If Lee Harvey didnt shoot kennedy, who shot the cop (J. D. Tippit)

Lee had to be shot on camera or else none of us would believe he died of natural causes. I just thought of that while watching Ruby shoot him. Anyone else agree?

IDK if this has been shown or anything yet on here. And i think that whats on the website is what has already been reviewed more then likely on the website.

www.jfkmurdersolved.com...


But its up to you guys to find the discrepencies or debunk it or whatever. i was too lazy to make up a thread for this website and since some of the ppl who replied here already know some stuff about it and i would rather leave it to them to reply to this rather then making a new thread and having anybody say something.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by jarheadjock]

EDIT: IF you guys go to the website then click on the bullets on the left side, and choose which one to read.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by jarheadjock]

dr_strangecraft

I just went back and read your reply, and I think it's good. Appreciate that.

One thing that I think would need to be explained before one might accept your theory would be Oswald's comment "Everybody will know who I am now".

To me, saying this to the DPD or the public would not be something a KGB guy would say, though it would be something that someone who thought they were working undercover, specifically the FBI, might say. They're asking, in effect, to come in "out of the cold".

I do think there's ample evidence for their being 'two Oswalds', though I can't figure how that his mother Marguerite wouldn't recognize him; or for that matter, his brother Robert.

Any thoughts on those?

I suppose maybe someone from the government might have contacted his immediate family at some point and said 'dummy up, help us, we had to replace Lee with our Agent', or something like that. I'd expect that to come out, though, after the fact.

It appears that Hosty, Oswald's alleged FBI contact thought he was working for the FBI. I suppose that he could have been a KGB cover agent.

I always considered that Marina was a good candidate for being the KGB connection, but it probably makes sense that it was Oswald. I don't think someone managed by the FBI would have been fired by J-C-S, though it could have been opportunistic for either a KGB spy or an FBI asset who might have seen the possibilities of working in a print house. I can see someone who 'fancied themselves' as an 'agent' thinking they could work a job like this. Hard to say why he was such a failure or would start fights. That's not very stealthy.

I believe that oswald may have killed Tippet

at about what time did it happen does any body know

reply to post by racerzeke


You mentioned why Jackie (seemingly) was not hit in the face with either bullet fragments or blood and tissue.

Good question.

If you plot the head shot from a relatively low angle, say from the Dal-Tex building, then she'd be pretty much to the side of the path of the bullet or the ejecta.

From the TSBD, she's still off the front quadrant.

From the front, (say from a bridge storm drain) she would again be off to the side of most trajectories.

But what I wonder is why she didn't get a face full of bone and blood if there really was a GN shot.

IMO, either:
1. the GN shot was a distraction and/or miss;
2. the shot was from the front and the ejecta hit the motorcycle cop (which it did; Officer Bobby Hargis); or,
3. the Zapruder film may have been edited (i.e. there was not the explosion of blood and brain tissue into the air for two frames [2/24th of a second]

Once you consider that there was a G'mint conspiracy then as far as the Tippet shooting goes, istm that it would be strange if it was -not- connected/contrived/misdirection/set up by (one of) the conspiracy factions.

Blaming it on Oswald was just a clumsy attempt to tie up loose ends, imo.

I just want to note that two people don't have to agree on all points, to be worthy of respect. I'm not completely convinced of my own hypothesis; just playing around in the laboratory of ideas. Hope you take my posts in that light.

Originally posted by Badge01


One thing that I think would need to be explained before one might accept your theory would be Oswald's comment "Everybody will know who I am now".

Yes. I can think of a number of ways he could have meant that. Here are a few:

- Everyone will know who I am now: the greatest patsy of the 20th century.

- Everyone will know who I am now: A KGB agent who was suckered into a false flag operation, and who thought he was working for his country, but was secretly "run" on behalf of _____(insert conspiracy here)______ ."

- Everyone will know who I am now, Wencislaus Czermancec, a czech national . . . .

- Everyone will know who I am now, a FBI agent.

- Everyone will know who I am now, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone . . . . but I'm no longer a nobody.


See, you can spin that statement any way you want.

I do think there's ample evidence for their being 'two Oswalds', though I can't figure how that his mother Marguerite wouldn't recognize him; or for that matter, his brother Robert.

Robert never spent more than holidays with Lee after he (Lee) was more than about ten years old. Then there were whole years that Oswald was away from the family. Years in the Marines, over a year in Russia, a year in Dallas. In fact, I believe it's safe to say that "Oswald" spent more time with his immediate family in the months before the shooting that he had in the previous decade. This might definitely cause some uncertainty among his family.

Second, it's important to remember how heavily the city police and FBI 'leaned' on the whole family. Once the family had claimed oswald in 1962, after his return from the Soviet Union, they could hardly admit in November 1963 that he wasn't "really" their kin. I think the government has acted like Oswald was definitely a psychopath, and his mother had not been a good parent--an accusation the average working woman in 1960's America would not have felt empowered to counter, coming from the govt.

So, what would have made them accept him in 1962? Well, if he had brought money with him, it would have certainly eased any suspicions the family might have had. If they shared any of his professed anti-capitalist sympathies, they might not have minded and imposter.

His wife would never have said anything in any case--if she'd raised questions, she would have been deported . . .

I suppose maybe someone from the government might have contacted his immediate family at some point and said 'dummy up, help us, we had to replace Lee with our Agent', or something like that. I'd expect that to come out, though, after the fact.

Agreed. In america's tell-all culture, something would have come out. Unless they had something to cover up, themselves. Something, like taking hush money to provide him cover. Or helping him in ways that ultimately furthered the assassination work. Then I would expect them to never say a word, for fear of outrage and prosecution.

I always considered that Marina was a good candidate for being the KGB connection, but it probably makes sense that it was Oswald. I don't think someone managed by the FBI would have been fired by J-C-S, though it could have been opportunistic for either a KGB spy or an FBI asset who might have seen the possibilities of working in a print house. I can see someone who 'fancied themselves' as an 'agent' thinking they could work a job like this. Hard to say why he was such a failure or would start fights. That's not very stealthy.

I might have it wrong, but I didn't think Oswald was fired--I thought he quit.

Regardless of the ultimate truth, even it it was a lone gunman, I think a lot of authorities, even JCS, are too embarrased to EVER give us the whole story. And that embarrasment increases with the passing of time, instead of lessening.

.

Glad to see this thread revived!


I honestly believe that there is something really fishy about this whole jfk assassination, and I dont know where Mr. Tippit is involved here. First, why did Lee shoot the police officer? Ugh, I had some more questions in my head but I'm just so puzzled..... I'm off to browse the internet for some more info.... reliable or not I wish I could just spend all day on this stuff but school is in the way

I made a little map of what oswald did as accurate as a I could from various sources on the internet (you know how reliable those can be so eh) but a few things that just stood out to me:





1.Blue Thumbtack: JFK is shot
2.Yellow Tack: Harvey gets on bus after he leaves depository
3. White Tack: Around where harvey gets off of bus because of traffic
4. Green tack: Around where he gets on a taxi after walking 2 or so blocks
5. green Bubble/Blue Bubble: Around where he got off of taxi
6. White arrow: Where he lives, he walks to here after he gets off of taxi, he gets his hand gun and leaves....... After this he is seen at a bus stop no one knows if he got on or not but then he ends up around the red + where he shoots Tippit.



Now for the parts I dont understand..... Why would he kill the president then go home where he is semi safe and then go outside down main street where he has to know he might be looked for with a hand gun...... And then for everyone to say that he wanted the attention because he was a failure blah blah why did he deny killing the president? If he wanted to be famous or whatever I would assume we would be completely open about it..... I dont know anyone else have any opinions?

It's like 9-11. The more they do not tell us, the more it gives us reason to suspect the offical story.

50 years after the JFK incident and we (the public) still cannot prove what happened on that day. Neither the offical story or the conspiracy have all their ducks in a row.

Will we ever know? Don't the people who want to know the truth have a right to know what really happened?

I do not understand why there would be so many unanswered questions and discrepancies regarding the offical story if it were true. Just like 9-11. If it is as obivious as you are telling us then there should be no room for interpretation. But we are being lied to, so there are a lot of questions that do not add up

It's like 9-11. The more they do not tell us, the more it gives us reason to suspect the offical story.

50 years after the JFK incident and we (the public) still cannot prove what happened on that day. Neither the offical story or the conspiracy have all their ducks in a row.

Will we ever know? Don't the people who want to know the truth have a right to know what really happened?

I do not understand why there would be so many unanswered questions and discrepancies regarding the offical story if it were true. Just like 9-11. If it is as obivious as you are telling us then there should be no room for interpretation. But we are being lied to, so there are a lot of questions that do not add up

Originally posted by racerzeke
Now for the parts I dont understand..... Why would he kill the president then go home where he is semi safe and then go outside down main street where he has to know he might be looked for

I'll play this like an optometrist.

I'm going to have you look through different sets of lenses. I'll show you a view, and then I'm going to ask you, "better, or worse?" Or I might ask "which seems more clear, A or B? Here's A . . . and here's B." Then you decide which lenses fit best for you.

Let's begin.

One: either Oswald knew there was going to be a shooting that morning, or he didn't. Do you think he expected an assasination, or was he a total patsy. You decide. If he was a complete patsy, then the conversation is over.

If he expected someone to get shot in Dallas that morning, then he must have had an idea of what would happen in the aftermath of the shooting. Even if it wasn't a rock-solid "plan," it was at least an idea. So now ask yourself: Are his actions when he goes to the apartment in Oak Cliff the actions of a person following a plan, or they the actions of someone who is improvising as they go?

Next. When he gets the gun, and goes out to a major thoroughfare, and reverses direction, then changes again and gets on a bus, is that the action of someone who is still following the plan, or has the plan been scrapped, and now he's improvising?

Did something change along the way? Did Oswald act like a "man with a plan" when he left the Texas School book despository? Or was he improvising? At some point, he gets the plan to make it to his apartment; a plan that he accomlished. Then he left his apartment, and his actions seem sort of improvized. Perhaps the new plan quickly fell apart?

Your own answers to those questions are probably more interesting than mine. . . .

.

reply to post by goose


You have it mixed up. George Bush Sr was photographed in front of the Texas School Book Depository shortly after it happened. Badge Man, discovered by Gary Mack, is on the grassy knoll. He looks to have a police uniform on and a badge and some kind of insignia on his arm which may mean he was a member of The John Birch Society or some other nazi-like group.

The evidence that put Oswald on the scene of the Tippit murder has always been scant. The eyewitnesses didn't ID him, the shell casings at the scene were from a semi-automatic not the revolver Oswald owned, and timeline problems with Oswald making it to the scene by walking at the time Tippit was shot. A couple of the witnesses said two assailants were at the scene.

Early speculation on the role of Tippit said he was there to make sure the designated patsy would be shot "resisting arrest" but somehow Oswald got the drop on him first.

Others say Tippit's job was to move the conspirators out of the area to another location, but they became suspicious of him and shot him preemptively.

It is known that soon after the assassination every single Dallas PD officer on duty was ordered to Dealey Plaza, with the exception of JD Tippet and another officer, who were ordered to wait at their locations. It is also known that just before Oswald left his room, his landlady said two officers pulled up to the curb in a cruiser and honked twice.

And to complicate matters, a couple of witnesses said Tippit was seen at Jack Ruby's nightclub and knew both Ruby and Oswald.

45 years later, while others aspects of the assassination have been cleared up, the Tippet connection is as vague as ever. No one has ever proposed a beleivable theory of why Tippet was killed or who did it. Rosetta Stone or red herring? You decide.




[edit on 9-7-2008 by starviego]

Well I'm sure of one thing, the two guys sitting on the curb were privy to the assassination because in the pictures taken just after Kennedy was shot when everyone else is freaking out, they are sitting calm and collected on the curb like it was no big deal. By the way, anyone know where the majority of the pictures taken of the grassy knoll can be found, and just how many there were of that scene?

check this Tippit tidbit:


www.jfkresearch.com...

Thanks for the link! I never thought of questioning the position of where Mr. Tippit was shot because I never really believed in the whole body double switch theory with Tippit and JFK.

But after re-watching The Men Who Killed Kennedy they discuss how JFK's body might have been tampered with when they interview the doctors at Parkland and the guys who did the autopsy. (JFK switched caskets and was put into a body bag allegedly)

And also the doctor who said that L.H Oswald's head had been tampered with from when he was first buried and when he was exhumed.

And now with the quick hiding of Tippit's body and his resemblance to JFK I guess it could be feasible that the X-rays or autopsy drawings could be switched. And the rear pictures of JFK's head in the morgue the wound looks very small (a pistol wound?)

I'm by far no expert but rather a very amateur explorer in the whole JFK plot and it's a shame that everything is kind of being buried in time now. Soon everything might be lost and that's a shame because there is still so much be to known.

If there is a mass conspiracy, I still am finding it hard where Tippit is involved. Was he just really unfortunate? Because he would be a good replacement for JFK was he sent out as a sacrifice? Did Oswald or whoever purposely shoot him in similar ways to JFK? Geez, I just dont know.

a reply to: racerzeke

As for who shot Tippitt and why: I tend to subscribe to the James Files theory which is that the cop was collateral damage in a botched attempt to silence Oswald. (see full interview transcript of J. Files) According to JF, an unnamed co-conspirator was assigned the task of taking out Oswald who was the intended patsy, but his shot missed Oswald and instead hit Tippitt (sp?)

I haven't looked yet, but I'm betting there is a full thread here about James Files, though I haven't seen mention of him AT ALL in any of the half dozen or so JFK-related threads that I've read so far. I'm a successful trial attorney with decades of experience, and I have a knack for sorting out complicated fact scenarios, as well as "reading" a witness. I'm base my opinions exclusively on evidence that would be admissible in a court of law as opposed to speculation and hearsay. And though I'm not fully convinced yet that James Files was the "kill shot" in the JFK conspiracy, I am headed in that direction. (In fact, I came to this site looking for anything that might support or debunk Files' testimony).

If you've not read the Files interview, you'll likely find it worth your time. There are some obvious typos, but otherwise, the story the man tells "rings true," and is (so far) corroborated by most of the eye-witness testimony, photos, movies, etc. Though he wasn't aware of a lot of the internet chatter when he gave his interview, his story explains and answers SO MANY questions that are floating around. It's "unbelievably credible," for lack of a better description.

By the way: The ONE eye witness to the Tippett murder -- a cousin to Mary Anne Moorman (who took the famous polaroid picture of the fatal shot) -- initially told police that "the man" didn't look like Oswald, that he was "older and bigger" (or something like that; I forget that detail at the moment). Then, within a week's time, someone shot at the witness and almost hit him in the head. Thereafter, when he testified at the WC, he changed his story about seeing Oswald.

I've been fascinated by the JFK assassination since I was a child.

Lately I've been watching the footage of LHO in custody and being paraded for the media. He repeatedly asked what is he being charged for, when asked why he did it he said the cop attacked him. When someone told LHO he was being charged with killing the president he screamed he is a patsy. Shortly after that he was silenced.

Many will tell you that G.H.W. Bush was involved in the assassination.

Consider:
the Italian Carcano rifle wasn't on the top 10 list for accurate sniper rifles. Suppose LHO was targeting the Govenor , and hit JFK by mistake,realized the fat was in the fire, and panicked...
A local issue with national results..