsella ran briefly for Senate in 2010), Erie Executive KATHY DAHLKEMPER and most the most popular other than Murphy is MICHAEL NUTTER, but again Patrick Murphy is by far the favorite among the establishment. Murphy, a veteran, is currently 43 years old and serving as the United States Undersecretary of the Army.

    …

36. I am a progressive Democrat. That means I vote for candidates who support progressive Democratic issues. Simply putting a “D” in front of your name means nothing if you don’t walk the walk. I do not vote for the “lesser of two evils,” and that very concept is why the Democrats get away (though less and less) with pushing bad candidates down our throats. No, I do not like Trump or Toomey, et al, but when they get elected I blame the Democrats for refusing to let us have candidates who could have beaten them. I in no way see the election of such cretins as my fault. I blame the likes of Chuck Schumer.
    I am all in for “Our Revolution.”
    Frankly I differ from Sestak on many issues, but his refusal to ask “how high?” when the likes of Schumer say “jump” is enough to get my vote. That takes a lot of guts, and he has paid dearly for it. But, no, I reject the suggestion that Casey is more liberal than Sestak. Casey is an empty suit who does what he is told to do. He has no principles. I will never vote for him, ever.
    I have never voted Republican in my life, but more and more I see no difference between candidates from either Party. Usually there is maybe one Democratic candidate I cannot vote for. This year I could not vote for Clinton, McGinty, or Hartman (because of her history of undermining governments the CIA opposes via her career with CIA-funded Freedom House).

37. wallace-

    What has Pat done? He’s a district with 65,000 GOP majority that was redistricted safe. He doesn’t nothing and gets away with it.

    Wayne-
    He raises money because of the Delco GOP machine. No one in the state outside of Delco knows who he is.

    Jerry Policoff-
    Casey is a decent human being and more liberal/progressive than Sestak.

    I voted for Pennacchio in the original primary, but wasn’t stupid enough to waste a protest vote when Casey was up against Santorum, who had to go. The Dems needed someone who could knock out Santorum. Casey neutralized Santorum on the pro-life issue. Hoeffel has his chance for Senate in 2004 general election.

    Sestak isn’t a tool of the machine, he’s just a tool motivated by his own self-interest and anger issues. He’s like Trump, but without the money.

    As for the row offices, the GOP ran paper candidates who didn’t spend over $10 million against them (and Toomey was an incumbent). Katie got a lot more votes than Sestak would have.

    Jerry, while I agree that the party has shown little interest in reforming itself, that doesn’t mean that it should jump off the cliff with the “reforms” you have suggested, that would really set us back. Sestak was a disaster for the Delco Dems, and would be even worse if he got elected statewide (or won another primary). About the only office he could really get at this point is Delco County Council or maybe get the Congressional seat back if Meehan steps away to run for Senate, and it’s an open seat.

    smarter-
    Yep. Jerry is pretty much the poster boy for how Dems shouldn’t vote. I wish we could have some kind of sample ballot from Jerry as “Do not do this ballot” or instructional manual.

    1983Steve-
    Casey’s dad was popular with the anti-abortion crowd. Casey isn’t as fire-and-brimstone about it, and works on funding child care to help women who might have an abortion for financial reasons or poverty concerns. I don’t agree with Bob, but he’s a decent guy, who is popular around the state. He beat Santorum in a landslide and does well in the rural areas.

38. All GOP are pukes, so always vote against them.

39. Hopefully Sestak will primary Casey; he should win & he should be able to beat Meehan.

40. By the way, idratherbefishingwithrick and smarter, are you aware that among the five Democrats on the statewide ballot this year the lowest vote-getter was Katie McGinty, despite more than $60 million in mostly largely special interest money being poured into her campaign? Next lowest was Hillary Clinton. The other three were progressive Democrats with much less funding, and they all won their respective races comfortably. Perhaps a lot more progressives are rejecting the candidates the Democratic machine likes to force down our throats.
    I see no evidence that the Democratic Party has any interest in reforming itself, so I expect they are in for many more loser candidates and many more lost elections they could have won.

41. I see idratherbefishingwithrick and smarter were irritated at my comments and the manner in which I vote. Keep in mind that Casey was only on the ballot in 2006 because Chuck Schumer and Ed Rendell cleared a path for him by muscling Joe Hoeffel and Barbara Hafer out of the race. Schumer was even caught on tape bragging that the Leadership of the Party was no longer going to tolerate the candidates being chosen by popular vote in open primaries. When Sestak defied the Leadership to run, and worse from their point of view, defeat Specter in the primary in 2010, they vowed to destroy him politically. McGinty was a Party shill who carried their water, even though she probably realized, as did Schumer, that Sestak could win and McGinty could not. Then there was the audacity of McGinty running as an environmentalist after having been a lobbyist for the fracking industry.
    Real progressive Democrats like me are no longer willing to vote for bad candidates who are hand-picked by the corrupt Democratic machine which would rather lose with candidates like McGinty than win with Joe Sestak.
    I am proud of my independence and my commitment to resisting the machine. I will continue to do so. By the way, I also voted for Jill Stein, and I have no regrets.

42. RUN Bobby Run far far away from Wolf and his pack. They will throw you under the bus. Remember what they did to you and the 90 passes to the DNC Convention.

43. OmG – this will allow Mary Ellen Backlinks to roll in the PA-7th in 2018! Third time is the charm! There is no better candidate for the 7th!

44. Cha ching — Meehan would be a great candidate, and he could beat Casey in a heartbeat. Casey is a paper tiger…he’s been in office all those years and has literally nothing to show for it. Throw in the incompetent PA Dems and you have a recipe for a GOP pickup.

45. So Jerry instead of voting for the Democrat in what was obviously a tight race, you wrote in someone who wasn’t on the ballot and who obviously wouldn’t win. You really showed the world who was the smartest 😉

46. He’s got a couple mil in COH too.

47. @Jerry Policoff did you strain your shoulder at all from all the patting yourself on the back you’ve been doing?

48. I hope a progressive emerges to primary Casey because he is an empty suit who won’t stand a chance if the GOP runs a strong candidate against him. Casey is just another puppet who is preferred by the Democratic Leadership because he is not a threat to their power and control, or to special interests. Time to oust him and run a real Democrat.
    I am a Democrat who has twice written in Chuck Pennacchio rather than vote for Casey. I did not vote for McGinty either because she is another tool of the Leadership machine. Instead I wrote in Sestak.

49. Meehan’s a great candidate. Can raise the money, too. Casey better look out.

50. Casey is lazy and has done nothing during his time in office. Go for it, Pat!