Discussion:
Back and to the left
(too old to reply)
El Tiante
2017-05-17 02:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.

It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.

Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
claviger
2017-05-18 01:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.

Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.

There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.

Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.

DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area. Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.

A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn. No shots
fired from that area. No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.

There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.

Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.

Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions. None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane. DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
mainframetech
2017-05-18 23:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Marina at that time was mouthing whatever the authorities wanted her to
say. Here's one of her statements about them using her fear she would be
sent back to Russia:

"Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did the police and FBI and the
Secret Service ask you many questions. Mrs. Oswald (Marina). In the
police station there was a routine regular questioning, as always happens.
And then after I was with the agents of the Secret Service and the FBI,
they asked me many questions, of course--many questions. Sometimes the
FBI agents asked me questions which had no bearing or relationship, and if
I didn't want to answer they told me that if I wanted to live in this
country, I would have to help in this matter, even though they were often
irrelevant. That is the FBI."

WC hearings Vol 1, page 79 Also pg. 410
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
If it is important that someone heard shots from the TSBD, they also
heard shots from the Grassy Knoll. There was evidence that someone was
shooting from that location. Sam Holland saw smoke coming from that area
behind the fence, along with others, and he went there and saw the
footprints of someone who was standing there for a while smoking, and
resting his muddy feet on a bumper there.
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Walter Rischel spoke out after Lee Bowers was killed in a road accident
by hitting a concrete abutment. He said that Bowers had avoided giving
the details of the men behind the fence using rifles and firing at the
motorcade.
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area.
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Post by claviger
No shots
fired from that area.
The bullet hole in the forehead of JFK says otherwise. Now it's just
a matter of determining the location of the shooter.
Post by claviger
No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
With all the echoing there could not be any good witnesses as to
location based on sound only.
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
If you present that evidence, you must believe it. So there WAS
someone firing from the fence area on the GK.
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
There is no evidence whatsoever that it was "snipers" or shooters that
accosted Arnold.
Post by claviger
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions.
They did not converge from the back side where the exit was. That was
viewed only by Lee Bowers.
Post by claviger
None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane.
Why would there be a police car? Where did such a weird ideas come
from?
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
There was no police car.
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.

Chris
Steve Barber
2017-05-19 20:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Marina at that time was mouthing whatever the authorities wanted her to
say. Here's one of her statements about them using her fear she would be
"Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did the police and FBI and the
Secret Service ask you many questions. Mrs. Oswald (Marina). In the
police station there was a routine regular questioning, as always happens.
And then after I was with the agents of the Secret Service and the FBI,
they asked me many questions, of course--many questions. Sometimes the
FBI agents asked me questions which had no bearing or relationship, and if
I didn't want to answer they told me that if I wanted to live in this
country, I would have to help in this matter, even though they were often
irrelevant. That is the FBI."
WC hearings Vol 1, page 79 Also pg. 410
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
If it is important that someone heard shots from the TSBD, they also
heard shots from the Grassy Knoll. There was evidence that someone was
shooting from that location. Sam Holland saw smoke coming from that area
behind the fence, along with others, and he went there and saw the
footprints of someone who was standing there for a while smoking, and
resting his muddy feet on a bumper there.
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Walter Rischel spoke out after Lee Bowers was killed in a road accident
by hitting a concrete abutment. He said that Bowers had avoided giving
the details of the men behind the fence using rifles and firing at the
motorcade.
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area.
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Post by claviger
No shots
fired from that area.
The bullet hole in the forehead of JFK says otherwise. Now it's just
a matter of determining the location of the shooter.
Post by claviger
No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
With all the echoing there could not be any good witnesses as to
location based on sound only.
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
If you present that evidence, you must believe it. So there WAS
someone firing from the fence area on the GK.
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
There is no evidence whatsoever that it was "snipers" or shooters that
accosted Arnold.
Post by claviger
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions.
They did not converge from the back side where the exit was. That was
viewed only by Lee Bowers.
Post by claviger
None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane.
Why would there be a police car? Where did such a weird ideas come
from?
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
There was no police car.
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
mainframetech
2017-05-20 14:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Marina at that time was mouthing whatever the authorities wanted her to
say. Here's one of her statements about them using her fear she would be
"Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did the police and FBI and the
Secret Service ask you many questions. Mrs. Oswald (Marina). In the
police station there was a routine regular questioning, as always happens.
And then after I was with the agents of the Secret Service and the FBI,
they asked me many questions, of course--many questions. Sometimes the
FBI agents asked me questions which had no bearing or relationship, and if
I didn't want to answer they told me that if I wanted to live in this
country, I would have to help in this matter, even though they were often
irrelevant. That is the FBI."
WC hearings Vol 1, page 79 Also pg. 410
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
If it is important that someone heard shots from the TSBD, they also
heard shots from the Grassy Knoll. There was evidence that someone was
shooting from that location. Sam Holland saw smoke coming from that area
behind the fence, along with others, and he went there and saw the
footprints of someone who was standing there for a while smoking, and
resting his muddy feet on a bumper there.
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Walter Rischel spoke out after Lee Bowers was killed in a road accident
by hitting a concrete abutment. He said that Bowers had avoided giving
the details of the men behind the fence using rifles and firing at the
motorcade.
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area.
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Post by claviger
No shots
fired from that area.
The bullet hole in the forehead of JFK says otherwise. Now it's just
a matter of determining the location of the shooter.
Post by claviger
No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
With all the echoing there could not be any good witnesses as to
location based on sound only.
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
If you present that evidence, you must believe it. So there WAS
someone firing from the fence area on the GK.
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
There is no evidence whatsoever that it was "snipers" or shooters that
accosted Arnold.
Post by claviger
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions.
They did not converge from the back side where the exit was. That was
viewed only by Lee Bowers.
Post by claviger
None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane.
Why would there be a police car? Where did such a weird ideas come
from?
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
There was no police car.
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed. So whether
Arnold was wearing his overcoat or not, it was winter garb he had on. I
remember November in 1963 as being cold and windy in Texas. But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-21 03:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Marina at that time was mouthing whatever the authorities wanted her to
say. Here's one of her statements about them using her fear she would be
"Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did the police and FBI and the
Secret Service ask you many questions. Mrs. Oswald (Marina). In the
police station there was a routine regular questioning, as always happens.
And then after I was with the agents of the Secret Service and the FBI,
they asked me many questions, of course--many questions. Sometimes the
FBI agents asked me questions which had no bearing or relationship, and if
I didn't want to answer they told me that if I wanted to live in this
country, I would have to help in this matter, even though they were often
irrelevant. That is the FBI."
WC hearings Vol 1, page 79 Also pg. 410
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
If it is important that someone heard shots from the TSBD, they also
heard shots from the Grassy Knoll. There was evidence that someone was
shooting from that location. Sam Holland saw smoke coming from that area
behind the fence, along with others, and he went there and saw the
footprints of someone who was standing there for a while smoking, and
resting his muddy feet on a bumper there.
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Walter Rischel spoke out after Lee Bowers was killed in a road accident
by hitting a concrete abutment. He said that Bowers had avoided giving
the details of the men behind the fence using rifles and firing at the
motorcade.
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area.
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Post by claviger
No shots
fired from that area.
The bullet hole in the forehead of JFK says otherwise. Now it's just
a matter of determining the location of the shooter.
Post by claviger
No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
With all the echoing there could not be any good witnesses as to
location based on sound only.
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
If you present that evidence, you must believe it. So there WAS
someone firing from the fence area on the GK.
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
There is no evidence whatsoever that it was "snipers" or shooters that
accosted Arnold.
Post by claviger
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions.
They did not converge from the back side where the exit was. That was
viewed only by Lee Bowers.
Post by claviger
None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane.
Why would there be a police car? Where did such a weird ideas come
from?
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
There was no police car.
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed. So whether
Arnold was wearing his overcoat or not, it was winter garb he had on. I
remember November in 1963 as being cold and windy in Texas. But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?
It doesn't matter what weather is typical for November in Texas. What
matters is what the weather was like the day of the assassination. It
started out cloudy and rainy in Ft. Worth that morning but by the time AF1
landed at Love field there were bright blue skies. It was warm enough for
them to ride in an open top car with no overcoats. Looking at the
spectators, the men were mostly wearing suit coats with no overcoat or
light windbreakers. Bill Newman was wearing a long sleeve shirt with no
jacket. About what one would expect to see on a sunny day with the
temperature in the 60s.
mainframetech
2017-05-22 04:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Marina at that time was mouthing whatever the authorities wanted her to
say. Here's one of her statements about them using her fear she would be
"Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did the police and FBI and the
Secret Service ask you many questions. Mrs. Oswald (Marina). In the
police station there was a routine regular questioning, as always happens.
And then after I was with the agents of the Secret Service and the FBI,
they asked me many questions, of course--many questions. Sometimes the
FBI agents asked me questions which had no bearing or relationship, and if
I didn't want to answer they told me that if I wanted to live in this
country, I would have to help in this matter, even though they were often
irrelevant. That is the FBI."
WC hearings Vol 1, page 79 Also pg. 410
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
If it is important that someone heard shots from the TSBD, they also
heard shots from the Grassy Knoll. There was evidence that someone was
shooting from that location. Sam Holland saw smoke coming from that area
behind the fence, along with others, and he went there and saw the
footprints of someone who was standing there for a while smoking, and
resting his muddy feet on a bumper there.
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Walter Rischel spoke out after Lee Bowers was killed in a road accident
by hitting a concrete abutment. He said that Bowers had avoided giving
the details of the men behind the fence using rifles and firing at the
motorcade.
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area.
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Post by claviger
No shots
fired from that area.
The bullet hole in the forehead of JFK says otherwise. Now it's just
a matter of determining the location of the shooter.
Post by claviger
No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
With all the echoing there could not be any good witnesses as to
location based on sound only.
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
If you present that evidence, you must believe it. So there WAS
someone firing from the fence area on the GK.
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
There is no evidence whatsoever that it was "snipers" or shooters that
accosted Arnold.
Post by claviger
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions.
They did not converge from the back side where the exit was. That was
viewed only by Lee Bowers.
Post by claviger
None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane.
Why would there be a police car? Where did such a weird ideas come
from?
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
There was no police car.
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed. So whether
Arnold was wearing his overcoat or not, it was winter garb he had on. I
remember November in 1963 as being cold and windy in Texas. But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?
It doesn't matter what weather is typical for November in Texas. What
matters is what the weather was like the day of the assassination. It
started out cloudy and rainy in Ft. Worth that morning but by the time AF1
landed at Love field there were bright blue skies. It was warm enough for
them to ride in an open top car with no overcoats. Looking at the
spectators, the men were mostly wearing suit coats with no overcoat or
light windbreakers. Bill Newman was wearing a long sleeve shirt with no
jacket. About what one would expect to see on a sunny day with the
temperature in the 60s.
That's nice.

Chris
claviger
2017-05-21 22:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed. So whether
Arnold was wearing his overcoat or not, it was winter garb he had on. I
remember November in 1963 as being cold and windy in Texas. But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?
Chris
NCDC - National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce - Weather Bureau
Surface Weather Observations
Dallas, Texas (Dallas Love Field) NOV 22 1963

Time Temp Direction Knots MPH

1055 57 SW 10

1130 WSW 12 14

1155 63 WSW 13 15

1230 W 13 15

1255 67 WNW 17 20

1330 WNW 17+25

1355 69 WNW 19+26
bigdog
2017-05-22 20:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed. So whether
Arnold was wearing his overcoat or not, it was winter garb he had on. I
remember November in 1963 as being cold and windy in Texas. But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?
Chris
NCDC - National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce - Weather Bureau
Surface Weather Observations
Dallas, Texas (Dallas Love Field) NOV 22 1963
Time Temp Direction Knots MPH
1055 57 SW 10
1130 WSW 12 14
1155 63 WSW 13 15
1230 W 13 15
1255 67 WNW 17 20
1330 WNW 17+25
1355 69 WNW 19+26
Oh, great. Now Chris will claim the Weather Bureau was part of the cover
up.
mainframetech
2017-05-23 14:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed. So whether
Arnold was wearing his overcoat or not, it was winter garb he had on. I
remember November in 1963 as being cold and windy in Texas. But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?
Chris
NCDC - National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce - Weather Bureau
Surface Weather Observations
Dallas, Texas (Dallas Love Field) NOV 22 1963
Time Temp Direction Knots MPH
1055 57 SW 10
1130 WSW 12 14
1155 63 WSW 13 15
1230 W 13 15
1255 67 WNW 17 20
1330 WNW 17+25
1355 69 WNW 19+26
Oh, great. Now Chris will claim the Weather Bureau was part of the cover
up.
Don't be ridiculous! I accept his number after I checked the source.

Chris
mainframetech
2017-05-22 21:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed. So whether
Arnold was wearing his overcoat or not, it was winter garb he had on. I
remember November in 1963 as being cold and windy in Texas. But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?
Chris
NCDC - National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce - Weather Bureau
Surface Weather Observations
Dallas, Texas (Dallas Love Field) NOV 22 1963
Time Temp Direction Knots MPH
1055 57 SW 10
1130 WSW 12 14
1155 63 WSW 13 15
1230 W 13 15
1255 67 WNW 17 20
1330 WNW 17+25
1355 69 WNW 19+26
So at about 12:30pm it was about 65 degrees. Well, that's close to
68. For me, that would be chilly. I like it warm. Thank you.

Chris
Caeruleo
2017-05-22 20:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Just as "smart," with no difference whatsoever, as Oswald as the sole
shooter as described in the WCR.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Hmmm, I see that, at least in the article I'm directly replying to here,
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
No shots
fired from that area.
Yep, no one, CT, LN or uncommitted.

"Fascinating."

:P~
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Yes, I watched his "confession" years ago, and he gave himself away as a
con artist when he claimed to have seen things in real time as he was
shooting which cannot be seen in real time and can only be seen by looking
at the Zapruder film frame by frame. He was very obviously *coached* in
his claims.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed.
I will challenge you on this. I have ***LIVED*** in Texas, continuously
(meaning I have never in my life lived outside of Texas, not even as
briefly as one month) since 1958. So you were stationed in Texas in one
single November in one single year? Or was it more than one year? I very
much doubt, however, that you have, in your entire life, been in Texas in
November nearly as often as I have. I have by now experienced
*fifty-eight* Novembers in Texas, and I have long ago lost count of how
many hundreds of *warm* November days we've had here, in *every* year, in
*every* decade.
Post by mainframetech
So whether
Arnold was wearing his overcoat or not, it was winter garb he had on. I
remember November in 1963 as being cold and windy in Texas.
Er, you "remember" November in 1963 as being cold and windy?? You were
stationed here in exactly that November in exactly that year? You must be
far older than I thought then. I was five on the day of the
assassination, and at that time I lived in Stephenville, Tx. According to
Google Earth, Stephenville is only 90.41 miles west-southwest of downtown
Dallas, and Stephenville is furthermore only about five-tenths of a degree
of latitude south of downtown Dallas. I do not recall 11-22-63 as being
especially "cold," and I otherwise remember the day quite well: after I
came home from kindergarten I remember my dad and I watching the tiny
black and white tv in his bedroom. He was standing and I was sitting on
the edge of his bed. I asked him what happened and he said, "The
President has been killed," and he just stood there and became very silent
after that. I have no recollection, however, of wearing anything even
remotely similar to "winter clothing." And of course I will never believe
you if you falsely claim that the weather in Stephenville was dramatically
different from the weather in Dallas on that day.

Oh, and in case you, or someone, or anyone, challenges me in the slightest
on any of this, I imagine that it will be childishly easy to prove that my
father was an English professor at Tarleton in Stephenville in 1963-1964.
His name was Merton King, and my name is John Reagor King. Proof that I
really am who I say I am, and that my father was really who I say he was
is all over the internet by now, including a certain man in San Antonio,
Tx, who has falsely claimed that I am a child molester, not because he
genuinely believes it's true, but because he has a long history, going
back more than a decade, of just "saying" anyone is a child molester
whenever he doesn't like what they've said about him on the internet, even
when what they've said about him is provably true.

And by practically all accounts,
Post by mainframetech
But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?>
Chris
Clavinger, who I also killfiled at one point (proving beyond all
reasonable doubt that I do not only killfile CTs) has given you the
irrefutable source of this. 68 degrees, Fahrenheit, is not considered
"cold" here in Texas in November, especially when it is sunny. I *defy*
you to produce verbatim quotes from real Texans such as me specifically
saying that 68 F is "cold" in sunny weather. Hell, I've gone outside in
*exactly* that weather here *shirtless*, and it felt entirely comfortable
to me.

Oh, and you are *blatantly* *ignoring* what Jackie herself said. Since
you ***BLATANTLY*** ***REFUSE*** to quote it, I will quote it without even
being *asked* to quote it:

"Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I remember whenever it was, Mrs. Connally said, "We
will soon be there." We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was
really slow then. And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."

And what was she ***OBVIOUSLY*** referring to as the "tunnel"? Oh that's
right: where Elm goes under the Triple Underpass. There isn't anything
else that she was even *maybe* referring to in that statement, since aside
from the Triple Underpass, there is nothing even remotely resembling a
"tunnel" on Elm. I've driven down Elm, all the way, many times in my
life.

How many times have *you* driven down it, Chris?

Less than half as often as I have, correct?
mainframetech
2017-05-23 14:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting. And he did NOT fire any of the shots. He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Just as "smart," with no difference whatsoever, as Oswald as the sole
shooter as described in the WCR.
Well, that shows the foolishness of the WCR. they were gong to prove
the 'lone nut' killing no matter what.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Hmmm, I see that, at least in the article I'm directly replying to here,
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
No shots
fired from that area.
Yep, no one, CT, LN or uncommitted.
"Fascinating."
:P~
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Yes, I watched his "confession" years ago, and he gave himself away as a
con artist when he claimed to have seen things in real time as he was
shooting which cannot be seen in real time and can only be seen by looking
at the Zapruder film frame by frame. He was very obviously *coached* in
his claims.
Seeing things in the Z-film might be a mistake, since it was altered.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed.
I will challenge you on this. I have ***LIVED*** in Texas, continuously
(meaning I have never in my life lived outside of Texas, not even as
briefly as one month) since 1958. So you were stationed in Texas in one
single November in one single year? Or was it more than one year?
Wrong! I was stationed in Texas for 4 years straight.
Post by Caeruleo
I very
much doubt, however, that you have, in your entire life, been in Texas in
November nearly as often as I have. I have by now experienced
*fifty-eight* Novembers in Texas, and I have long ago lost count of how
many hundreds of *warm* November days we've had here, in *every* year, in
*every* decade.
that's nice.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
So whether
Arnold was wearing his overcoat or not, it was winter garb he had on. I
remember November in 1963 as being cold and windy in Texas.
Er, you "remember" November in 1963 as being cold and windy?? You were
stationed here in exactly that November in exactly that year? You must be
far older than I thought then. I was five on the day of the
assassination, and at that time I lived in Stephenville, Tx.
I was in Texas in November 1963 and left the service in October 1964
from Texas. And I ain't a kid.
Post by Caeruleo
According to
Google Earth, Stephenville is only 90.41 miles west-southwest of downtown
Dallas, and Stephenville is furthermore only about five-tenths of a degree
of latitude south of downtown Dallas. I do not recall 11-22-63 as being
especially "cold," and I otherwise remember the day quite well: after I
came home from kindergarten I remember my dad and I watching the tiny
black and white tv in his bedroom. He was standing and I was sitting on
the edge of his bed. I asked him what happened and he said, "The
President has been killed," and he just stood there and became very silent
after that. I have no recollection, however, of wearing anything even
remotely similar to "winter clothing." And of course I will never believe
you if you falsely claim that the weather in Stephenville was dramatically
different from the weather in Dallas on that day.
Can't say. And I'm not particularly bothered if you don't believe me
about something.
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, and in case you, or someone, or anyone, challenges me in the slightest
on any of this, I imagine that it will be childishly easy to prove that my
father was an English professor at Tarleton in Stephenville in 1963-1964.
His name was Merton King, and my name is John Reagor King. Proof that I
really am who I say I am, and that my father was really who I say he was
is all over the internet by now, including a certain man in San Antonio,
Tx, who has falsely claimed that I am a child molester, not because he
genuinely believes it's true, but because he has a long history, going
back more than a decade, of just "saying" anyone is a child molester
whenever he doesn't like what they've said about him on the internet, even
when what they've said about him is provably true.
Sorry to hear that. It tells you why I keep my identity to myself.
Post by Caeruleo
And by practically all accounts,
Post by mainframetech
But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?>
Chris
Clavinger, who I also killfiled at one point (proving beyond all
reasonable doubt that I do not only killfile CTs) has given you the
irrefutable source of this. 68 degrees, Fahrenheit, is not considered
"cold" here in Texas in November, especially when it is sunny. I *defy*
you to produce verbatim quotes from real Texans such as me specifically
saying that 68 F is "cold" in sunny weather. Hell, I've gone outside in
*exactly* that weather here *shirtless*, and it felt entirely comfortable
to me.
I have accepted Claviger's temperature. That's over as far as I'm
concerned. He was off slightly, but not enough to matter.
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, and you are *blatantly* *ignoring* what Jackie herself said. Since
you ***BLATANTLY*** ***REFUSE*** to quote it, I will quote it without even
"Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I remember whenever it was, Mrs. Connally said, "We
will soon be there." We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was
really slow then. And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
And what was she ***OBVIOUSLY*** referring to as the "tunnel"? Oh that's
right: where Elm goes under the Triple Underpass. There isn't anything
else that she was even *maybe* referring to in that statement, since aside
from the Triple Underpass, there is nothing even remotely resembling a
"tunnel" on Elm. I've driven down Elm, all the way, many times in my
life.
How many times have *you* driven down it, Chris?
Less than half as often as I have, correct?
You really need to update your people skills. I can help you in that
area, but I doubt you ever accept any help for these things.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-24 00:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting. And he did NOT fire any of the shots. He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
Oh, really. Who was running the stopwatch. You need to start writing down
your own bullshit so you can keep your stories straight. This was your
original story. Then you realized that if Baker got to the lunchroom
within one minute that would mean Mac Wallace, Loy Factor, and the gal
with the walkie-talkie would have had less than a minute to go down the
back stairs and out the back door before Truly and Baker started coming up
those same stairs. At that point you decided you need to give thos three
more time so you changed the narrative to say that it took Truly and Baker
even longer than what the WC recreations showed so you expanded that time
to at least two minutes or more. Now you apparently forgot that little
problem and have gone back to claiming the Baker/Oswald encounter happened
within a minute of the last shot. You can't have it both ways. You can't
at once say Baker reached the lunchroom within two minutes and still claim
your three person team on the 6th floor had more than two minutes to get
out the back before Truly and Baker started up the stairs.

Here's the dilemma you face. You need to get your 3 person team out the
back door before Baker and Truly began running up the stairs. It you want
to claim the encounter with Oswald took place a minute after the last shot
that would mean your threesome had less than a minute to get out the
backdoor because they had to get out BEFORE Baker and Truly even started
up the stairs. If you want to give them more time to get out the back
door, it necessitates that you push the Baker/Oswald encounter back which
gives Oswald more time to reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor. There is
no way you can claim it would take your threesome less time to descend to
the first floor than it would take Oswald to descend to the second floor.
But that's the corner you have painted yourself into. I realize I am being
logical about all this so your head is probably spinning by now.
Jason Burke
2017-05-25 06:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting. And he did NOT fire any of the shots. He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
Oh, really. Who was running the stopwatch. You need to start writing down
your own bullshit so you can keep your stories straight. This was your
original story. Then you realized that if Baker got to the lunchroom
within one minute that would mean Mac Wallace, Loy Factor, and the gal
with the walkie-talkie would have had less than a minute to go down the
back stairs and out the back door before Truly and Baker started coming up
those same stairs. At that point you decided you need to give thos three
more time so you changed the narrative to say that it took Truly and Baker
even longer than what the WC recreations showed so you expanded that time
to at least two minutes or more. Now you apparently forgot that little
problem and have gone back to claiming the Baker/Oswald encounter happened
within a minute of the last shot. You can't have it both ways. You can't
at once say Baker reached the lunchroom within two minutes and still claim
your three person team on the 6th floor had more than two minutes to get
out the back before Truly and Baker started up the stairs.
Here's the dilemma you face. You need to get your 3 person team out the
back door before Baker and Truly began running up the stairs. It you want
to claim the encounter with Oswald took place a minute after the last shot
that would mean your threesome had less than a minute to get out the
backdoor because they had to get out BEFORE Baker and Truly even started
up the stairs. If you want to give them more time to get out the back
door, it necessitates that you push the Baker/Oswald encounter back which
gives Oswald more time to reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor. There is
no way you can claim it would take your threesome less time to descend to
the first floor than it would take Oswald to descend to the second floor.
But that's the corner you have painted yourself into. I realize I am being
logical about all this so your head is probably spinning by now.
Yeah. I'm betting that Chris is so confused that we won't hear from him
about this matter for at least, oh, a week.
mainframetech
2017-05-25 12:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting. And he did NOT fire any of the shots. He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
Oh, really. Who was running the stopwatch. You need to start writing down
your own bullshit so you can keep your stories straight.
WRONG! You need to not forget situations we've discussed many times it
the past. Who do you think you're fooling? Pretending that we haven't
argued this out many times in the past. Is that for a new person to the
forum? If you will look carefully, instead of jumping into to the fire,
you'll see above that I said "about 12:15pm". It could have been later,
of course.
Post by bigdog
This was your
original story. Then you realized that if Baker got to the lunchroom
within one minute that would mean Mac Wallace, Loy Factor, and the gal
with the walkie-talkie would have had less than a minute to go down the
back stairs and out the back door before Truly and Baker started coming up
those same stairs.
WRONG! When I said "about 12:15pm" it could have been a bit either
way, but the timing on Baker and Truly was 90 seconds, which you (of
course) said could be gotten done from the 6th floor without any problem.
But OBVIOUSLY, it had to be longer for the real time. Naturally, most
folks were standing at the steps, or still looking out the window at the
scene of the limo being shot at and running away.
Post by bigdog
At that point you decided you need to give thos three
more time so you changed the narrative to say that it took Truly and Baker
even longer than what the WC recreations showed so you expanded that time
to at least two minutes or more. Now you apparently forgot that little
problem and have gone back to claiming the Baker/Oswald encounter happened
within a minute of the last shot. You can't have it both ways. You can't
at once say Baker reached the lunchroom within two minutes and still claim
your three person team on the 6th floor had more than two minutes to get
out the back before Truly and Baker started up the stairs.
Here's the dilemma you face. You need to get your 3 person team out the
back door before Baker and Truly began running up the stairs. It you want
to claim the encounter with Oswald took place a minute after the last shot
that would mean your threesome had less than a minute to get out the
backdoor because they had to get out BEFORE Baker and Truly even started
up the stairs. If you want to give them more time to get out the back
door, it necessitates that you push the Baker/Oswald encounter back which
gives Oswald more time to reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor. There is
no way you can claim it would take your threesome less time to descend to
the first floor than it would take Oswald to descend to the second floor.
But that's the corner you have painted yourself into. I realize I am being
logical about all this so your head is probably spinning by now.
You can work it for all its worth, since you have nothing else of any
importance. Yep, it's possible it was incorrect about the timing, because
it was necessary for the group of 3 to escape out the back stairs and the
loading dock before anyone came up those stairs.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-26 01:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting. And he did NOT fire any of the shots. He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
Oh, really. Who was running the stopwatch. You need to start writing down
your own bullshit so you can keep your stories straight.
WRONG! You need to not forget situations we've discussed many times it
the past. Who do you think you're fooling? Pretending that we haven't
argued this out many times in the past. Is that for a new person to the
forum? If you will look carefully, instead of jumping into to the fire,
you'll see above that I said "about 12:15pm". It could have been later,
of course.
You can't even remember what you've written from one post to the next.
Before you mentioned 12:15 your wrote, "But he was seen at the 2nd floor
lunchroom a minute after the shooting." So when we are talking about
Oswald, you claim Baker encountered him in the lunchroom one minute after
the shooting. When you are talking about your 3 person team, you claim
that encounter occurred much later because you had to give them time to
get out of the building through the back door.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
This was your
original story. Then you realized that if Baker got to the lunchroom
within one minute that would mean Mac Wallace, Loy Factor, and the gal
with the walkie-talkie would have had less than a minute to go down the
back stairs and out the back door before Truly and Baker started coming up
those same stairs.
WRONG! When I said "about 12:15pm" it could have been a bit either
way,
We aren't talking about when Oswald was seen before the shooting. We are
talking about how soon after the shooting he was seen by Baker.
Post by mainframetech
but the timing on Baker and Truly was 90 seconds, which you (of
course) said could be gotten done from the 6th floor without any problem.
So now it's 90 seconds. A couple posts ago you said it was a minute.
Several months ago when you claimed the 3 person team slipped out the back
you claimed it was even longer. You want to give those 3 people more time
than you are willing to give Oswald even though they had one more floor to
descend and they had to get out before Baker even got to the stairs.

The truth is we don't know how long after the last shot that encounter
took place. We can only estimate it though recreations. What we do know is
whatever the time frame was, the same time frame would apply to Oswald and
your three person team. You want to have one time frame for Oswald and a
longer one for your three people.
Post by mainframetech
But OBVIOUSLY, it had to be longer for the real time.
Which would mean Oswald would have had more time too.
Post by mainframetech
Naturally, most
folks were standing at the steps, or still looking out the window at the
scene of the limo being shot at and running away.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. The people we are talking about didn't
linger at the front of the building.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
At that point you decided you need to give thos three
more time so you changed the narrative to say that it took Truly and Baker
even longer than what the WC recreations showed so you expanded that time
to at least two minutes or more. Now you apparently forgot that little
problem and have gone back to claiming the Baker/Oswald encounter happened
within a minute of the last shot. You can't have it both ways. You can't
at once say Baker reached the lunchroom within two minutes and still claim
your three person team on the 6th floor had more than two minutes to get
out the back before Truly and Baker started up the stairs.
Here's the dilemma you face. You need to get your 3 person team out the
back door before Baker and Truly began running up the stairs. It you want
to claim the encounter with Oswald took place a minute after the last shot
that would mean your threesome had less than a minute to get out the
backdoor because they had to get out BEFORE Baker and Truly even started
up the stairs. If you want to give them more time to get out the back
door, it necessitates that you push the Baker/Oswald encounter back which
gives Oswald more time to reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor. There is
no way you can claim it would take your threesome less time to descend to
the first floor than it would take Oswald to descend to the second floor.
But that's the corner you have painted yourself into. I realize I am being
logical about all this so your head is probably spinning by now.
You can work it for all its worth, since you have nothing else of any
importance. Yep, it's possible it was incorrect about the timing, because
it was necessary for the group of 3 to escape out the back stairs and the
loading dock before anyone came up those stairs.
It would have taken those three people longer to reach the first floor
than it took Oswald to reach the second floor. Baker and Truly got to the
based of the stairway in less time than it too them to get to the second
floor. You can't logically argue that your three person team had time to
get out the back door but Oswald didn't have time to reach the second
floor lunchroom. But who ever said your arguments were logically.
mainframetech
2017-05-27 00:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting. And he did NOT fire any of the shots. He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
Oh, really. Who was running the stopwatch. You need to start writing down
your own bullshit so you can keep your stories straight.
WRONG! You need to not forget situations we've discussed many times it
the past. Who do you think you're fooling? Pretending that we haven't
argued this out many times in the past. Is that for a new person to the
forum? If you will look carefully, instead of jumping into to the fire,
you'll see above that I said "about 12:15pm". It could have been later,
of course.
You can't even remember what you've written from one post to the next.
Before you mentioned 12:15 your wrote, "But he was seen at the 2nd floor
lunchroom a minute after the shooting." So when we are talking about
Oswald, you claim Baker encountered him in the lunchroom one minute after
the shooting. When you are talking about your 3 person team, you claim
that encounter occurred much later because you had to give them time to
get out of the building through the back door.
Good point, let me correct that. 'At least a minute and a half or
more.'
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
This was your
original story. Then you realized that if Baker got to the lunchroom
within one minute that would mean Mac Wallace, Loy Factor, and the gal
with the walkie-talkie would have had less than a minute to go down the
back stairs and out the back door before Truly and Baker started coming up
those same stairs.
WRONG! When I said "about 12:15pm" it could have been a bit either
way,
We aren't talking about when Oswald was seen before the shooting. We are
talking about how soon after the shooting he was seen by Baker.
Post by mainframetech
but the timing on Baker and Truly was 90 seconds, which you (of
course) said could be gotten done from the 6th floor without any problem.
So now it's 90 seconds. A couple posts ago you said it was a minute.
Several months ago when you claimed the 3 person team slipped out the back
you claimed it was even longer. You want to give those 3 people more time
than you are willing to give Oswald even though they had one more floor to
descend and they had to get out before Baker even got to the stairs.
The point is that it happened, and so the time was enough for it to be
accomplished. What ever amount of time was need.
Post by bigdog
The truth is we don't know how long after the last shot that encounter
took place. We can only estimate it though recreations. What we do know is
whatever the time frame was, the same time frame would apply to Oswald and
your three person team. You want to have one time frame for Oswald and a
longer one for your three people.
Since it got done, there was enough time, no matter what that amount
was. The silly guesses in the WCR certainly don't work.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But OBVIOUSLY, it had to be longer for the real time.
Which would mean Oswald would have had more time too.
Well, we've discussed what Oswald did in the lunchroom many times. He
might well have come back to the door with that window in it to see who
was outside, or any reason in the world. There is no guarantee that he
did what YOU would like, and have just been passing into the door from the
6th floor.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Naturally, most
folks were standing at the steps, or still looking out the window at the
scene of the limo being shot at and running away.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. The people we are talking about didn't
linger at the front of the building.
Somehow you knew that. Good work! And where di they all go after
witnessing a shooting of the POTUS? Back to their work? Or did they mill
around like humans do in these cases?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
At that point you decided you need to give thos three
more time so you changed the narrative to say that it took Truly and Baker
even longer than what the WC recreations showed so you expanded that time
to at least two minutes or more. Now you apparently forgot that little
problem and have gone back to claiming the Baker/Oswald encounter happened
within a minute of the last shot. You can't have it both ways. You can't
at once say Baker reached the lunchroom within two minutes and still claim
your three person team on the 6th floor had more than two minutes to get
out the back before Truly and Baker started up the stairs.
Here's the dilemma you face. You need to get your 3 person team out the
back door before Baker and Truly began running up the stairs. It you want
to claim the encounter with Oswald took place a minute after the last shot
that would mean your threesome had less than a minute to get out the
backdoor because they had to get out BEFORE Baker and Truly even started
up the stairs. If you want to give them more time to get out the back
door, it necessitates that you push the Baker/Oswald encounter back which
gives Oswald more time to reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor. There is
no way you can claim it would take your threesome less time to descend to
the first floor than it would take Oswald to descend to the second floor.
But that's the corner you have painted yourself into. I realize I am being
logical about all this so your head is probably spinning by now.
You can work it for all its worth, since you have nothing else of any
importance. Yep, it's possible it was incorrect about the timing, because
it was necessary for the group of 3 to escape out the back stairs and the
loading dock before anyone came up those stairs.
It would have taken those three people longer to reach the first floor
than it took Oswald to reach the second floor. Baker and Truly got to the
based of the stairway in less time than it too them to get to the second
floor. You can't logically argue that your three person team had time to
get out the back door but Oswald didn't have time to reach the second
floor lunchroom. But who ever said your arguments were logically.
There is no proof that Baker and Truly got there on the 2nd floor
before Oswald was already in the lunchroom.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-27 22:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting. And he did NOT fire any of the shots. He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
Oh, really. Who was running the stopwatch. You need to start writing down
your own bullshit so you can keep your stories straight.
WRONG! You need to not forget situations we've discussed many times it
the past. Who do you think you're fooling? Pretending that we haven't
argued this out many times in the past. Is that for a new person to the
forum? If you will look carefully, instead of jumping into to the fire,
you'll see above that I said "about 12:15pm". It could have been later,
of course.
You can't even remember what you've written from one post to the next.
Before you mentioned 12:15 your wrote, "But he was seen at the 2nd floor
lunchroom a minute after the shooting." So when we are talking about
Oswald, you claim Baker encountered him in the lunchroom one minute after
the shooting. When you are talking about your 3 person team, you claim
that encounter occurred much later because you had to give them time to
get out of the building through the back door.
Good point, let me correct that. 'At least a minute and a half or
more.'
So you acknowledge that Oswald had "At least a minute and a half OR MORE"
to get down to the lunchroom before Baker and Truly reached the second
floor.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
This was your
original story. Then you realized that if Baker got to the lunchroom
within one minute that would mean Mac Wallace, Loy Factor, and the gal
with the walkie-talkie would have had less than a minute to go down the
back stairs and out the back door before Truly and Baker started coming up
those same stairs.
WRONG! When I said "about 12:15pm" it could have been a bit either
way,
We aren't talking about when Oswald was seen before the shooting. We are
talking about how soon after the shooting he was seen by Baker.
Post by mainframetech
but the timing on Baker and Truly was 90 seconds, which you (of
course) said could be gotten done from the 6th floor without any problem.
So now it's 90 seconds. A couple posts ago you said it was a minute.
Several months ago when you claimed the 3 person team slipped out the back
you claimed it was even longer. You want to give those 3 people more time
than you are willing to give Oswald even though they had one more floor to
descend and they had to get out before Baker even got to the stairs.
The point is that it happened, and so the time was enough for it to be
accomplished. What ever amount of time was need.
Oswald needed less time to get to the 2nd floor than your shooters would
have needed to get to the ground floor. Baker and Truly needed less time
to get to the stairway on the ground floor than they did to reach the
second floor landing. So Oswald would have had more time to go less
distance than your shooters.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The truth is we don't know how long after the last shot that encounter
took place. We can only estimate it though recreations. What we do know is
whatever the time frame was, the same time frame would apply to Oswald and
your three person team. You want to have one time frame for Oswald and a
longer one for your three people.
Since it got done, there was enough time, no matter what that amount
was. The silly guesses in the WCR certainly don't work.
And there was enough time for Oswald to get to the lunchroom too. More
time than your shooters would have had to reach the first floor. Remember
than the next time you try to use the lunchroom encounter with Baker as an
alibi for Oswald.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But OBVIOUSLY, it had to be longer for the real time.
Which would mean Oswald would have had more time too.
Well, we've discussed what Oswald did in the lunchroom many times. He
might well have come back to the door with that window in it to see who
was outside, or any reason in the world. There is no guarantee that he
did what YOU would like, and have just been passing into the door from the
6th floor.
He might also have come down from the 6th floor and reached the second
floor just ahead of Baker and Truly and ducked into the lunchroom when he
heard them coming up the stairs. It is the conspiracy hobbyists who try to
use the encounter with Baker as an alibi for Oswald so it is up to them to
establish that he couldn't have been on the 6th floor when the last shot
was fired and still got to the lunchroom ahead of Baker. You have
acknowledged that he had more than enough time to do that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Naturally, most
folks were standing at the steps, or still looking out the window at the
scene of the limo being shot at and running away.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. The people we are talking about didn't
linger at the front of the building.
Somehow you knew that. Good work! And where di they all go after
witnessing a shooting of the POTUS? Back to their work? Or did they mill
around like humans do in these cases?
I have no idea. Why does it matter?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
At that point you decided you need to give thos three
more time so you changed the narrative to say that it took Truly and Baker
even longer than what the WC recreations showed so you expanded that time
to at least two minutes or more. Now you apparently forgot that little
problem and have gone back to claiming the Baker/Oswald encounter happened
within a minute of the last shot. You can't have it both ways. You can't
at once say Baker reached the lunchroom within two minutes and still claim
your three person team on the 6th floor had more than two minutes to get
out the back before Truly and Baker started up the stairs.
Here's the dilemma you face. You need to get your 3 person team out the
back door before Baker and Truly began running up the stairs. It you want
to claim the encounter with Oswald took place a minute after the last shot
that would mean your threesome had less than a minute to get out the
backdoor because they had to get out BEFORE Baker and Truly even started
up the stairs. If you want to give them more time to get out the back
door, it necessitates that you push the Baker/Oswald encounter back which
gives Oswald more time to reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor. There is
no way you can claim it would take your threesome less time to descend to
the first floor than it would take Oswald to descend to the second floor.
But that's the corner you have painted yourself into. I realize I am being
logical about all this so your head is probably spinning by now.
You can work it for all its worth, since you have nothing else of any
importance. Yep, it's possible it was incorrect about the timing, because
it was necessary for the group of 3 to escape out the back stairs and the
loading dock before anyone came up those stairs.
It would have taken those three people longer to reach the first floor
than it took Oswald to reach the second floor. Baker and Truly got to the
based of the stairway in less time than it too them to get to the second
floor. You can't logically argue that your three person team had time to
get out the back door but Oswald didn't have time to reach the second
floor lunchroom. But who ever said your arguments were logically.
There is no proof that Baker and Truly got there on the 2nd floor
before Oswald was already in the lunchroom.
No proof is needed. The proof is needed by those who want to use the
encounter with Baker as an alibi that would preclude Oswald from having
fired the shots. You have acknowledged that Oswald had time to get down to
the second floor after the last shot was fired so that shoots down that
alibi. The proof that Oswald was the shooter has been well established.
You know that because you have invented excuses to dismiss all of it.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-28 17:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting. And he did NOT fire any of the shots. He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
Oh, really. Who was running the stopwatch. You need to start writing down
your own bullshit so you can keep your stories straight.
WRONG! You need to not forget situations we've discussed many times it
the past. Who do you think you're fooling? Pretending that we haven't
argued this out many times in the past. Is that for a new person to the
forum? If you will look carefully, instead of jumping into to the fire,
you'll see above that I said "about 12:15pm". It could have been later,
of course.
You can't even remember what you've written from one post to the next.
Before you mentioned 12:15 your wrote, "But he was seen at the 2nd floor
lunchroom a minute after the shooting." So when we are talking about
Oswald, you claim Baker encountered him in the lunchroom one minute after
the shooting. When you are talking about your 3 person team, you claim
that encounter occurred much later because you had to give them time to
get out of the building through the back door.
Good point, let me correct that. 'At least a minute and a half or
more.'
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
This was your
original story. Then you realized that if Baker got to the lunchroom
within one minute that would mean Mac Wallace, Loy Factor, and the gal
with the walkie-talkie would have had less than a minute to go down the
back stairs and out the back door before Truly and Baker started coming up
those same stairs.
WRONG! When I said "about 12:15pm" it could have been a bit either
way,
We aren't talking about when Oswald was seen before the shooting. We are
talking about how soon after the shooting he was seen by Baker.
Post by mainframetech
but the timing on Baker and Truly was 90 seconds, which you (of
course) said could be gotten done from the 6th floor without any problem.
So now it's 90 seconds. A couple posts ago you said it was a minute.
Several months ago when you claimed the 3 person team slipped out the back
you claimed it was even longer. You want to give those 3 people more time
than you are willing to give Oswald even though they had one more floor to
descend and they had to get out before Baker even got to the stairs.
The point is that it happened, and so the time was enough for it to be
accomplished. What ever amount of time was need.
Post by bigdog
The truth is we don't know how long after the last shot that encounter
took place. We can only estimate it though recreations. What we do know is
whatever the time frame was, the same time frame would apply to Oswald and
your three person team. You want to have one time frame for Oswald and a
longer one for your three people.
Since it got done, there was enough time, no matter what that amount
was. The silly guesses in the WCR certainly don't work.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But OBVIOUSLY, it had to be longer for the real time.
Which would mean Oswald would have had more time too.
Well, we've discussed what Oswald did in the lunchroom many times. He
might well have come back to the door with that window in it to see who
was outside, or any reason in the world. There is no guarantee that he
did what YOU would like, and have just been passing into the door from the
6th floor.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Naturally, most
folks were standing at the steps, or still looking out the window at the
scene of the limo being shot at and running away.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. The people we are talking about didn't
linger at the front of the building.
Somehow you knew that. Good work! And where di they all go after
witnessing a shooting of the POTUS? Back to their work? Or did they mill
around like humans do in these cases?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
At that point you decided you need to give thos three
more time so you changed the narrative to say that it took Truly and Baker
even longer than what the WC recreations showed so you expanded that time
to at least two minutes or more. Now you apparently forgot that little
problem and have gone back to claiming the Baker/Oswald encounter happened
within a minute of the last shot. You can't have it both ways. You can't
at once say Baker reached the lunchroom within two minutes and still claim
your three person team on the 6th floor had more than two minutes to get
out the back before Truly and Baker started up the stairs.
Here's the dilemma you face. You need to get your 3 person team out the
back door before Baker and Truly began running up the stairs. It you want
to claim the encounter with Oswald took place a minute after the last shot
that would mean your threesome had less than a minute to get out the
backdoor because they had to get out BEFORE Baker and Truly even started
up the stairs. If you want to give them more time to get out the back
door, it necessitates that you push the Baker/Oswald encounter back which
gives Oswald more time to reach the lunchroom from the 6th floor. There is
no way you can claim it would take your threesome less time to descend to
the first floor than it would take Oswald to descend to the second floor.
But that's the corner you have painted yourself into. I realize I am being
logical about all this so your head is probably spinning by now.
You can work it for all its worth, since you have nothing else of any
importance. Yep, it's possible it was incorrect about the timing, because
it was necessary for the group of 3 to escape out the back stairs and the
loading dock before anyone came up those stairs.
It would have taken those three people longer to reach the first floor
than it took Oswald to reach the second floor. Baker and Truly got to the
based of the stairway in less time than it too them to get to the second
floor. You can't logically argue that your three person team had time to
get out the back door but Oswald didn't have time to reach the second
floor lunchroom. But who ever said your arguments were logically.
There is no proof that Baker and Truly got there on the 2nd floor
before Oswald was already in the lunchroom.
Barely, by about 3 seconds.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Caeruleo
2017-05-26 14:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting.
Neither Baker or Truly ever said that it was a short a time as "a minute,"
singular. The so-called "official" time is approximately 90 seconds after
the last shot was fired, but both Baker and Truly admitted, on multiple
dates, that the actual time could have been longer than that.
Post by mainframetech
And he did NOT fire any of the shots.
It has never come anywhere even remotely close to being irrefutably proven
that he did not fire any of the shots.
Post by mainframetech
He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
That's approximately fifteen minutes before the first shot was fired.
That's more than enough time to still get back up to the sixth floor to
fire the first shot no earlier than 12:29. How do you know he didn't
leave the lunchroom one minute later, at 12:16, after he was "seen"?
Since it only takes a minute or two, at most, for the average adult to
walk up four flights of stairs, being in the lunchroom even as late as
12:25 still comes nowhere close to precluding that same person being the
shooter on the sixth floor.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Just as "smart," with no difference whatsoever, as Oswald as the sole
shooter as described in the WCR.
Well, that shows the foolishness of the WCR. they were gong to prove
the 'lone nut' killing no matter what.
Whatever; that does not address what I said, so let's try this again:

You called the shooters "smart" because they got away from the exact
locations from which they fired the shots quickly enough not to be obvious
to law enforcement. But exactly that same argument, with no difference
whatsoever, applies equally well to a single shooter on the sixth floor of
the TSBD, no matter who that shooter was, no matter whether it was Oswald
or not, because that shooter was indeed no longer there when law
enforcement first arrived on that floor, so if that shooter *was* Oswald,
then Oswald would have been just as "smart," with no difference
whatsoever, as your multiple "shooters." Also this can be *independent*
of anything the WC claimed about Oswald, for obvious reasons.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Hmmm, I see that, at least in the article I'm directly replying to here,
And no one addressed it this time either, at least as far as I have yet
seen. ;-)
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Yes, I watched his "confession" years ago, and he gave himself away as a
con artist when he claimed to have seen things in real time as he was
shooting which cannot be seen in real time and can only be seen by looking
at the Zapruder film frame by frame. He was very obviously *coached* in
his claims.
Seeing things in the Z-film might be a mistake, since it was altered.
So you keep saying. I've seen quite a bit of your so-called "evidence"
over a period of several years that the film was "altered" and practically
of your "evidence" is extraordinarily meager.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed.
I will challenge you on this. I have ***LIVED*** in Texas, continuously
(meaning I have never in my life lived outside of Texas, not even as
briefly as one month) since 1958. So you were stationed in Texas in one
single November in one single year? Or was it more than one year?
Wrong!
"Wrong" about what, exactly? I made no specific statement; instead of
that I *asked* you if you were stationed in Texas for only one month or
for more than one year.
Post by mainframetech
I was stationed in Texas for 4 years straight.
I never said otherwise; I merely asked you how long you were in Texas,
period.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
According to
Google Earth, Stephenville is only 90.41 miles west-southwest of downtown
Dallas, and Stephenville is furthermore only about five-tenths of a degree
of latitude south of downtown Dallas. I do not recall 11-22-63 as being
especially "cold," and I otherwise remember the day quite well: after I
came home from kindergarten I remember my dad and I watching the tiny
black and white tv in his bedroom. He was standing and I was sitting on
the edge of his bed. I asked him what happened and he said, "The
President has been killed," and he just stood there and became very silent
after that. I have no recollection, however, of wearing anything even
remotely similar to "winter clothing." And of course I will never believe
you if you falsely claim that the weather in Stephenville was dramatically
different from the weather in Dallas on that day.
Can't say. And I'm not particularly bothered if you don't believe me
about something.
I never actually said, specifically, that I don't believe you about the
weather. The point I and other posters have made to you, however, is that
many people do not consider 68 degrees F, especially when it is also
sunny, to be especially chilly. You yourself might consider that to be
chilly enough to wear a jacket or whatever, but that does not
automatically mean that your opinion is consistent with the majority.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?>
Chris
Clavinger, who I also killfiled at one point (proving beyond all
reasonable doubt that I do not only killfile CTs) has given you the
irrefutable source of this. 68 degrees, Fahrenheit, is not considered
"cold" here in Texas in November, especially when it is sunny. I *defy*
you to produce verbatim quotes from real Texans such as me specifically
saying that 68 F is "cold" in sunny weather. Hell, I've gone outside in
*exactly* that weather here *shirtless*, and it felt entirely comfortable
to me.
I have accepted Claviger's temperature. That's over as far as I'm
concerned. He was off slightly, but not enough to matter.
But you are still not addressing, in any realistic detailed sense, the
obvious problems with Gordon Arnold's credibility, which go far beyond
just his claim of what he was wearing that day.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, and you are *blatantly* *ignoring* what Jackie herself said. Since
you ***BLATANTLY*** ***REFUSE*** to quote it, I will quote it without even
"Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I remember whenever it was, Mrs. Connally said, "We
will soon be there." We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was
really slow then. And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
And what was she ***OBVIOUSLY*** referring to as the "tunnel"? Oh that's
right: where Elm goes under the Triple Underpass. There isn't anything
else that she was even *maybe* referring to in that statement, since aside
from the Triple Underpass, there is nothing even remotely resembling a
"tunnel" on Elm. I've driven down Elm, all the way, many times in my
life.
How many times have *you* driven down it, Chris?
Less than half as often as I have, correct?
You really need to update your people skills.
Well, that's certainly the pot calling the kettle black.

And you totally evaded what I said above, so let's try this again a second
time:

Jackie very clearly said that no matter what the temperature actually was,
she felt too hot when the limo was in the sun. That is quite obviously
why she said she was looking forward to the limo going under the Triple
Underpass: "And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
Post by mainframetech
I can help you in that
area, but I doubt you ever accept any help for these things.
Nonsense. You don't know nearly enough about me to have any clear idea as
to whether or not that is even remotely true. So once again, just as you
have done before, you all too quickly jump to a conclusion without having
nearly enough evidence to support that conclusion.
bigdog
2017-05-27 01:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting.
Neither Baker or Truly ever said that it was a short a time as "a minute,"
singular. The so-called "official" time is approximately 90 seconds after
the last shot was fired, but both Baker and Truly admitted, on multiple
dates, that the actual time could have been longer than that.
Post by mainframetech
And he did NOT fire any of the shots.
It has never come anywhere even remotely close to being irrefutably proven
that he did not fire any of the shots.
Post by mainframetech
He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
That's approximately fifteen minutes before the first shot was fired.
That's more than enough time to still get back up to the sixth floor to
fire the first shot no earlier than 12:29. How do you know he didn't
leave the lunchroom one minute later, at 12:16, after he was "seen"?
Since it only takes a minute or two, at most, for the average adult to
walk up four flights of stairs, being in the lunchroom even as late as
12:25 still comes nowhere close to precluding that same person being the
shooter on the sixth floor.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Just as "smart," with no difference whatsoever, as Oswald as the sole
shooter as described in the WCR.
Well, that shows the foolishness of the WCR. they were gong to prove
the 'lone nut' killing no matter what.
You called the shooters "smart" because they got away from the exact
locations from which they fired the shots quickly enough not to be obvious
to law enforcement. But exactly that same argument, with no difference
whatsoever, applies equally well to a single shooter on the sixth floor of
the TSBD, no matter who that shooter was, no matter whether it was Oswald
or not, because that shooter was indeed no longer there when law
enforcement first arrived on that floor, so if that shooter *was* Oswald,
then Oswald would have been just as "smart," with no difference
whatsoever, as your multiple "shooters." Also this can be *independent*
of anything the WC claimed about Oswald, for obvious reasons.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Hmmm, I see that, at least in the article I'm directly replying to here,
And no one addressed it this time either, at least as far as I have yet
seen. ;-)
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Yes, I watched his "confession" years ago, and he gave himself away as a
con artist when he claimed to have seen things in real time as he was
shooting which cannot be seen in real time and can only be seen by looking
at the Zapruder film frame by frame. He was very obviously *coached* in
his claims.
Seeing things in the Z-film might be a mistake, since it was altered.
So you keep saying. I've seen quite a bit of your so-called "evidence"
over a period of several years that the film was "altered" and practically
of your "evidence" is extraordinarily meager.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed.
I will challenge you on this. I have ***LIVED*** in Texas, continuously
(meaning I have never in my life lived outside of Texas, not even as
briefly as one month) since 1958. So you were stationed in Texas in one
single November in one single year? Or was it more than one year?
Wrong!
"Wrong" about what, exactly? I made no specific statement; instead of
that I *asked* you if you were stationed in Texas for only one month or
for more than one year.
Post by mainframetech
I was stationed in Texas for 4 years straight.
I never said otherwise; I merely asked you how long you were in Texas,
period.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
According to
Google Earth, Stephenville is only 90.41 miles west-southwest of downtown
Dallas, and Stephenville is furthermore only about five-tenths of a degree
of latitude south of downtown Dallas. I do not recall 11-22-63 as being
especially "cold," and I otherwise remember the day quite well: after I
came home from kindergarten I remember my dad and I watching the tiny
black and white tv in his bedroom. He was standing and I was sitting on
the edge of his bed. I asked him what happened and he said, "The
President has been killed," and he just stood there and became very silent
after that. I have no recollection, however, of wearing anything even
remotely similar to "winter clothing." And of course I will never believe
you if you falsely claim that the weather in Stephenville was dramatically
different from the weather in Dallas on that day.
Can't say. And I'm not particularly bothered if you don't believe me
about something.
I never actually said, specifically, that I don't believe you about the
weather. The point I and other posters have made to you, however, is that
many people do not consider 68 degrees F, especially when it is also
sunny, to be especially chilly. You yourself might consider that to be
chilly enough to wear a jacket or whatever, but that does not
automatically mean that your opinion is consistent with the majority.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?>
Chris
Clavinger, who I also killfiled at one point (proving beyond all
reasonable doubt that I do not only killfile CTs) has given you the
irrefutable source of this. 68 degrees, Fahrenheit, is not considered
"cold" here in Texas in November, especially when it is sunny. I *defy*
you to produce verbatim quotes from real Texans such as me specifically
saying that 68 F is "cold" in sunny weather. Hell, I've gone outside in
*exactly* that weather here *shirtless*, and it felt entirely comfortable
to me.
I have accepted Claviger's temperature. That's over as far as I'm
concerned. He was off slightly, but not enough to matter.
But you are still not addressing, in any realistic detailed sense, the
obvious problems with Gordon Arnold's credibility, which go far beyond
just his claim of what he was wearing that day.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, and you are *blatantly* *ignoring* what Jackie herself said. Since
you ***BLATANTLY*** ***REFUSE*** to quote it, I will quote it without even
"Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I remember whenever it was, Mrs. Connally said, "We
will soon be there." We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was
really slow then. And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
And what was she ***OBVIOUSLY*** referring to as the "tunnel"? Oh that's
right: where Elm goes under the Triple Underpass. There isn't anything
else that she was even *maybe* referring to in that statement, since aside
from the Triple Underpass, there is nothing even remotely resembling a
"tunnel" on Elm. I've driven down Elm, all the way, many times in my
life.
How many times have *you* driven down it, Chris?
Less than half as often as I have, correct?
You really need to update your people skills.
Well, that's certainly the pot calling the kettle black.
And you totally evaded what I said above, so let's try this again a second
Jackie very clearly said that no matter what the temperature actually was,
she felt too hot when the limo was in the sun. That is quite obviously
why she said she was looking forward to the limo going under the Triple
Underpass: "And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
Post by mainframetech
I can help you in that
area, but I doubt you ever accept any help for these things.
Nonsense. You don't know nearly enough about me to have any clear idea as
to whether or not that is even remotely true. So once again, just as you
have done before, you all too quickly jump to a conclusion without having
nearly enough evidence to support that conclusion.
All very sound and logical arguments which sadly will be wasted on Chris.
mainframetech
2017-05-27 23:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting.
Neither Baker or Truly ever said that it was a short a time as "a minute,"
singular. The so-called "official" time is approximately 90 seconds after
the last shot was fired, but both Baker and Truly admitted, on multiple
dates, that the actual time could have been longer than that.
Post by mainframetech
And he did NOT fire any of the shots.
It has never come anywhere even remotely close to being irrefutably proven
that he did not fire any of the shots.
Post by mainframetech
He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
That's approximately fifteen minutes before the first shot was fired.
That's more than enough time to still get back up to the sixth floor to
fire the first shot no earlier than 12:29. How do you know he didn't
leave the lunchroom one minute later, at 12:16, after he was "seen"?
Since it only takes a minute or two, at most, for the average adult to
walk up four flights of stairs, being in the lunchroom even as late as
12:25 still comes nowhere close to precluding that same person being the
shooter on the sixth floor.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Just as "smart," with no difference whatsoever, as Oswald as the sole
shooter as described in the WCR.
Well, that shows the foolishness of the WCR. they were gong to prove
the 'lone nut' killing no matter what.
You called the shooters "smart" because they got away from the exact
locations from which they fired the shots quickly enough not to be obvious
to law enforcement. But exactly that same argument, with no difference
whatsoever, applies equally well to a single shooter on the sixth floor of
the TSBD, no matter who that shooter was, no matter whether it was Oswald
or not, because that shooter was indeed no longer there when law
enforcement first arrived on that floor, so if that shooter *was* Oswald,
then Oswald would have been just as "smart," with no difference
whatsoever, as your multiple "shooters." Also this can be *independent*
of anything the WC claimed about Oswald, for obvious reasons.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Hmmm, I see that, at least in the article I'm directly replying to here,
And no one addressed it this time either, at least as far as I have yet
seen. ;-)
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Yes, I watched his "confession" years ago, and he gave himself away as a
con artist when he claimed to have seen things in real time as he was
shooting which cannot be seen in real time and can only be seen by looking
at the Zapruder film frame by frame. He was very obviously *coached* in
his claims.
Seeing things in the Z-film might be a mistake, since it was altered.
So you keep saying. I've seen quite a bit of your so-called "evidence"
over a period of several years that the film was "altered" and practically
of your "evidence" is extraordinarily meager.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed.
I will challenge you on this. I have ***LIVED*** in Texas, continuously
(meaning I have never in my life lived outside of Texas, not even as
briefly as one month) since 1958. So you were stationed in Texas in one
single November in one single year? Or was it more than one year?
Wrong!
"Wrong" about what, exactly? I made no specific statement; instead of
that I *asked* you if you were stationed in Texas for only one month or
for more than one year.
Post by mainframetech
I was stationed in Texas for 4 years straight.
I never said otherwise; I merely asked you how long you were in Texas,
period.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
According to
Google Earth, Stephenville is only 90.41 miles west-southwest of downtown
Dallas, and Stephenville is furthermore only about five-tenths of a degree
of latitude south of downtown Dallas. I do not recall 11-22-63 as being
especially "cold," and I otherwise remember the day quite well: after I
came home from kindergarten I remember my dad and I watching the tiny
black and white tv in his bedroom. He was standing and I was sitting on
the edge of his bed. I asked him what happened and he said, "The
President has been killed," and he just stood there and became very silent
after that. I have no recollection, however, of wearing anything even
remotely similar to "winter clothing." And of course I will never believe
you if you falsely claim that the weather in Stephenville was dramatically
different from the weather in Dallas on that day.
Can't say. And I'm not particularly bothered if you don't believe me
about something.
I never actually said, specifically, that I don't believe you about the
weather. The point I and other posters have made to you, however, is that
many people do not consider 68 degrees F, especially when it is also
sunny, to be especially chilly. You yourself might consider that to be
chilly enough to wear a jacket or whatever, but that does not
automatically mean that your opinion is consistent with the majority.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?>
Chris
Clavinger, who I also killfiled at one point (proving beyond all
reasonable doubt that I do not only killfile CTs) has given you the
irrefutable source of this. 68 degrees, Fahrenheit, is not considered
"cold" here in Texas in November, especially when it is sunny. I *defy*
you to produce verbatim quotes from real Texans such as me specifically
saying that 68 F is "cold" in sunny weather. Hell, I've gone outside in
*exactly* that weather here *shirtless*, and it felt entirely comfortable
to me.
I have accepted Claviger's temperature. That's over as far as I'm
concerned. He was off slightly, but not enough to matter.
But you are still not addressing, in any realistic detailed sense, the
obvious problems with Gordon Arnold's credibility, which go far beyond
just his claim of what he was wearing that day.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, and you are *blatantly* *ignoring* what Jackie herself said. Since
you ***BLATANTLY*** ***REFUSE*** to quote it, I will quote it without even
"Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I remember whenever it was, Mrs. Connally said, "We
will soon be there." We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was
really slow then. And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
And what was she ***OBVIOUSLY*** referring to as the "tunnel"? Oh that's
right: where Elm goes under the Triple Underpass. There isn't anything
else that she was even *maybe* referring to in that statement, since aside
from the Triple Underpass, there is nothing even remotely resembling a
"tunnel" on Elm. I've driven down Elm, all the way, many times in my
life.
How many times have *you* driven down it, Chris?
Less than half as often as I have, correct?
You really need to update your people skills.
Well, that's certainly the pot calling the kettle black.
And you totally evaded what I said above, so let's try this again a second
Jackie very clearly said that no matter what the temperature actually was,
she felt too hot when the limo was in the sun. That is quite obviously
why she said she was looking forward to the limo going under the Triple
Underpass: "And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
Post by mainframetech
I can help you in that
area, but I doubt you ever accept any help for these things.
Nonsense. You don't know nearly enough about me to have any clear idea as
to whether or not that is even remotely true. So once again, just as you
have done before, you all too quickly jump to a conclusion without having
nearly enough evidence to support that conclusion.
All very sound and logical arguments which sadly will be wasted on Chris.
Aww, you're thinking about me again. How nice!

Chris
mainframetech
2017-05-27 11:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting.
Neither Baker or Truly ever said that it was a short a time as "a minute,"
singular. The so-called "official" time is approximately 90 seconds after
the last shot was fired, but both Baker and Truly admitted, on multiple
dates, that the actual time could have been longer than that.
I agree. Have you ever said just a minute? It's a standard phrase
meaning a short time of indeterminate length.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
And he did NOT fire any of the shots.
It has never come anywhere even remotely close to being irrefutably proven
that he did not fire any of the shots.
It sure hasn't come anywhere close to proving he DID fire any of the
shots. Now many folks have commented that when they all got old, many of
the involved people might begin to tell their story, not being too
concerned with end of their life. I read a book that seems to be a case
like that. The information in the book is that Oswald wasn't present, but
2 other people were, and they both fired weapons out the window. One of
them used the MC rifle. Of course, you'll be an LN about it and swear
it's false, but there it is.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
That's approximately fifteen minutes before the first shot was fired.
That's more than enough time to still get back up to the sixth floor to
fire the first shot no earlier than 12:29. How do you know he didn't
leave the lunchroom one minute later, at 12:16, after he was "seen"?
Since it only takes a minute or two, at most, for the average adult to
walk up four flights of stairs, being in the lunchroom even as late as
12:25 still comes nowhere close to precluding that same person being the
shooter on the sixth floor.
Well, you see that wasn't quite right. If that scenario is taken, just
about the same time, 2 men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun by
2 people, and another saw 2 men in the 6th floor, without seen. If Oswald
tried to make his way to the 6th floor window at that time, they 2 men
with a gun would surely persuade him to return to whence he came. The
reason they were there should be obvious.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Just as "smart," with no difference whatsoever, as Oswald as the sole
shooter as described in the WCR.
Well, that shows the foolishness of the WCR. they were going to prove
the 'lone nut' killing no matter what.
You called the shooters "smart" because they got away from the exact
locations from which they fired the shots quickly enough not to be obvious
to law enforcement. But exactly that same argument, with no difference
whatsoever, applies equally well to a single shooter on the sixth floor of
the TSBD, no matter who that shooter was, no matter whether it was Oswald
or not, because that shooter was indeed no longer there when law
enforcement first arrived on that floor, so if that shooter *was* Oswald,
then Oswald would have been just as "smart," with no difference
whatsoever, as your multiple "shooters." Also this can be *independent*
of anything the WC claimed about Oswald, for obvious reasons.
Since there were other men seen on the 6th floor with a gun based on
witnesses, the question of Oswald being there seems moot.


And BTW, law enforcement ran into Oswald inside the door to the 2nd
floor lunchroom after the shooting. They continued on up to the top floor
after that.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Hmmm, I see that, at least in the article I'm directly replying to here,
And no one addressed it this time either, at least as far as I have yet
seen. ;-)
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Yes, I watched his "confession" years ago, and he gave himself away as a
con artist when he claimed to have seen things in real time as he was
shooting which cannot be seen in real time and can only be seen by looking
at the Zapruder film frame by frame. He was very obviously *coached* in
his claims.
Seeing things in the Z-film might be a mistake, since it was altered.
So you keep saying. I've seen quite a bit of your so-called "evidence"
over a period of several years that the film was "altered" and practically
of your "evidence" is extraordinarily meager.
Welp, that's your opinion. Did you also view the independent analyses?
And the witnesses who were CIA Film analysts? And did you spend the time
to read the 2 00 pages written by Douglas Horne about how the film was
altered, and what equipment was available in 1963 to do the work, and that
the film was taken to the CIA lab in Rochester, NY which was given away by
a CIA messenger? Probably not. You had your opinion after all.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed.
I will challenge you on this. I have ***LIVED*** in Texas, continuously
(meaning I have never in my life lived outside of Texas, not even as
briefly as one month) since 1958. So you were stationed in Texas in one
single November in one single year? Or was it more than one year?
Wrong!
"Wrong" about what, exactly? I made no specific statement; instead of
that I *asked* you if you were stationed in Texas for only one month or
for more than one year.
Post by mainframetech
I was stationed in Texas for 4 years straight.
I never said otherwise; I merely asked you how long you were in Texas,
period.
Now you know.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
According to
Google Earth, Stephenville is only 90.41 miles west-southwest of downtown
Dallas, and Stephenville is furthermore only about five-tenths of a degree
of latitude south of downtown Dallas. I do not recall 11-22-63 as being
especially "cold," and I otherwise remember the day quite well: after I
came home from kindergarten I remember my dad and I watching the tiny
black and white tv in his bedroom. He was standing and I was sitting on
the edge of his bed. I asked him what happened and he said, "The
President has been killed," and he just stood there and became very silent
after that. I have no recollection, however, of wearing anything even
remotely similar to "winter clothing." And of course I will never believe
you if you falsely claim that the weather in Stephenville was dramatically
different from the weather in Dallas on that day.
Can't say. And I'm not particularly bothered if you don't believe me
about something.
I never actually said, specifically, that I don't believe you about the
weather. The point I and other posters have made to you, however, is that
many people do not consider 68 degrees F, especially when it is also
sunny, to be especially chilly. You yourself might consider that to be
chilly enough to wear a jacket or whatever, but that does not
automatically mean that your opinion is consistent with the majority.
It doesn't matter what any majority does. That time of year, the
military calls it winter garb, and everyone changes uniforms.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?>
Chris
Clavinger, who I also killfiled at one point (proving beyond all
reasonable doubt that I do not only killfile CTs) has given you the
irrefutable source of this. 68 degrees, Fahrenheit, is not considered
"cold" here in Texas in November, especially when it is sunny. I *defy*
you to produce verbatim quotes from real Texans such as me specifically
saying that 68 F is "cold" in sunny weather. Hell, I've gone outside in
*exactly* that weather here *shirtless*, and it felt entirely comfortable
to me.
I have accepted Claviger's temperature. That's over as far as I'm
concerned. He was off slightly, but not enough to matter.
But you are still not addressing, in any realistic detailed sense, the
obvious problems with Gordon Arnold's credibility, which go far beyond
just his claim of what he was wearing that day.
I have addressed it to death, but you decided not to be involved back
then. I may miss repeating something I had dealt with back then, but time
will tell.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, and you are *blatantly* *ignoring* what Jackie herself said. Since
you ***BLATANTLY*** ***REFUSE*** to quote it, I will quote it without even
"Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I remember whenever it was, Mrs. Connally said, "We
will soon be there." We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was
really slow then. And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
And what was she ***OBVIOUSLY*** referring to as the "tunnel"? Oh that's
right: where Elm goes under the Triple Underpass. There isn't anything
else that she was even *maybe* referring to in that statement, since aside
from the Triple Underpass, there is nothing even remotely resembling a
"tunnel" on Elm. I've driven down Elm, all the way, many times in my
life.
How many times have *you* driven down it, Chris?
Less than half as often as I have, correct?
You really need to update your people skills.
Well, that's certainly the pot calling the kettle black.
And you totally evaded what I said above, so let's try this again a second
Jackie very clearly said that no matter what the temperature actually was,
she felt too hot when the limo was in the sun. That is quite obviously
why she said she was looking forward to the limo going under the Triple
Underpass: "And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
Post by mainframetech
I can help you in that
area, but I doubt you ever accept any help for these things.
Nonsense. You don't know nearly enough about me to have any clear idea as
to whether or not that is even remotely true. So once again, just as you
have done before, you all too quickly jump to a conclusion without having
nearly enough evidence to support that conclusion.
Of course, some people would say, I do accept help, or I don't accept
help, but instead you avoid giving any information.

It's bee na waste of time arguing over the temp when I had already
settled that with Claviger. Next time let's talk about something
substantive.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-28 01:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
The information I have doesn't say whether Oswald left before the
final shot, or after. But he was seen at the 2nd floor lunchroom a minute
after the shooting.
Neither Baker or Truly ever said that it was a short a time as "a minute,"
singular. The so-called "official" time is approximately 90 seconds after
the last shot was fired, but both Baker and Truly admitted, on multiple
dates, that the actual time could have been longer than that.
I agree. Have you ever said just a minute? It's a standard phrase
meaning a short time of indeterminate length.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
And he did NOT fire any of the shots.
It has never come anywhere even remotely close to being irrefutably proven
that he did not fire any of the shots.
It sure hasn't come anywhere close to proving he DID fire any of the
shots. Now many folks have commented that when they all got old, many of
the involved people might begin to tell their story, not being too
concerned with end of their life. I read a book that seems to be a case
like that. The information in the book is that Oswald wasn't present, but
2 other people were, and they both fired weapons out the window. One of
them used the MC rifle. Of course, you'll be an LN about it and swear
it's false, but there it is.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
He was also
seen sitting at the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm.
That's approximately fifteen minutes before the first shot was fired.
That's more than enough time to still get back up to the sixth floor to
fire the first shot no earlier than 12:29. How do you know he didn't
leave the lunchroom one minute later, at 12:16, after he was "seen"?
Since it only takes a minute or two, at most, for the average adult to
walk up four flights of stairs, being in the lunchroom even as late as
12:25 still comes nowhere close to precluding that same person being the
shooter on the sixth floor.
Well, you see that wasn't quite right. If that scenario is taken, just
about the same time, 2 men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun by
2 people, and another saw 2 men in the 6th floor, without seen. If Oswald
tried to make his way to the 6th floor window at that time, they 2 men
with a gun would surely persuade him to return to whence he came. The
reason they were there should be obvious.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Just as "smart," with no difference whatsoever, as Oswald as the sole
shooter as described in the WCR.
Well, that shows the foolishness of the WCR. they were going to prove
the 'lone nut' killing no matter what.
You called the shooters "smart" because they got away from the exact
locations from which they fired the shots quickly enough not to be obvious
to law enforcement. But exactly that same argument, with no difference
whatsoever, applies equally well to a single shooter on the sixth floor of
the TSBD, no matter who that shooter was, no matter whether it was Oswald
or not, because that shooter was indeed no longer there when law
enforcement first arrived on that floor, so if that shooter *was* Oswald,
then Oswald would have been just as "smart," with no difference
whatsoever, as your multiple "shooters." Also this can be *independent*
of anything the WC claimed about Oswald, for obvious reasons.
Since there were other men seen on the 6th floor with a gun based on
witnesses, the question of Oswald being there seems moot.
And BTW, law enforcement ran into Oswald inside the door to the 2nd
floor lunchroom after the shooting. They continued on up to the top floor
after that.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Hmmm, I see that, at least in the article I'm directly replying to here,
And no one addressed it this time either, at least as far as I have yet
seen. ;-)
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Yes, I watched his "confession" years ago, and he gave himself away as a
con artist when he claimed to have seen things in real time as he was
shooting which cannot be seen in real time and can only be seen by looking
at the Zapruder film frame by frame. He was very obviously *coached* in
his claims.
Seeing things in the Z-film might be a mistake, since it was altered.
So you keep saying. I've seen quite a bit of your so-called "evidence"
over a period of several years that the film was "altered" and practically
of your "evidence" is extraordinarily meager.
Welp, that's your opinion. Did you also view the independent analyses?
And the witnesses who were CIA Film analysts? And did you spend the time
to read the 2 00 pages written by Douglas Horne about how the film was
altered, and what equipment was available in 1963 to do the work, and that
the film was taken to the CIA lab in Rochester, NY which was given away by
a CIA messenger? Probably not. You had your opinion after all.
We have the #1 expert Roland Zavada.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed.
I will challenge you on this. I have ***LIVED*** in Texas, continuously
(meaning I have never in my life lived outside of Texas, not even as
briefly as one month) since 1958. So you were stationed in Texas in one
single November in one single year? Or was it more than one year?
Wrong!
"Wrong" about what, exactly? I made no specific statement; instead of
that I *asked* you if you were stationed in Texas for only one month or
for more than one year.
Post by mainframetech
I was stationed in Texas for 4 years straight.
I never said otherwise; I merely asked you how long you were in Texas,
period.
Now you know.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
According to
Google Earth, Stephenville is only 90.41 miles west-southwest of downtown
Dallas, and Stephenville is furthermore only about five-tenths of a degree
of latitude south of downtown Dallas. I do not recall 11-22-63 as being
especially "cold," and I otherwise remember the day quite well: after I
came home from kindergarten I remember my dad and I watching the tiny
black and white tv in his bedroom. He was standing and I was sitting on
the edge of his bed. I asked him what happened and he said, "The
President has been killed," and he just stood there and became very silent
after that. I have no recollection, however, of wearing anything even
remotely similar to "winter clothing." And of course I will never believe
you if you falsely claim that the weather in Stephenville was dramatically
different from the weather in Dallas on that day.
Can't say. And I'm not particularly bothered if you don't believe me
about something.
I never actually said, specifically, that I don't believe you about the
weather. The point I and other posters have made to you, however, is that
many people do not consider 68 degrees F, especially when it is also
sunny, to be especially chilly. You yourself might consider that to be
chilly enough to wear a jacket or whatever, but that does not
automatically mean that your opinion is consistent with the majority.
It doesn't matter what any majority does. That time of year, the
military calls it winter garb, and everyone changes uniforms.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?>
Chris
Clavinger, who I also killfiled at one point (proving beyond all
reasonable doubt that I do not only killfile CTs) has given you the
irrefutable source of this. 68 degrees, Fahrenheit, is not considered
"cold" here in Texas in November, especially when it is sunny. I *defy*
you to produce verbatim quotes from real Texans such as me specifically
saying that 68 F is "cold" in sunny weather. Hell, I've gone outside in
*exactly* that weather here *shirtless*, and it felt entirely comfortable
to me.
I have accepted Claviger's temperature. That's over as far as I'm
concerned. He was off slightly, but not enough to matter.
But you are still not addressing, in any realistic detailed sense, the
obvious problems with Gordon Arnold's credibility, which go far beyond
just his claim of what he was wearing that day.
I have addressed it to death, but you decided not to be involved back
then. I may miss repeating something I had dealt with back then, but time
will tell.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, and you are *blatantly* *ignoring* what Jackie herself said. Since
you ***BLATANTLY*** ***REFUSE*** to quote it, I will quote it without even
"Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I remember whenever it was, Mrs. Connally said, "We
will soon be there." We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was
really slow then. And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
And what was she ***OBVIOUSLY*** referring to as the "tunnel"? Oh that's
right: where Elm goes under the Triple Underpass. There isn't anything
else that she was even *maybe* referring to in that statement, since aside
from the Triple Underpass, there is nothing even remotely resembling a
"tunnel" on Elm. I've driven down Elm, all the way, many times in my
life.
How many times have *you* driven down it, Chris?
Less than half as often as I have, correct?
You really need to update your people skills.
Well, that's certainly the pot calling the kettle black.
And you totally evaded what I said above, so let's try this again a second
Jackie very clearly said that no matter what the temperature actually was,
she felt too hot when the limo was in the sun. That is quite obviously
why she said she was looking forward to the limo going under the Triple
Underpass: "And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
Post by mainframetech
I can help you in that
area, but I doubt you ever accept any help for these things.
Nonsense. You don't know nearly enough about me to have any clear idea as
to whether or not that is even remotely true. So once again, just as you
have done before, you all too quickly jump to a conclusion without having
nearly enough evidence to support that conclusion.
Of course, some people would say, I do accept help, or I don't accept
help, but instead you avoid giving any information.
It's bee na waste of time arguing over the temp when I had already
settled that with Claviger. Next time let's talk about something
substantive.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 14:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
*El Snippo*
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Oh you mean (whichever of you posted that sentence) exactly the same way,
with no difference whatsoever, that Oswald allegedly left that window on
the sixth floor immediately after firing the final shot? According to
your exact argument only, not mine, just yours only, Oswald was equally
"smart" as any additional shooters.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Just as "smart," with no difference whatsoever, as Oswald as the sole
shooter as described in the WCR.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Hmmm, I see that, at least in the article I'm directly replying to here,
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
No shots
fired from that area.
Yep, no one, CT, LN or uncommitted.
"Fascinating."
:P~
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Yes, I watched his "confession" years ago, and he gave himself away as a
con artist when he claimed to have seen things in real time as he was
shooting which cannot be seen in real time and can only be seen by looking
at the Zapruder film frame by frame. He was very obviously *coached* in
his claims.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
I hear you. When I was in the service, by November I was wearing my
winter uniform. And that was in Texas where I was stationed.
I will challenge you on this. I have ***LIVED*** in Texas, continuously
(meaning I have never in my life lived outside of Texas, not even as
briefly as one month) since 1958. So you were stationed in Texas in one
single November in one single year? Or was it more than one year? I very
much doubt, however, that you have, in your entire life, been in Texas in
November nearly as often as I have. I have by now experienced
*fifty-eight* Novembers in Texas, and I have long ago lost count of how
many hundreds of *warm* November days we've had here, in *every* year, in
*every* decade.
Post by mainframetech
So whether
Arnold was wearing his overcoat or not, it was winter garb he had on. I
remember November in 1963 as being cold and windy in Texas.
Er, you "remember" November in 1963 as being cold and windy?? You were
stationed here in exactly that November in exactly that year? You must be
far older than I thought then. I was five on the day of the
assassination, and at that time I lived in Stephenville, Tx. According to
Google Earth, Stephenville is only 90.41 miles west-southwest of downtown
Dallas, and Stephenville is furthermore only about five-tenths of a degree
of latitude south of downtown Dallas. I do not recall 11-22-63 as being
especially "cold," and I otherwise remember the day quite well: after I
came home from kindergarten I remember my dad and I watching the tiny
black and white tv in his bedroom. He was standing and I was sitting on
the edge of his bed. I asked him what happened and he said, "The
President has been killed," and he just stood there and became very silent
after that. I have no recollection, however, of wearing anything even
remotely similar to "winter clothing." And of course I will never believe
you if you falsely claim that the weather in Stephenville was dramatically
different from the weather in Dallas on that day.
Oh, and in case you, or someone, or anyone, challenges me in the slightest
on any of this, I imagine that it will be childishly easy to prove that my
father was an English professor at Tarleton in Stephenville in 1963-1964.
His name was Merton King, and my name is John Reagor King. Proof that I
really am who I say I am, and that my father was really who I say he was
is all over the internet by now, including a certain man in San Antonio,
Tx, who has falsely claimed that I am a child molester, not because he
genuinely believes it's true, but because he has a long history, going
back more than a decade, of just "saying" anyone is a child molester
whenever he doesn't like what they've said about him on the internet, even
when what they've said about him is provably true.
And by practically all accounts,
Post by mainframetech
But if you
have proof that it was 68 degrees, show me how you were able to determine
that. Newspaper?>
Chris
Clavinger, who I also killfiled at one point (proving beyond all
WHO? Or did you mean to tell us WHOM you killfiled?
How can you tell if he keep changing his alias?
Post by Caeruleo
reasonable doubt that I do not only killfile CTs) has given you the
irrefutable source of this. 68 degrees, Fahrenheit, is not considered
"cold" here in Texas in November, especially when it is sunny. I *defy*
you to produce verbatim quotes from real Texans such as me specifically
saying that 68 F is "cold" in sunny weather. Hell, I've gone outside in
*exactly* that weather here *shirtless*, and it felt entirely comfortable
to me.
Oh, and you are *blatantly* *ignoring* what Jackie herself said. Since
you ***BLATANTLY*** ***REFUSE*** to quote it, I will quote it without even
"Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I remember whenever it was, Mrs. Connally said, "We
will soon be there." We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was
really slow then. And I remember thinking it would be so cool under that
tunnel."
And what was she ***OBVIOUSLY*** referring to as the "tunnel"? Oh that's
right: where Elm goes under the Triple Underpass. There isn't anything
else that she was even *maybe* referring to in that statement, since aside
from the Triple Underpass, there is nothing even remotely resembling a
"tunnel" on Elm. I've driven down Elm, all the way, many times in my
life.
How many times have *you* driven down it, Chris?
Less than half as often as I have, correct?
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-20 15:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Marina at that time was mouthing whatever the authorities wanted her to
say. Here's one of her statements about them using her fear she would be
"Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did the police and FBI and the
Secret Service ask you many questions. Mrs. Oswald (Marina). In the
police station there was a routine regular questioning, as always happens.
And then after I was with the agents of the Secret Service and the FBI,
they asked me many questions, of course--many questions. Sometimes the
FBI agents asked me questions which had no bearing or relationship, and if
I didn't want to answer they told me that if I wanted to live in this
country, I would have to help in this matter, even though they were often
irrelevant. That is the FBI."
WC hearings Vol 1, page 79 Also pg. 410
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
If it is important that someone heard shots from the TSBD, they also
heard shots from the Grassy Knoll. There was evidence that someone was
shooting from that location. Sam Holland saw smoke coming from that area
behind the fence, along with others, and he went there and saw the
footprints of someone who was standing there for a while smoking, and
resting his muddy feet on a bumper there.
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Walter Rischel spoke out after Lee Bowers was killed in a road accident
by hitting a concrete abutment. He said that Bowers had avoided giving
the details of the men behind the fence using rifles and firing at the
motorcade.
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area.
Proving how smart the shooters were by leaving immediately after firing.
Post by claviger
Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yep, smart shooters.
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn.
Prove there was one on the lawn. Cites and links please, or it didn't
happen.
Post by claviger
No shots
fired from that area.
The bullet hole in the forehead of JFK says otherwise. Now it's just
a matter of determining the location of the shooter.
Post by claviger
No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
With all the echoing there could not be any good witnesses as to
location based on sound only.
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
If you present that evidence, you must believe it. So there WAS
someone firing from the fence area on the GK.
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
There is no evidence whatsoever that it was "snipers" or shooters that
accosted Arnold.
Post by claviger
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions.
They did not converge from the back side where the exit was. That was
viewed only by Lee Bowers.
Post by claviger
None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane.
Why would there be a police car? Where did such a weird ideas come
from?
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
There was no police car.
Post by claviger
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly. Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Chris
Nice try, Chris. Sixty eight degrees is NOT chilly! I lived in Dallas and
a 68 degree day was not chilly and people were not wearing jackets or
wraps of any type. You make up any excuse you can with your (failed)
attempts at proving Gordon Arnold was where he said he was in Dallas.
His story is fabricated.
So you say JFK and Connally were not wearing suit jackets? Then how did
they get bullet holes in them?
I think what you meant to say is that no spectators or people in the
motorcade were wearing overcoats. OK, close enough for a WC defender.
But in fact you've never looked at enough photos of the motorcade to
prove that. But if you did spot a spectator who was wearing a covercoat
you could call that suspicious and name him as a conspirator.

Like Larry Florer or Jean Hill. Only an assassin would be wearing an
overcoat on such a beautiful warm day! Yeah, that's it!
You could hide a machine gun under that trench coat.
Caeruleo
2017-05-22 20:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly.
"Other stories"? Which "other stories"?
Post by mainframetech
Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Gordon Arnold's story is "plausible"?
Apparently you are using an extremely different definition of the word
"plausible" than the majority of English-language speakers and writers
worldwide. No film or photograph clearly shows a human anywhere near
where Arnold claims he was. And I mean *clearly*. If I'm "wrong," which
I already know for certain I'm not, why does no trace of him appear in
even one film or photograph taken from the south side of Elm?
Post by mainframetech
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
No, instead of that, any *reasonable* person, including many of your
fellow CTs, *dismiss* Gordon Arnold's claims that he was "there in Dealey
Plaza" at the time of the shooting. It is far more likely than not that
he *fabricated* his story no earlier than 15 years after the
assassination. If I'm "wrong," which I already know I'm not, quote
verbatim even one of his family members saying that they heard him telling
this story even one year earlier than 1978, along with the original source
of the quote, so that the rest of us can see whether or not the source is
what the majority of English-language speakers and writers would call a
"reliable" source. If it isn't what the *majority* calls "reliable," then
it is not called "reliable" in English.
mainframetech
2017-05-23 14:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly.
"Other stories"? Which "other stories"?
Post by mainframetech
Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Gordon Arnold's story is "plausible"?
Apparently you are using an extremely different definition of the word
"plausible" than the majority of English-language speakers and writers
worldwide. No film or photograph clearly shows a human anywhere near
where Arnold claims he was. And I mean *clearly*. If I'm "wrong," which
I already know for certain I'm not, why does no trace of him appear in
even one film or photograph taken from the south side of Elm?
Wouldn't know. But it might be that photos of that area weren't done
until the shooting started, and that caused Arnold to 'hit the dirt'.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
No, instead of that, any *reasonable* person, including many of your
fellow CTs, *dismiss* Gordon Arnold's claims that he was "there in Dealey
Plaza" at the time of the shooting.
You seem to have another wrong idea here. I'm not here to use
whatever is the most prominent theory, to go with the most voted for idea.
I'm here to make sense out of the evidence I see and say what it means to
me.
Post by Caeruleo
It is far more likely than not that
he *fabricated* his story no earlier than 15 years after the
assassination. If I'm "wrong," which I already know I'm not, quote
verbatim even one of his family members saying that they heard him telling
this story even one year earlier than 1978, along with the original source
of the quote, so that the rest of us can see whether or not the source is
what the majority of English-language speakers and writers would call a
"reliable" source. If it isn't what the *majority* calls "reliable," then
it is not called "reliable" in English.
I know a fellow that uses that same gimmick...find someone that will
say this or that. I don't have contact with Gordon Arnold's family, but
I'll listen to whatever you've gleaned from your travels.


Again, a pleasant attitude helps when trying to work out a difference
of opinion.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-24 00:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly.
"Other stories"? Which "other stories"?
Post by mainframetech
Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Gordon Arnold's story is "plausible"?
Apparently you are using an extremely different definition of the word
"plausible" than the majority of English-language speakers and writers
worldwide. No film or photograph clearly shows a human anywhere near
where Arnold claims he was. And I mean *clearly*. If I'm "wrong," which
I already know for certain I'm not, why does no trace of him appear in
even one film or photograph taken from the south side of Elm?
Wouldn't know. But it might be that photos of that area weren't done
until the shooting started, and that caused Arnold to 'hit the dirt'.
As usual, all you can do is guess because you've never studied the
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
No, instead of that, any *reasonable* person, including many of your
fellow CTs, *dismiss* Gordon Arnold's claims that he was "there in Dealey
Plaza" at the time of the shooting.
You seem to have another wrong idea here. I'm not here to use
whatever is the most prominent theory, to go with the most voted for idea.
I'm here to make sense out of the evidence I see and say what it means to
me.
Post by Caeruleo
It is far more likely than not that
he *fabricated* his story no earlier than 15 years after the
assassination. If I'm "wrong," which I already know I'm not, quote
verbatim even one of his family members saying that they heard him telling
this story even one year earlier than 1978, along with the original source
of the quote, so that the rest of us can see whether or not the source is
what the majority of English-language speakers and writers would call a
"reliable" source. If it isn't what the *majority* calls "reliable," then
it is not called "reliable" in English.
I know a fellow that uses that same gimmick...find someone that will
say this or that. I don't have contact with Gordon Arnold's family, but
I'll listen to whatever you've gleaned from your travels.
Again, a pleasant attitude helps when trying to work out a difference
of opinion.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 14:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Other stories say that Gordon Arnold was wearing a overcoat, it was
November and chilly.
"Other stories"? Which "other stories"?
Post by mainframetech
Please supply cites and links for the summer
uniform, otherwise it's a phony comment. Arnold's story is plausible.
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Gordon Arnold's story is "plausible"?
Well, I believe that he really did exist.
Post by Caeruleo
Apparently you are using an extremely different definition of the word
"plausible" than the majority of English-language speakers and writers
worldwide. No film or photograph clearly shows a human anywhere near
Silly, so what? No film or photo shows the black couple that Sitzman saw.
So according to your standards they did not exist. How many people
reported seeing Black Dog Man and he was only a few feet away from
Zapruder and Sitzman. I don't remember the name of your rhetorical device.
It might be a form of Solipsism. I'd call it denial.
Post by Caeruleo
where Arnold claims he was. And I mean *clearly*. If I'm "wrong," which
I already know for certain I'm not, why does no trace of him appear in
even one film or photograph taken from the south side of Elm?
Post by mainframetech
LNs can't face it that he gives evidence that there was a conspiracy.
No, instead of that, any *reasonable* person, including many of your
fellow CTs, *dismiss* Gordon Arnold's claims that he was "there in Dealey
Silly, I dismissed it the moment I saw him. It didn't take me 20 years
of research.
Post by Caeruleo
Plaza" at the time of the shooting. It is far more likely than not that
he *fabricated* his story no earlier than 15 years after the
assassination. If I'm "wrong," which I already know I'm not, quote
I don't know how we can put a date stamp on it. Maybe we need him
hearing other stories and reading certain books.
Post by Caeruleo
verbatim even one of his family members saying that they heard him telling
this story even one year earlier than 1978, along with the original source
Again, so what? You never prove anything. All you do it make personal
attacks.
Post by Caeruleo
of the quote, so that the rest of us can see whether or not the source is
what the majority of English-language speakers and writers would call a
"reliable" source. If it isn't what the *majority* calls "reliable," then
it is not called "reliable" in English.
I don't know anyone who calls him a reliable source.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-21 03:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
Why do you say things that you know are false. We can SEE that her body
was forward of his body.
Post by claviger
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
So you are admitting that it was the force of the shot which knocked him
back into the seat's back cushion. .John ain't gonna like this.
Your cover-up is falling apart and he can't rely on you.
Post by claviger
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
Silly, she didn't even see Black Dog Man a few feet in front of her. Not
the best witness.
Post by claviger
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
Only because some little old lady told him the shots came from the
bushes. He thought the shots came from above and was running to the
TSBD. Maybe he misheard her. Maybe she actually said,"The George Bushes
are shooting at the President."
Post by claviger
found in the area. Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn. No shots
fired from that area. No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions. None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane. DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
Wow, why don't you just keep repeating every story we've ever heard?
El Tiante
2017-05-22 04:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
First Thank you for your response. Film evidence shows me JFK went back
and to the left although he did go forward before frame 313 apparently as
a result from a head shot to the rear from the TSBD as several witnesses
described seeing a shooter or a rifle protruding from there.
Post by claviger
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Plus the photo evidence found at the Paines house showing backyard photos
of General Walkers house taken with the same camera used by MO of LHO
posing with a rifle, handgun and leftist periodicals.
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
There's also witness evidence of people around the GK area who heard shots
from that area. The two who you include as standing on the pedestal are
Zapruder and his secretary I believe. AZ said the shots came from behind
him and his secretary did not give any statement. Of the three men on the
steps only one Emmet Hudson gave a statement and it's unclear as to where
the shots came from. There's also the statements of White House staffers
Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers who gave testimony to the FBI that shots
came from the GK area but were discouraged from saying so according to Tip
O'Neill. Who knows how many witness statements were changed to conform
with Hoovers.
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Lee Bowers said he saw a lot of commotion in that area prior to the
shooting and this from Mark Lane interview:

"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have
described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned,
something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred
which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what
this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not
identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of
light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of
the ordinary had occurred there."
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area. Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yet there's the account of a DPD cop who was driving with his daughter on
Main St. I believe who saw a man get into a car, place an object in the
car and drive off. The cop followed him but lost him. I believe he gave a
statement to the DPD but nothing came of this. I may be a little fuzzy
about the details but this is the general gist of the account. I saw his
account on a You Tube video of the mock trial with Vincent Bugliosi.
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn. No shots
fired from that area. No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
This is just speculation as many witnesses standing in front of the TSBD
heard shots coming from the GK area. There were witnesses who smelled
gunpowder and saw puff of smoke coming from the GK area. BTW, when I say
GK area this includes the area just east of the triple underpass so it's
not confined to just where the pagoda and it's immediate area is. There
were also witnesses standing on the north side of Elm St, immediately
across the street from the GK and riding on cars ahead and just behind the
presidents limousine who heard shots from the GK area. Jean Hill, Jean
Newman, William Newman, A. J. Millican, Faye and John Chism, Charles Brehm
as quoted in the DTH the evening of the 22nd, Mary Woodward and her three
friends, SS agents Paul Landis and Forrest Sorrels.
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Could be him. If true then it's evidence there was a conspiracy. There goes the no gunman in the GK area theory.
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions. None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane. DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
I see that James Files is included in the implausible category. OK, can't
argue one way or the other. Arnold has corroborating evidence from Senator
Yardborough's observation he saw a man hit the dirt as Arnold describes.
There's also the acoustic evidence scientifically arrived at by an
acoustic expert and presented to the HSCA and corroborated by Skennazy
(sp?) and his expert assistant which confirms there was a second shooter
behind the picket fence to a 95% probability. That's witness evidence
backed up by expert scientific evidence. I know it's going to be brought
up that evidence has been debunked by Dale Myers, whom I respect a lot but
he's not an expert on the field so I'll go with the expert evidence.
Caeruleo
2017-05-22 21:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
First Thank you for your response. Film evidence shows me JFK went back
and to the left although he did go forward before frame 313 apparently as
a result from a head shot to the rear from the TSBD as several witnesses
described seeing a shooter or a rifle protruding from there.
There is an obvious forward motion between certain frames in the film,
which occurs quite a few frames before the "back and to the left" motion,
the latter of which is far too "large" and which takes up far too many
frames to be caused by the bullet alone. And yes, several witnesses
described a shooter in the TSBD, although they had some considerable
difficulty with which floor the shooter was on, and even worse difficulty
with his appearance and clothing.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Plus the photo evidence found at the Paines house showing backyard photos
of General Walkers house taken with the same camera used by MO of LHO
posing with a rifle, handgun and leftist periodicals.
i do not remember that it was ever proven that the camera which took the
backyard photos was the same camera that took photos of Walker's house,
but I suppose that is possible.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
There's also witness evidence of people around the GK area who heard shots
from that area.
That is an extremely misleading way of saying that. A far more accurate
way of saying it might be this:

"Nearly all of the witnesses who thought any shot sounded as if it came
from the GK thought that *all* of the shots came from the GK."
Post by El Tiante
The two who you include as standing on the pedestal are
Zapruder and his secretary I believe.
Marylin Sitzman was her name. Do look at what she said about the sounds
of gunfire in her interview with Josiah Thompson, of all people, who was
an avowed conspiracy theorist. Even to him, she absolutely ***REFUSED***
to admit hearing more than two shots, and much more to the point: she said
that neither shot sounded any louder or closer to her than the other.
Even more significantly, she was standing *much* *higher* than the top of
the picket fence. There is no possible way a grassy knoll shooter would
not be helplessly visible to her, unless that shooter was in a location
very different from the locations proposed by the vast majority of
conspiracy theorists, She was quite adamant that the only loud sound she
heard from anywhere even remotely close to her was the dropping of a soda
bottle, and that the sound was not even remotely similar to gunfire, not
was it even remotely similar to the two *real* sounds of gunfire that she
remembered hearing, both of which she described as sounding as if they
were equally-distant from her.
Post by El Tiante
AZ said the shots came from behind
him
PLEASE QUOTE ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER AS SAYING THAT EXACT THING, VERBATIM, IN HIS
OWN WORDS, ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL ***SOURCE*** OF THAT CLAIM. Here is
Zapruder's ***ONLY*** filmed interview given on the day of the
assassination, complete and unabridged:



I do not hear him speaking the exact English word "behind" at any point.
If I'm "wrong" (which I already know I'm not, given that I've watched and
listened to this interview dozens of times) please name the exact number
of minutes and seconds into the video in which he *specifically* says that
he thought even one of the shots came from "behind" him, or please admit,
in the very next article you post (as I have done many times since 2002 in
this newsgroup, including when I *wasn't* asked to do so, but instead when
I caught one of my errors *before* Barb or Paul or .John or anyone else
pointed them out to me) that you don't actually know for sure whether or
not he actually said that.

Thanks.

Oh, but it gets worse (or better, depending on one's point of view): to
the WC he did indeed say, sort of, that he thought the shots (as in ALL of
them) came from behind him, but let's all join virtual hands and look at
the context of that:

**********

Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked
down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the
head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment,
where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I
saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed
that they came from there, because as the police started running back of
me, it looked like it came from the back of me.
Mr. LIEBELER - But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what
direction the shots did come from actually?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No.
Mr. LIEBELER - And you indicated that they could have come also from
behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left, because
they could have been from behind or even from the front.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, it could have been--in other words if you have a
point--you could hit a point from any place, as far as that's concerned. I
have no way of determining what direction the bullet was going.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the
shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo
which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it
had a sound all over.
Mr. LIEBELER - And with the buildings around there, too?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would
vibrate--it didn't vibrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire--in
other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I
couldn't think it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was
the second shot. I don't know whether they proved anything--they claim he
was hit--that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or
something like that--I don't know how that is.

**********

Plain as day, the ***BLINDINGLY*** ***OBVIOUS*** reasons that Zapruder
***MISTAKENLY*** thought the shots came from behind him were these two
reasons, no others:

1. The right side of JFK's head, the side of his head facing Zapruder and
his camera exploded open. This of course betrays Zapruder's ***EXTREME***
***IGNORANCE*** of gunshot facts, that, with rare exceptions, the
***EXIT*** damage is typically much larger, and much more visible than the
***ENTRANCE***, and:

2. He saw police officers running up the grassy knoll; they, like dozens
of other witnesses, thought that the sounds of ***ALL*** of the shots
sounded as if they came from the GK.

Ah, but look at what ***ELSE*** he said:

"I have no way of determining what direction the bullet was going."

And:

*********

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the
shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo
which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it
had a sound all over.

**********
Post by El Tiante
and his secretary did not give any statement.
Huh??? Explain what this is then, his ***SECRETARY***, Marilyn Sitzman,
giving THIS interview to Josiah Thompson:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sitzman.txt

I have been reading this newsgroup since 2000 and posting to it since
2002, and I cannot recall even one conspiracy theorist claiming that
Marilyn Sitzman wasn't Zapruder's "secretary" or some position at least
remotely similar.

I do realize you said that you were new to this; however, I am guessing
that you "studied" this aspect of the assassination for less than 10
minutes of your entire life before you typed, "and his secretary did not
give any statement." In the future, please be absolutely certain that any
statement of yours given as fact is indeed a fact; don't make the same
mistake I made when I started posting here in October, 2002. You should
have said something like this:

"As far as I have yet found out (in no more than 10 minutes of my entire
life searching for it), his secretary did not give any statement, but I
freely admit that I may be mistaken about this, since I studied Zapruder's
co-workers for less than 10 minutes of my entire life."

See how easy that is? If you're not 100% certain it's a fact, don't state
it as fact, state it instead as a guess. ***ALWAYS*** say "as far as I
know" or "if I recall correctly," which the moderators of this newsgroup
can independently confirm is these days almost always the way I myself do
it, with extremely rare exceptions.
Post by El Tiante
Of the three men on the
steps only one Emmet Hudson gave a statement and it's unclear as to where
the shots came from.
Oh dear. You know the name, Emmet Hudson, yet you claim that "it's
unclear as to where the shots came from"?

I have another suggestion for you"

***BEFORE*** you ever again, ever, post another article to this newsgroup,
I would suggest that you read an absolute minimum of TEN complete,
unabridged, WC testimonies, all the way from the first word of the first
sentence, to the last word of the last sentence, without skipping even one
word in between. To the WC the very man you're talking about said this:

**********

Mr. LIEBELER - While you were standing there, did you ever look toward the
railroad tracks there where they went across the triple underpass?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; while I was laying there I didn't - I was looking down
towards Elm Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - So, you never looked up towards the railroad tracks that went
across the underpass?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - But you are quite sure in your own mind that the shots came
from the rear of the President's car and above it; is that correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any idea that they might have come from the
Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. HUDSON - Well, it sounded like it was high, you know, from above and
kind of behind like - in other words, to the left.
Mr. LIEBELER - And that would have fit in with the Texas School Book
Depository, wouldn't it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.

**********

If you look at the *multiple* films of where he was standing, the TSBD was very obviously to his left. In addition, look especially at the Muchmore and Nix films. Plain as day he is standing beside two men, one of whom (as far as I know never identified) was wearing a very bright red sweater. Watch all three men closely. Not one of them, not one, ever whirls around and looks behind him, as if he suddenly heard a loud *bang* from directly behind him, as the vast majority of humans would *involuntarily* do in such a circumstance. And look especially at the man in the bright red sweater. When the limo passes in front of him, he is clearly seen to throw up his hands in horror and then start to run *up* the steps, but even then, the *entire* time he is in view, even as he is starting to run up the steps, he is still very *obviously* looking back behind him at the limo; at no point is he seen looking the *other* direction, toward this imaginary grassy knoll gunman who has "supposedly" fired a shot from almost the exact direction he turns toward.

Could it be (dare I suggest it?) that the reason we never see him, ever, looking *up* the hill is because he didn't hear any loud sound from that direction? Almost as if no shot was fired from there?

As Clark Wilkins, one of the few CTs whose arguments I took seriously, would say:

"Just a thought."

Oh, and Clark Wilkins said many times that he believed that Oswald was the ONLY HUMAN who fired shots at the motorcade that day, even though he also said that at least one other person conspired with Oswald to commit the assassination. He additionally said that he would eventually reveal who that other person was, but he suddenly vanished from this newsgroup, permanently, before he did so, unless he has posted here since then under a completely different name and email address.
Post by El Tiante
There's also the statements of White House staffers
Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers who gave testimony to the FBI that shots
came from the GK area
Um, UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN (see, everyone, how I admit that yet again even when I'm not challenged?) didn't they say that they thought ALL the shots sounded as if they came from the GK area? If so, do you realize the obvious significance of that? And O'Donnell did NOT say that to the WC; I'm reading it in the midst of typing these words.
Post by El Tiante
but were discouraged from saying so according to Tip
O'Neill.
Oh, Tip O'Neill would even have any possible way of knowing such a thing? How do you know that this wasn't an unconfirmed rumor that O'Neill was passing around? And they were "discouraged," by whom, exactly? According to you, it couldn't have even MAYBE been the FBI, since, again, according to you, both O'Donnell and Powers told the FBI that they thought the sounds of the shots came from the GK area. If the FBI "discouraged" them from saying that, strange then that the FBI *reported* them saying that.

If that's what happened.
Post by El Tiante
Who knows how many witness statements were changed to conform
with Hoovers.
Indeed. As Donald Willis, an avowed CT who has been posting here on a regular basis since at least 1997 will unhesitatingly confirm (if he is even remotely honest, that is) he himself has seen me post many replies to him in which I have soundly criticized the FBI reports of that time for almost *never* quoting the witness's exact words verbatim, but instead, almost always, merely paraphrasing what the witness supposedly said.

Oh, and as a superb example of this, let us *do* examine, yet again, the FBI's *extreme* duplicity, in the form of Agent Richard Burnett, in which Mr. Burnett wrote down a "statement by" Marrion Baker ***BEFORE*** Baker saw it, which includes the proven myth that Baker "wrote" the words "drinking a coke" and then crossed those words out. Nonsense. Burnett wrote those words without Baker's prior knowledge or consent, then after the fact presented "Baker's statement" to Baker, at which time, as soon as he saw those words, immediately crossed them out and initialed them, since he had never once, not even once, spoken or written in his *own* words that Oswald was holding any type of object, no matter what the object was, in either of his hands, when he saw Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom. Then, let us all (especially you CTs) join virtual hands and look at the FBI statement "by" Roy Truly dated the same day, and look at how it is blindingly obvious (it is totally unnecessary to be anything even remotely similar to a "handwriting expert") that both the "Baker" and "Truly" statements were handwritten by the same person, and that person was quite obviously neither Baker nor Truly.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Lee Bowers said he saw a lot of commotion in that area prior to the
"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have
described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned,
something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred
which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what
this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not
identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of
light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of
the ordinary had occurred there."
That's awfully vague. It doesn't even come remotely close to positively identifying Bowers as a person who *saw* a *gunman* *firing* from anywhere near that location. "A flash of light *or* smoke *or* something"? Notice carefully that nowhere there did he say "and," he instead said "or." Never, ever, ever did he claim that all three things occurred. Instead he plainly said that only ONE of those three things occurred, one of them, ***OR*** another of them, ***OR*** another of them.

And duh, something out of the ordinary did indeed occur in that same direction: JFK was fatally wounded by a shot which caused the right front part of his head to explode open. The place where his head exploded open is not necessarily the place where the gunman fired from, unless you were to claim that the gunman was standing in front of the limo in plain view in the middle lane of Elm and fired from there, then dodged out of the way, since if he hadn't, the limo would have run over him.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area. Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yet there's the account of a DPD cop who was driving with his daughter on
Main St. I believe who saw a man get into a car, place an object in the
car and drive off. The cop followed him but lost him. I believe he gave a
statement to the DPD but nothing came of this. I may be a little fuzzy
about the details but this is the general gist of the account. I saw his
account on a You Tube video of the mock trial with Vincent Bugliosi.
Did you also catch the bit where his daughter said she remembered none of this?
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn. No shots
fired from that area. No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
This is just speculation as many witnesses standing in front of the TSBD
heard shots coming from the GK area.
And nearly all of those very witnesses said they thought ALL of the shots sounded as if they came from the GK area. Not all but one shot. Not one shot out of the others. ALL the shots.

99% of all conspiracy theorists worldwide say only one, or only some of the shots were fired from the GK. I'm not sure I've yet seen a single one of them say that "all" of the shots were fired from there. Do you not realize what this means? The CTs' OWN PREFERRED WITNESSES dispute almost all of the CTs worldwide. The same witnesses the CTs most often cite to "prove" a shot from the grassy knoll are also the same ones, with very few exceptions, who *additionally* said that they thought that only one gunman fired every shot from the GK. Of course the reason for this is blindingly obvious: the CTs are irrationally committed to multiple gunmen; this is the obvious reason why they almost never, ever, ever admit that nearly everyone who thought even one shot came from the GK *also* thought that *all* the shots came from the GK, and that not even one shot, not even one, came from anywhere else.

I'd love to see just someone, just anyone, try to explain how John Connally's wounds resulted from a shot from the GK. Thousands of people have falsely claimed he wasn't in the correct position to be hit by a bullet exiting from JFK's throat, but the problem becomes far worse, by several orders of magnitude, when trying to line up his wounds with any location, no matter what that location is, on the GK.

Talk about a "magic bullet." The bullet which wounded the Governor would be tremendously more implausible coming from the GK than coming from the TSBD. The number of turns it would have to make in midair would far exceed the number of turns that is falsely claimed in the movie "JFK."

In other words, Connally being hit by a bullet fired from the grassy knoll would involve a bullet that has tremendously greater "magic" to it.

Yet the vast majority of the CTs' preferred witnesses said that ***ALL*** of the shots sounded as if they came from the grassy knoll. The one and only way the CTs can dispute this is to *also* dispute the credibility of the majority of the Dealey Plaza witnesses they themselves have cited.

Oh dear, and it gets even worse: Connally himself said that the first and third shots plainly sounded as if they came from behind him and to his right, i.e. from the general direction of the TSBD. He additionally said that he didn't hear the second shot but felt it hit him in the back. Given his position at the time I am "writhing with curiosity" to have it explained how a shot fired from the GK could enter his back and exit his chest.

And oh double-dear: according to nearly all the witnesses, every single shot was fired either from the TSBD, or from the "railroad yards" (almost none of them said "grassy knoll") or the Triple Underpass. Not from all three locations. From only one of those three locations.

According to nearly every witness.

Sam "Skinny" Holland was one of the tiny, tiny handful of witnesses who said otherwise. And do look at his filmed interview where he says, plain as day, *why* he thought one shot came from the GK.

(Free clue: the *primary* reason he thought one shot came from the GK had nothing at all to do with the *sound* of that shot; it instead had to do with something he thought he saw, and no, he didn't say he saw a gunman firing from there.)
Post by El Tiante
There were witnesses who smelled
gunpowder and saw puff of smoke coming from the GK area.
Yep. Have you ever read how Oliver Stone, when filming "JFK," was helplessly unable to find any rifle ever made which emitted enough smoke to be seen on camera, and had to sink to the level of having bellows pumping smoke beside the rifles at the time of filming? Did you also notice that several of the witnesses you are obviously talking about very specifically said that they thought they saw motorcycle exhaust or steam, neither of which had any direct connection to any type of firearm ever invented?
Post by El Tiante
BTW, when I say
GK area this includes the area just east of the triple underpass so it's
not confined to just where the pagoda and it's immediate area is.
Whether or not others were clear on what you meant, I assure you that I certainly was, even before I began typing this present reply. ;-)
Post by El Tiante
There
were also witnesses standing on the north side of Elm St, immediately
across the street from the GK and riding on cars ahead and just behind the
presidents limousine who heard shots from the GK area.
Yes, they thought ALL the shots came from the GK area, correct?

Meaning one single gunman in one single location. ;-)
Post by El Tiante
Jean Hill,
Who said all the shots sounded as if they came from the same direction, even *before* she changed her story dramatically.
Post by El Tiante
Jean
Newman,
Who said all the shots sounded as if they came from the same direction, correct?
Post by El Tiante
William Newman,
Who said all the shots sounded as if they came from behind him, n'est pas?
Post by El Tiante
A. J. Millican,
Wow, you've certainly misrepresented him. He is one of the tiny, tiny, tiny minority of witnesses who thought the shots sounded as if they came from multiple directions. In his own words, quoted verbatim:

"Just after the President's car passed, I heard three shots come from up toward Houston and Elm right by the Book Depository Building, and then immediately I heard two more shots from the Arcade between the Book Store and the Underpass, and then three more shots came from the same direction only sounded further back."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/millican.htm

I am quite curious as to why you, ah, "conveniently omitted" that, just for starters, Millican claimed there were eight shots total, from three different locations. That is something even the majority of conspiracy theorists do not subscribe to. Eight shots? So he heard five shots that almost no one else heard? My, my, he must have had the hearing capacity of a dog, rather than a human.
Post by El Tiante
Faye and John Chism,
Both of whom thought *all* of the shots came from that single direction, and not one shot, not one, from any other direction.
Post by El Tiante
Charles Brehm
as quoted in the DTH the evening of the 22nd,
I'd suggest you read that quote more carefully. He was quoted there as saying that he thought all of the shots came from one direction "or" another, not one direction "and" another.
Post by El Tiante
Mary Woodward and her three
friends,
Who thought every single shot came from one direction, correct?
Post by El Tiante
SS agents Paul Landis
In the midst of typing this sentence, I am looking directly at him saying that he thought that all the gunfire, all of it, came from behind him and to his right, i.e. the general direction of the TSBD. Why you are placing him in the "GK area" group of witnesses I can't imagine. Shall I quote him verbatim saying so, or will you?
Post by El Tiante
and Forrest Sorrels.
You are interpreting him saying, "the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up on the terrace there" as being the "GK area"? That's a bit of a stretch. And did you notice what *else* he said to clarify that?
Post by El Tiante
I see that James Files is included in the implausible category. OK, can't
argue one way or the other. Arnold has corroborating evidence from Senator
Yardborough's observation he saw a man hit the dirt as Arnold describes.
Yarborough said the man was much closer to the street than Gordon Arnold claimed he was, and Yarborough was almost certainly talking about Bill Newman, the most well-known and visible man who "hit the dirt," for the obvious purpose of covering his child (his wife did the same thing and covered their other child).
Post by El Tiante
There's also the acoustic evidence scientifically arrived at by an
acoustic expert and presented to the HSCA and corroborated by Skennazy
(sp?) and his expert assistant which confirms there was a second shooter
behind the picket fence to a 95% probability. That's witness evidence
backed up by expert scientific evidence. I know it's going to be brought
up that evidence has been debunked by Dale Myers, whom I respect a lot but
he's not an expert on the field so I'll go with the expert evidence.
Oh boy, your research is really limited here, more than anything you've said above. That acoustic "evidence" has been debunked by a far larger number of people than Dale Myers, and the majority of people who have debunked it are real acoustics experts. You have also "conveniently omitted" that the HSCA didn't even bother to try to get a second opinion from any other *real* acoustics experts, but instead mindlessly accepted the first analysis they were given, without bothering to check the credibility of those who gave them that analysis. Almost within days of the HSCA releasing its final report, several *other* groups of very real acoustics experts examined the same audio recording, and soundly disputed the original findings.

Dale Myers didn't come along until about two decades later.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 14:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
First Thank you for your response. Film evidence shows me JFK went back
and to the left although he did go forward before frame 313 apparently as
a result from a head shot to the rear from the TSBD as several witnesses
described seeing a shooter or a rifle protruding from there.
There is an obvious forward motion between certain frames in the film,
which occurs quite a few frames before the "back and to the left" motion,
the latter of which is far too "large" and which takes up far too many
frames to be caused by the bullet alone. And yes, several witnesses
described a shooter in the TSBD, although they had some considerable
difficulty with which floor the shooter was on, and even worse difficulty
with his appearance and clothing.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Plus the photo evidence found at the Paines house showing backyard photos
of General Walkers house taken with the same camera used by MO of LHO
posing with a rifle, handgun and leftist periodicals.
i do not remember that it was ever proven that the camera which took the
backyard photos was the same camera that took photos of Walker's house,
but I suppose that is possible.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
There's also witness evidence of people around the GK area who heard shots
from that area.
That is an extremely misleading way of saying that. A far more accurate
"Nearly all of the witnesses who thought any shot sounded as if it came
from the GK thought that *all* of the shots came from the GK."
Post by El Tiante
The two who you include as standing on the pedestal are
Zapruder and his secretary I believe.
Marylin Sitzman was her name. Do look at what she said about the sounds
of gunfire in her interview with Josiah Thompson, of all people, who was
an avowed conspiracy theorist. Even to him, she absolutely ***REFUSED***
to admit hearing more than two shots, and much more to the point: she said
that neither shot sounded any louder or closer to her than the other.
Even more significantly, she was standing *much* *higher* than the top of
the picket fence. There is no possible way a grassy knoll shooter would
not be helplessly visible to her, unless that shooter was in a location
very different from the locations proposed by the vast majority of
conspiracy theorists, She was quite adamant that the only loud sound she
heard from anywhere even remotely close to her was the dropping of a soda
bottle, and that the sound was not even remotely similar to gunfire, not
was it even remotely similar to the two *real* sounds of gunfire that she
remembered hearing, both of which she described as sounding as if they
were equally-distant from her.
Post by El Tiante
AZ said the shots came from behind
him
PLEASE QUOTE ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER AS SAYING THAT EXACT THING, VERBATIM, IN HIS
OWN WORDS, ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL ***SOURCE*** OF THAT CLAIM. Here is
Zapruder's ***ONLY*** filmed interview given on the day of the
OMG, are you really that uninformed? You must be a WC defender. It's in
his statement to the Secret Service. Maybe you never read the WC. Maybe
you aren't a real researcher so you don't have Six Seconds in Dallas. 87
is on page 311:

https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/Zapruder.htm

The only place you can find internal WC documents like this is on a
conspiracy web site. DVP would never let the truth come out.
Post by Caeruleo
http://youtu.be/JLqOGEBcjnI
I do not hear him speaking the exact English word "behind" at any point.
If I'm "wrong" (which I already know I'm not, given that I've watched and
listened to this interview dozens of times) please name the exact number
of minutes and seconds into the video in which he *specifically* says that
he thought even one of the shots came from "behind" him, or please admit,
in the very next article you post (as I have done many times since 2002 in
this newsgroup, including when I *wasn't* asked to do so, but instead when
I caught one of my errors *before* Barb or Paul or .John or anyone else
pointed them out to me) that you don't actually know for sure whether or
not he actually said that.
Thanks.
Oh, but it gets worse (or better, depending on one's point of view): to
the WC he did indeed say, sort of, that he thought the shots (as in ALL of
them) came from behind him, but let's all join virtual hands and look at
**********
Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked
down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the
head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment,
where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I
saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed
that they came from there, because as the police started running back of
me, it looked like it came from the back of me.
Mr. LIEBELER - But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what
direction the shots did come from actually?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No.
Mr. LIEBELER - And you indicated that they could have come also from
behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left, because
they could have been from behind or even from the front.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, it could have been--in other words if you have a
point--you could hit a point from any place, as far as that's concerned. I
have no way of determining what direction the bullet was going.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the
shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo
which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it
had a sound all over.
Mr. LIEBELER - And with the buildings around there, too?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would
vibrate--it didn't vibrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire--in
other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I
couldn't think it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was
the second shot. I don't know whether they proved anything--they claim he
was hit--that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or
something like that--I don't know how that is.
**********
Plain as day, the ***BLINDINGLY*** ***OBVIOUS*** reasons that Zapruder
***MISTAKENLY*** thought the shots came from behind him were these two
1. The right side of JFK's head, the side of his head facing Zapruder and
his camera exploded open. This of course betrays Zapruder's ***EXTREME***
***IGNORANCE*** of gunshot facts, that, with rare exceptions, the
***EXIT*** damage is typically much larger, and much more visible than the
2. He saw police officers running up the grassy knoll; they, like dozens
of other witnesses, thought that the sounds of ***ALL*** of the shots
sounded as if they came from the GK.
"I have no way of determining what direction the bullet was going."
*********
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the
shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo
which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it
had a sound all over.
**********
Post by El Tiante
and his secretary did not give any statement.
Huh??? Explain what this is then, his ***SECRETARY***, Marilyn Sitzman,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sitzman.txt
I have been reading this newsgroup since 2000 and posting to it since
2002, and I cannot recall even one conspiracy theorist claiming that
Marilyn Sitzman wasn't Zapruder's "secretary" or some position at least
remotely similar.
I do realize you said that you were new to this; however, I am guessing
that you "studied" this aspect of the assassination for less than 10
minutes of your entire life before you typed, "and his secretary did not
give any statement." In the future, please be absolutely certain that any
statement of yours given as fact is indeed a fact; don't make the same
mistake I made when I started posting here in October, 2002. You should
"As far as I have yet found out (in no more than 10 minutes of my entire
life searching for it), his secretary did not give any statement, but I
freely admit that I may be mistaken about this, since I studied Zapruder's
co-workers for less than 10 minutes of my entire life."
See how easy that is? If you're not 100% certain it's a fact, don't state
it as fact, state it instead as a guess. ***ALWAYS*** say "as far as I
know" or "if I recall correctly," which the moderators of this newsgroup
can independently confirm is these days almost always the way I myself do
it, with extremely rare exceptions.
Post by El Tiante
Of the three men on the
steps only one Emmet Hudson gave a statement and it's unclear as to where
the shots came from.
Oh dear. You know the name, Emmet Hudson, yet you claim that "it's
unclear as to where the shots came from"?
I have another suggestion for you"
***BEFORE*** you ever again, ever, post another article to this newsgroup,
I would suggest that you read an absolute minimum of TEN complete,
unabridged, WC testimonies, all the way from the first word of the first
sentence, to the last word of the last sentence, without skipping even one
**********
Mr. LIEBELER - While you were standing there, did you ever look toward the
railroad tracks there where they went across the triple underpass?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; while I was laying there I didn't - I was looking down
towards Elm Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - So, you never looked up towards the railroad tracks that went
across the underpass?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - But you are quite sure in your own mind that the shots came
from the rear of the President's car and above it; is that correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any idea that they might have come from the
Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. HUDSON - Well, it sounded like it was high, you know, from above and
kind of behind like - in other words, to the left.
Mr. LIEBELER - And that would have fit in with the Texas School Book
Depository, wouldn't it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
**********
If you look at the *multiple* films of where he was standing, the
TSBD was very obviously to his left. In addition, look especially at
the Muchmore and Nix films. Plain as day he is standing beside two
men, one of whom (as far as I know never identified) was wearing a very
bright red sweater. Watch all three men closely. Not one of them, not
one, ever whirls
If you look at the Moorman photo maybe you can see Zapruder. Can you see
the TSBD behin him?

No.

around and looks behind him, as if he suddenly heard a loud *bang* from
directly behind him, as the vast majority of humans would *involuntarily*
do in such a circumstance. And look especially at the man in the bright
red sweater. When the limo passes in front of him, he is clearly seen to
throw up his hands in horror and then start to run *up* the steps, but
even then, the *entire* time he is in view, even as he is starting to run
up the steps, he is still very *obviously* looking back behind him at the
limo; at no point is he seen looking the *other* direction, toward this
imaginary grassy knoll gunman who has "supposedly" fired a shot from
almost the exact direction he turns toward.

Yeah, so what? Maybe he thought he was in the line of fire.
Post by Caeruleo
Could it be (dare I suggest it?) that the reason we never see him, ever, looking *up* the hill is because he didn't hear any loud sound from that direction? Almost as if no shot was fired from there?
Oh, you mean the guy who runs up the hill. How come he doesn't run to
the TSBD? The only guy who ran to the TSBD was Baker. 1 out of 1,000?
Post by Caeruleo
"Just a thought."
Oh, and Clark Wilkins said many times that he believed that Oswald was the ONLY HUMAN who fired shots at the motorcade that day, even though he also said that at least one other person conspired with Oswald to commit the assassination. He additionally said that he would eventually reveal who that other person was, but he suddenly vanished from this newsgroup, permanently, before he did so, unless he has posted here since then under a completely different name and email address.
AH, ya think, Mr. Wizard?
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
There's also the statements of White House staffers
Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers who gave testimony to the FBI that shots
came from the GK area
Um, UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN (see, everyone, how I admit that yet again even when I'm not challenged?) didn't they say that
Yes, you are mentally challenged.

they thought ALL the shots sounded as if they came from the GK area?
If so, do you realize the obvious significance of that? And O'Donnell
did NOT say that to the WC; I'm reading it in the midst of typing these
words.


He didn't say ALL. And the FBI told him not to tell anyone.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
but were discouraged from saying so according to Tip
O'Neill.
Oh, Tip O'Neill would even have any possible way of knowing such a thing? How do you know that this wasn't an unconfirmed rumor that O'Neill was passing around? And they were "discouraged," by whom, exactly? According to you, it couldn't have even MAYBE been the FBI, since, again, according to you, both O'Donnell and Powers told the FBI that they thought the sounds of the shots came from the GK area. If the FBI "discouraged" them from saying that, strange then that the FBI *reported* them saying that.
Tip O'Neill approved the HSCA investigation based largely on hearing about
the grassy knoll shot from someone who was actually there. Unlike the WC
defenders here, he was savvy enough to figure out that ANY shot from the
grassy knoll PROVES conspiracy. Then you go out and look for the
conspirators.
Post by Caeruleo
If that's what happened.
Post by El Tiante
Who knows how many witness statements were changed to conform
with Hoovers.
Hoover? Hoover wasn't there.
Post by Caeruleo
Indeed. As Donald Willis, an avowed CT who has been posting here on a regular basis since at least 1997 will unhesitatingly confirm (if he is even remotely honest, that is) he himself has seen me post many replies to him in which I have soundly criticized the FBI reports of that time for almost *never* quoting the witness's exact words verbatim, but instead, almost always, merely paraphrasing what the witness supposedly said.
OK, but I never saw you claim that the Secret Sevice made up phony
statements.
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, and as a superb example of this, let us *do* examine, yet again, the FBI's *extreme* duplicity, in the form of Agent Richard Burnett, in which Mr. Burnett wrote down a "statement by" Marrion Baker ***BEFORE*** Baker saw it, which includes the proven myth that Baker "wrote" the words "drinking a coke" and then crossed those words out. Nonsense. Burnett wrote those words without Baker's prior knowledge or consent, then after the fact presented "Baker's statement" to Baker, at which
Nothing wrong with taking notes of what a witness said. It's called a 302.
time, as soon as he saw those words, immediately crossed them out and
initialed them, since he had never once, not even once, spoken or written
in his *own* words that Oswald was holding any type of object, no matter
what the object was, in

False. He was ordered to cross out those words because it might give
Oswald an alibi.

either of his hands, when he saw Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom.
Then, let us all (especially you CTs) join virtual hands and look at the
FBI statement "by" Roy Truly dated the same day, and look at how it is
blindingly obvious (it is totally unnecessary to be anything even
remotely similar to a "handwriting expert") that both the "Baker" and
"Truly" statements were handwritten by the same person, and that person
was quite obviously neither Baker nor Truly.


Yeah, sometimes an FBI agent will take several statements in a day. I
bet you could find the same "anomaly" with Mary Rattan's documents.
Amazing.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Lee Bowers said he saw a lot of commotion in that area prior to the
"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have
described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned,
something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred
which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what
this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not
identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of
light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of
the ordinary had occurred there."
That's awfully vague. It doesn't even come remotely close to positively identifying Bowers as a person who *saw* a *gunman* *firing* from anywhere near that location. "A flash of light *or* smoke *or* something"? Notice carefully that nowhere there did he say "and," he instead said "or." Never, ever, ever did he claim that all three things occurred. Instead he plainly said that only ONE of those three things occurred, one of them, ***OR*** another of them, ***OR*** another of them.
You're not trying hard enough, Mr. Cover-up. I've suggested that it
could be sunlight glinting off the chrome topping. You can see that in
some Zapruder frames. Maybe even the bullet hitting the chrome topping.
Maybe you should put more effort into changing your aliases.
Post by Caeruleo
And duh, something out of the ordinary did indeed occur in that same direction: JFK was fatally wounded by a shot which caused the right front part of his head to explode open. The place where his head exploded open is not necessarily the place where the gunman fired from, unless you were to claim that the gunman was standing in front of the limo in plain view in the middle lane of Elm and fired from there, then dodged out of the way, since if he hadn't, the limo would have run over him.
Well, some kooks claim that the gun was fired from inside the limo.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area. Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yet there's the account of a DPD cop who was driving with his daughter on
Main St. I believe who saw a man get into a car, place an object in the
car and drive off. The cop followed him but lost him. I believe he gave a
statement to the DPD but nothing came of this. I may be a little fuzzy
about the details but this is the general gist of the account. I saw his
account on a You Tube video of the mock trial with Vincent Bugliosi.
Did you also catch the bit where his daughter said she remembered none of this?
Huh?
How old was she?
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn. No shots
fired from that area. No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
This is just speculation as many witnesses standing in front of the TSBD
heard shots coming from the GK area.
And nearly all of those very witnesses said they thought ALL of the shots sounded as if they came from the GK area. Not all but one shot. Not one shot out of the others. ALL the shots.
No, silly. Stop making up crap. Read Six Seconds in Dallas.
Post by Caeruleo
99% of all conspiracy theorists worldwide say only one, or only some of the shots were fired from the GK. I'm not sure
Sure, so what?

I've yet seen a single one of them say that "all" of the shots were
fired from there. Do you not realize what this means?

OK, I've challenged all the kooks here and elsewhere in person. So I'll
add you to the list. Explain how JFK and Connally can be shot in the
back if the shooters are all in the front. Do you know the master kook
who said, 1 out of 600 people, that NO shots were fired from behind. So
one night I cornered him literally and asked him how a shooter in the
front could dent the chrome topping.

The CTs' OWN PREFERRED WITNESSES dispute almost all of the CTs
worldwide. The same witnesses the CTs most often cite to "prove" a shot
from the grassy knoll are also the same ones, with very few exceptions,
who *additionally* said that they

Ridiculous. Who the Hell do you think you are to go around telling us
what we think? Don't leave your straw man arguments out in the rain.
They are starting to rot.


thought that only one gunman fired every shot from the GK. Of course
the reason for this is blindingly obvious: the CTs are irrationally
committed to multiple gunmen; this is the obvious reason why they almost
never, ever, ever admit that nearly everyone who thought even one shot
came from the GK *also* thought that *all* the shots came from the GK,
and that not even one shot, not even one, came from anywhere else.
Post by Caeruleo
I'd love to see just someone, just anyone, try to explain how John Connally's wounds resulted from a shot from the GK.
You are constructing a phoby argument.
How do you explain JFK's throat wound as an entrace if all the shots
came from the TSBD? Well, the CIA said JFK turned around to look back.
Never underestimate the stupidity of a cover-up.

Loading Image...


Thousands of people have falsely claimed he wasn't in the correct
position to be hit by a bullet exiting from JFK's throat, but the
problem becomes far worse, by several orders of magnitude, when trying
to line up his wounds with any location, no matter what that location
is, on the GK.
Post by Caeruleo
Talk about a "magic bullet." The bullet which wounded the Governor would be tremendously more implausible coming from the GK than coming from the TSBD. The number of turns it would have to make in midair would far exceed the number of turns that is falsely claimed in the movie "JFK."
Talk about silly! No one on this planet claims your silly argument.
Maybe you should try a different planet.
Post by Caeruleo
In other words, Connally being hit by a bullet fired from the grassy knoll would involve a bullet that has tremendously greater "magic" to it.
No being on this planet said that. Try another.
Post by Caeruleo
Yet the vast majority of the CTs' preferred witnesses said that ***ALL*** of the shots sounded as if they came from the grassy knoll. The one and only way the CTs can dispute this is to *also* dispute the credibility of the majority of the Dealey Plaza witnesses they themselves have cited.
No.
Post by Caeruleo
Oh dear, and it gets even worse: Connally himself said that the first and third shots plainly sounded as if they came from behind him and to his right, i.e. from the general direction of the TSBD. He additionally said that he didn't hear the second shot but felt it hit him in the back. Given his position at the time I am "writhing with curiosity" to have it explained how a shot fired from the GK could enter his back and exit his chest.
And oh double-dear: according to nearly all the witnesses, every single shot was fired either from the TSBD, or from the "railroad yards" (almost none of them said "grassy knoll") or the Triple Underpass. Not from all three locations. From only one of those three locations.
Got news for ya. Science proves that 3 shot came from the sniper's nest.
And one and only 1 came from the grassy knoll.
Post by Caeruleo
According to nearly every witness.
Sam "Skinny" Holland was one of the tiny, tiny handful of witnesses who said otherwise. And do look at his filmed interview where he says, plain as day, *why* he thought one shot came from the GK.
(Free clue: the *primary* reason he thought one shot came from the GK had nothing at all to do with the *sound* of that shot; it instead had to do with something he thought he saw, and no, he didn't say he saw a gunman firing from there.)
Post by El Tiante
There were witnesses who smelled
gunpowder and saw puff of smoke coming from the GK area.
Yep. Have you ever read how Oliver Stone, when filming "JFK," was helplessly unable to find any rifle ever made which emitted enough smoke to be seen on camera, and had to sink to the level of having bellows pumping smoke beside the rifles at the time of filming? Did you also notice that several of the witnesses you are obviously talking about very specifically said that they thought they saw motorcycle exhaust or steam, neither of which had any direct connection to any type of firearm ever invented?
Childish. Lots of rifles emit smoke. Even a Carcano.

Loading Image...
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
BTW, when I say
GK area this includes the area just east of the triple underpass so it's
not confined to just where the pagoda and it's immediate area is.
Whether or not others were clear on what you meant, I assure you that I certainly was, even before I began typing this present reply. ;-)
Post by El Tiante
There
were also witnesses standing on the north side of Elm St, immediately
across the street from the GK and riding on cars ahead and just behind the
presidents limousine who heard shots from the GK area.
Yes, they thought ALL the shots came from the GK area, correct?
No, silly.
Post by Caeruleo
Meaning one single gunman in one single location. ;-)
No, silly.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
Jean Hill,
Who said all the shots sounded as if they came from the same direction, even *before* she changed her story dramatically.
Post by El Tiante
Jean
Newman,
Who said all the shots sounded as if they came from the same direction, correct?
Post by El Tiante
William Newman,
Who said all the shots sounded as if they came from behind him, n'est pas?
n'est???ce pas?
Merde!
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
A. J. Millican,
"Just after the President's car passed, I heard three shots come from up toward Houston and Elm right by the Book Depository Building, and then immediately I heard two more shots from the Arcade between the Book Store and the Underpass, and then three more shots came from the same direction only sounded further back."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/millican.htm
I am quite curious as to why you, ah, "conveniently omitted" that, just for starters, Millican claimed there were eight shots total, from three different locations. That is something even the majority of conspiracy theorists do not subscribe to. Eight shots? So he heard five shots that almost no one else heard? My, my, he must have had the hearing capacity of a dog, rather than a human.
Post by El Tiante
Faye and John Chism,
Both of whom thought *all* of the shots came from that single direction, and not one shot, not one, from any other direction.
Post by El Tiante
Charles Brehm
as quoted in the DTH the evening of the 22nd,
I'd suggest you read that quote more carefully. He was quoted there as saying that he thought all of the shots came from one direction "or" another, not one direction "and" another.
Post by El Tiante
Mary Woodward and her three
friends,
Who thought every single shot came from one direction, correct?
Post by El Tiante
SS agents Paul Landis
In the midst of typing this sentence, I am looking directly at him saying that he thought that all the gunfire, all of it, came from behind him and to his right, i.e. the general direction of the TSBD. Why you are placing him in the "GK area" group of witnesses I can't imagine. Shall I quote him verbatim saying so, or will you?
Post by El Tiante
and Forrest Sorrels.
You are interpreting him saying, "the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up on the terrace there" as being the "GK area"? That's a bit of a stretch. And did you notice what *else* he said to clarify that?
Post by El Tiante
I see that James Files is included in the implausible category. OK, can't
argue one way or the other. Arnold has corroborating evidence from Senator
Yardborough's observation he saw a man hit the dirt as Arnold describes.
Yarborough said the man was much closer to the street than Gordon Arnold claimed he was, and Yarborough was almost certainly talking about Bill Newman, the most well-known and visible man who "hit the dirt," for the obvious purpose of covering his child (his wife did the same thing and covered their other child).
Post by El Tiante
There's also the acoustic evidence scientifically arrived at by an
acoustic expert and presented to the HSCA and corroborated by Skennazy
(sp?) and his expert assistant which confirms there was a second shooter
behind the picket fence to a 95% probability. That's witness evidence
backed up by expert scientific evidence. I know it's going to be brought
up that evidence has been debunked by Dale Myers, whom I respect a lot but
he's not an expert on the field so I'll go with the expert evidence.
Oh boy, your research is really limited here, more than anything you've said above. That acoustic "evidence" has been debunked by a far larger number of people than Dale Myers, and the majority of people who have debunked it are real
alse. None of the NAS panel were acoustics experts. The HSCA asked the
Acoustical Society of America to suggest the best experts and they are BBN.

acoustics experts. You have also "conveniently omitted" that the HSCA
didn't even bother to try to get a second opinion from any other *real*
acoustics experts, but instead mindlessly accepted the first analysis
they were given, without

You conventiently overlooks the fact that BBN got a second opinion from
Weiss and Ashkenazy.

bothering to check the credibility of those who gave them that analysis.
Almost within days of the HSCA releasing its final report, several
*other* groups of very real acoustics experts examined the same audio
recording, and soundly disputed the original findings.
Oh yeah, you mean like the morons at the FBI?
Post by Caeruleo
Dale Myers didn't come along until about two decades later.
El Tiante
2017-05-29 13:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
First Thank you for your response. Film evidence shows me JFK went back
and to the left although he did go forward before frame 313 apparently as
a result from a head shot to the rear from the TSBD as several witnesses
described seeing a shooter or a rifle protruding from there.
There is an obvious forward motion between certain frames in the film,
which occurs quite a few frames before the "back and to the left" motion,
the latter of which is far too "large" and which takes up far too many
frames to be caused by the bullet alone. And yes, several witnesses
described a shooter in the TSBD, although they had some considerable
difficulty with which floor the shooter was on, and even worse difficulty
with his appearance and clothing.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Plus the photo evidence found at the Paines house showing backyard photos
of General Walkers house taken with the same camera used by MO of LHO
posing with a rifle, handgun and leftist periodicals.
i do not remember that it was ever proven that the camera which took the
backyard photos was the same camera that took photos of Walker's house,
but I suppose that is possible.
Yes, I jumped to a conclusion before verifying for facts. Mea culpa.
Interesting though if it wasn't the IRC then from which camera where the
pictures taken?
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
There's also witness evidence of people around the GK area who heard shots
from that area.
That is an extremely misleading way of saying that. A far more accurate
"Nearly all of the witnesses who thought any shot sounded as if it came
from the GK thought that *all* of the shots came from the GK."
Post by El Tiante
The two who you include as standing on the pedestal are
Zapruder and his secretary I believe.
Marylin Sitzman was her name. Do look at what she said about the sounds
of gunfire in her interview with Josiah Thompson, of all people, who was
an avowed conspiracy theorist. Even to him, she absolutely ***REFUSED***
to admit hearing more than two shots, and much more to the point: she said
that neither shot sounded any louder or closer to her than the other.
Even more significantly, she was standing *much* *higher* than the top of
the picket fence. There is no possible way a grassy knoll shooter would
not be helplessly visible to her, unless that shooter was in a location
very different from the locations proposed by the vast majority of
conspiracy theorists, She was quite adamant that the only loud sound she
heard from anywhere even remotely close to her was the dropping of a soda
bottle, and that the sound was not even remotely similar to gunfire, not
was it even remotely similar to the two *real* sounds of gunfire that she
remembered hearing, both of which she described as sounding as if they
were equally-distant from her.
Yes, I just recently viewed a video of her giving an interview and she
said the only way a shot could have come from behind her was if the gunman
had used a silencer.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
AZ said the shots came from behind
him
PLEASE QUOTE ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER AS SAYING THAT EXACT THING, VERBATIM, IN HIS
OWN WORDS, ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL ***SOURCE*** OF THAT CLAIM. Here is
Zapruder's ***ONLY*** filmed interview given on the day of the
http://youtu.be/JLqOGEBcjnI
I do not hear him speaking the exact English word "behind" at any point.
If I'm "wrong" (which I already know I'm not, given that I've watched and
listened to this interview dozens of times) please name the exact number
of minutes and seconds into the video in which he *specifically* says that
he thought even one of the shots came from "behind" him, or please admit,
in the very next article you post (as I have done many times since 2002 in
this newsgroup, including when I *wasn't* asked to do so, but instead when
I caught one of my errors *before* Barb or Paul or .John or anyone else
pointed them out to me) that you don't actually know for sure whether or
not he actually said that.
Thanks.
I don't base my claim on the you tube interview but on the testimony given
to the WC
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, but it gets worse (or better, depending on one's point of view): to
the WC he did indeed say, sort of, that he thought the shots (as in ALL of
them) came from behind him, but let's all join virtual hands and look at
**********
Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked
down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the
head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment,
where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I
saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed
that they came from there, because as the police started running back of
me, it looked like it came from the back of me.
Mr. LIEBELER - But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what
direction the shots did come from actually?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No.
Mr. LIEBELER - And you indicated that they could have come also from
behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left, because
they could have been from behind or even from the front.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, it could have been--in other words if you have a
point--you could hit a point from any place, as far as that's concerned. I
have no way of determining what direction the bullet was going.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the
shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo
which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it
had a sound all over.
Mr. LIEBELER - And with the buildings around there, too?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would
vibrate--it didn't vibrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire--in
other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I
couldn't think it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was
the second shot. I don't know whether they proved anything--they claim he
was hit--that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or
something like that--I don't know how that is.
**********
Plain as day, the ***BLINDINGLY*** ***OBVIOUS*** reasons that Zapruder
***MISTAKENLY*** thought the shots came from behind him were these two
1. The right side of JFK's head, the side of his head facing Zapruder and
his camera exploded open. This of course betrays Zapruder's ***EXTREME***
***IGNORANCE*** of gunshot facts, that, with rare exceptions, the
***EXIT*** damage is typically much larger, and much more visible than the
2. He saw police officers running up the grassy knoll; they, like dozens
of other witnesses, thought that the sounds of ***ALL*** of the shots
sounded as if they came from the GK.
"I have no way of determining what direction the bullet was going."
*********
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the
shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo
which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it
had a sound all over.
**********
Admittedly Zapruder does give confusing statements which can be
interpreted as you have or as I do. Here's Zapruder's part of his
testimony which you left out. It's included so that more context can be
drawn from his statements:

Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning
over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know,
then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him," and I just
felt that somebody had ganged up on him and I was still shooting the
pictures until he got under the underpass--I don't even know how I did it.
And then, I didn't even remember how I got down from that abutment there,
but there I was, I guess, and I was walking toward--back toward my office
and screaming, "They killed him, they killed him," and the people that I
met on the way didn't even know what happened and they kept yelling, "What
happened, what happened, what happened?" It seemed that they had heard a
shot but they didn't know exactly what had happened as the car sped away,
and I kept on just yelling, "They killed him, they killed him, they killed
him," and finally got to my office and my secretary--I told her to call
the police or the Secret Service--I don't know what she was doing, and
that's about all. I was very much upset. Naturally, I couldn't imagine
such a thing being done. I just went to my desk and stopped there until
the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the
films. I knew I had something, I figured it might be of some help--I
didn't know what.
As to what happened--I remember the police were running behind me. There
were police running right behind me. Of course, they didn't realize yet, I
guess, where the shot came from--that it came from that height.
Mr. LIEBELER - As you were standing on this abutment facing Elm street, you
say the police ran over behind the concrete structure behind you and down
the railroad track behind that, is that right?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - After the shots?
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle
cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right
behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it
came from right behind me.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which
these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you
can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being
I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I
saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could
come from there.

"There were police running right behind me. Of course, they didn't realize
yet, I guess, where the shot came from--that it came from that
height."....."Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle
cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running
right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they
thought it came from right behind me."...."
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the
direction from which these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me....."

What Mr. Zapruder says can be explained as giving confusing testimony in
which he says the shots came from behind him but when pressed to make a
definite commitment to his account he backs off.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
and his secretary did not give any statement.
Huh??? Explain what this is then, his ***SECRETARY***, Marilyn Sitzman,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sitzman.txt
I have been reading this newsgroup since 2000 and posting to it since
2002, and I cannot recall even one conspiracy theorist claiming that
Marilyn Sitzman wasn't Zapruder's "secretary" or some position at least
remotely similar.
I do realize you said that you were new to this; however, I am guessing
that you "studied" this aspect of the assassination for less than 10
minutes of your entire life before you typed, "and his secretary did not
give any statement." In the future, please be absolutely certain that any
statement of yours given as fact is indeed a fact; don't make the same
mistake I made when I started posting here in October, 2002. You should
"As far as I have yet found out (in no more than 10 minutes of my entire
life searching for it), his secretary did not give any statement, but I
freely admit that I may be mistaken about this, since I studied Zapruder's
co-workers for less than 10 minutes of my entire life."
See how easy that is? If you're not 100% certain it's a fact, don't state
it as fact, state it instead as a guess. ***ALWAYS*** say "as far as I
know" or "if I recall correctly," which the moderators of this newsgroup
can independently confirm is these days almost always the way I myself do
it, with extremely rare exceptions.
You're right. I agree and will make sure to try my best. May I be excused
from class now?
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
Of the three men on the
steps only one Emmet Hudson gave a statement and it's unclear as to where
the shots came from.
Oh dear. You know the name, Emmet Hudson, yet you claim that "it's
unclear as to where the shots came from"?
I have another suggestion for you"
***BEFORE*** you ever again, ever, post another article to this newsgroup,
I would suggest that you read an absolute minimum of TEN complete,
unabridged, WC testimonies, all the way from the first word of the first
sentence, to the last word of the last sentence, without skipping even one
**********
Mr. LIEBELER - While you were standing there, did you ever look toward the
railroad tracks there where they went across the triple underpass?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; while I was laying there I didn't - I was looking down
towards Elm Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - So, you never looked up towards the railroad tracks that went
across the underpass?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - But you are quite sure in your own mind that the shots came
from the rear of the President's car and above it; is that correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any idea that they might have come from the
Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. HUDSON - Well, it sounded like it was high, you know, from above and
kind of behind like - in other words, to the left.
Mr. LIEBELER - And that would have fit in with the Texas School Book
Depository, wouldn't it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
**********
Here's Hudson's statement of 22 Nov 1963:

"VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Emmett Joseph Hudson, Address 107 South Bishop, Dallas, Texas Age 56 , Phone No. WH 2-2008
Deposes and says:
I am presently employed by the City of Dallas, Texas in the Park Department. I have been so employed for the past 6 years. My position is to take care of the property on the West side of Houston Street between Houston Street and the Tripple [sic] Underpass. I also take care of the fountain in front of the Union Terminal. This day a was sitting on the front steps of the sloping area and about half way down the steps. There was another man sitting there with me. He was sitting on my left and we were both facing the street with our backs to the railroad yards and the brick building. At the same time the President's car was directly in front of us, I heard a shot and I saw the President fall over in the seat. I do not know who this other man was that was sitting beside me. In our conversation he talked about having a hard time finding a place to park. He also talked about working somewhere over on Industrial Blvd. This man said Lay down and we did. I definately [sic] heard 3 shots. The shots that I heard definately [sic] came from behind and above me. When I laid down on the ground I laid on my right side and my view was still toward the street where the President's car had passed. I did look around but I did not see any firearms at all. This shot sounded to me like a high powered rifle.
/s/ Emmett J. Hudson
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas"

"The shots that I heard definately [sic] came from behind and above me."
Nothing about coming from the direction of the TSBD.
Post by Caeruleo
If you look at the *multiple* films of where he was standing, the TSBD was very obviously to his left. In addition, look especially at the Muchmore and Nix films. Plain as day he is standing beside two men, one of whom (as far as I know never identified) was wearing a very bright red sweater. Watch all three men closely. Not one of them, not one, ever whirls around and looks behind him, as if he suddenly heard a loud *bang* from directly behind him, as the vast majority of humans would *involuntarily* do in such a circumstance. And look especially at the man in the bright red sweater. When the limo passes in front of him, he is clearly seen to throw up his hands in horror and then start to run *up* the steps, but even then, the *entire* time he is in view, even as he is starting to run up the steps, he is still very *obviously* looking back behind him at the limo; at no point is he seen looking the *other* direction, toward this imaginary grassy knoll gunman who has "supposedly" fired a shot from almost the exact direction he turns toward.
Could it be (dare I suggest it?) that the reason we never see him, ever, looking *up* the hill is because he didn't hear any loud sound from that direction? Almost as if no shot was fired from there?
"Just a thought."
Yes, food for thought.
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, and Clark Wilkins said many times that he believed that Oswald was the ONLY HUMAN who fired shots at the motorcade that day, even though he also said that at least one other person conspired with Oswald to commit the assassination. He additionally said that he would eventually reveal who that other person was, but he suddenly vanished from this newsgroup, permanently, before he did so, unless he has posted here since then under a completely different name and email address.
Post by El Tiante
There's also the statements of White House staffers
Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers who gave testimony to the FBI that shots
came from the GK area
Um, UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN (see, everyone, how I admit that yet again even when I'm not challenged?) didn't they say that they thought ALL the shots sounded as if they came from the GK area? If so, do you realize the obvious significance of that? And O'Donnell did NOT say that to the WC; I'm reading it in the midst of typing these words.
Post by El Tiante
but were discouraged from saying so according to Tip
O'Neill.
Oh, Tip O'Neill would even have any possible way of knowing such a thing? How do you know that this wasn't an unconfirmed rumor that O'Neill was passing around? And they were "discouraged," by whom, exactly? According to you, it couldn't have even MAYBE been the FBI, since, again, according to you, both O'Donnell and Powers told the FBI that they thought the sounds of the shots came from the GK area. If the FBI "discouraged" them from saying that, strange then that the FBI *reported* them saying that.
If that's what happened.
From the horses mouth:

"I was never one of those people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission’s report on the president’s death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O’Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy’s Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination.
I was surprised to hear O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.
“That’s not what you told the Warren Commission,” I said.
“You’re right, ” he replied. “I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.”
“I can’t believe it,” I said. ”I wouldn’t have done that in a million years. I would have told them the truth.”
“Tip, you have to understand. The family — everybody wanted this thing behind them.”
Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s. Kenny O’Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story.
(Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr., Man of the House: The Life and Political Memoirs of Speaker Tip O’Neill, Random House, 1987, p.178)"
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
Who knows how many witness statements were changed to conform
with Hoovers.
Indeed. As Donald Willis, an avowed CT who has been posting here on a regular basis since at least 1997 will unhesitatingly confirm (if he is even remotely honest, that is) he himself has seen me post many replies to him in which I have soundly criticized the FBI reports of that time for almost *never* quoting the witness's exact words verbatim, but instead, almost always, merely paraphrasing what the witness supposedly said.
Oh, and as a superb example of this, let us *do* examine, yet again, the FBI's *extreme* duplicity, in the form of Agent Richard Burnett, in which Mr. Burnett wrote down a "statement by" Marrion Baker ***BEFORE*** Baker saw it, which includes the proven myth that Baker "wrote" the words "drinking a coke" and then crossed those words out. Nonsense. Burnett wrote those words without Baker's prior knowledge or consent, then after the fact presented "Baker's statement" to Baker, at which time, as soon as he saw those words, immediately crossed them out and initialed them, since he had never once, not even once, spoken or written in his *own* words that Oswald was holding any type of object, no matter what the object was, in either of his hands, when he saw Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom. Then, let us all (especially you CTs) join virtual hands and look at the FBI statement "by" Roy Truly dated the same day, and look at how it is blindingly obvious (it is totally unnecessary to be anything even remotely similar to a "handwriting expert") that both the "Baker" and "Truly" statements were handwritten by the same person, and that person was quite obviously neither Baker nor Truly.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Lee Bowers said he saw a lot of commotion in that area prior to the
"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have
described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned,
something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred
which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what
this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not
identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of
light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of
the ordinary had occurred there."
That's awfully vague. It doesn't even come remotely close to positively identifying Bowers as a person who *saw* a *gunman* *firing* from anywhere near that location. "A flash of light *or* smoke *or* something"? Notice carefully that nowhere there did he say "and," he instead said "or." Never, ever, ever did he claim that all three things occurred. Instead he plainly said that only ONE of those three things occurred, one of them, ***OR*** another of them, ***OR*** another of them.
And duh, something out of the ordinary did indeed occur in that same direction: JFK was fatally wounded by a shot which caused the right front part of his head to explode open. The place where his head exploded open is not necessarily the place where the gunman fired from, unless you were to claim that the gunman was standing in front of the limo in plain view in the middle lane of Elm and fired from there, then dodged out of the way, since if he hadn't, the limo would have run over him.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area. Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yet there's the account of a DPD cop who was driving with his daughter on
Main St. I believe who saw a man get into a car, place an object in the
car and drive off. The cop followed him but lost him. I believe he gave a
statement to the DPD but nothing came of this. I may be a little fuzzy
about the details but this is the general gist of the account. I saw his
account on a You Tube video of the mock trial with Vincent Bugliosi.
Did you also catch the bit where his daughter said she remembered none of this?
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn. No shots
fired from that area. No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
This is just speculation as many witnesses standing in front of the TSBD
heard shots coming from the GK area.
And nearly all of those very witnesses said they thought ALL of the shots sounded as if they came from the GK area. Not all but one shot. Not one shot out of the others. ALL the shots.
99% of all conspiracy theorists worldwide say only one, or only some of the shots were fired from the GK. I'm not sure I've yet seen a single one of them say that "all" of the shots were fired from there. Do you not realize what this means? The CTs' OWN PREFERRED WITNESSES dispute almost all of the CTs worldwide. The same witnesses the CTs most often cite to "prove" a shot from the grassy knoll are also the same ones, with very few exceptions, who *additionally* said that they thought that only one gunman fired every shot from the GK. Of course the reason for this is blindingly obvious: the CTs are irrationally committed to multiple gunmen; this is the obvious reason why they almost never, ever, ever admit that nearly everyone who thought even one shot came from the GK *also* thought that *all* the shots came from the GK, and that not even one shot, not even one, came from anywhere else.
I'd love to see just someone, just anyone, try to explain how John Connally's wounds resulted from a shot from the GK. Thousands of people have falsely claimed he wasn't in the correct position to be hit by a bullet exiting from JFK's throat, but the problem becomes far worse, by several orders of magnitude, when trying to line up his wounds with any location, no matter what that location is, on the GK.
Talk about a "magic bullet." The bullet which wounded the Governor would be tremendously more implausible coming from the GK than coming from the TSBD. The number of turns it would have to make in midair would far exceed the number of turns that is falsely claimed in the movie "JFK."
In other words, Connally being hit by a bullet fired from the grassy knoll would involve a bullet that has tremendously greater "magic" to it.
Yet the vast majority of the CTs' preferred witnesses said that ***ALL*** of the shots sounded as if they came from the grassy knoll. The one and only way the CTs can dispute this is to *also* dispute the credibility of the majority of the Dealey Plaza witnesses they themselves have cited.
Oh dear, and it gets even worse: Connally himself said that the first and third shots plainly sounded as if they came from behind him and to his right, i.e. from the general direction of the TSBD. He additionally said that he didn't hear the second shot but felt it hit him in the back. Given his position at the time I am "writhing with curiosity" to have it explained how a shot fired from the GK could enter his back and exit his chest.
And oh double-dear: according to nearly all the witnesses, every single shot was fired either from the TSBD, or from the "railroad yards" (almost none of them said "grassy knoll") or the Triple Underpass. Not from all three locations. From only one of those three locations.
According to nearly every witness.
Sam "Skinny" Holland was one of the tiny, tiny handful of witnesses who said otherwise. And do look at his filmed interview where he says, plain as day, *why* he thought one shot came from the GK.
(Free clue: the *primary* reason he thought one shot came from the GK had nothing at all to do with the *sound* of that shot; it instead had to do with something he thought he saw, and no, he didn't say he saw a gunman firing from there.)
Post by El Tiante
There were witnesses who smelled
gunpowder and saw puff of smoke coming from the GK area.
Yep. Have you ever read how Oliver Stone, when filming "JFK," was helplessly unable to find any rifle ever made which emitted enough smoke to be seen on camera, and had to sink to the level of having bellows pumping smoke beside the rifles at the time of filming? Did you also notice that several of the witnesses you are obviously talking about very specifically said that they thought they saw motorcycle exhaust or steam, neither of which had any direct connection to any type of firearm ever invented?
Post by El Tiante
BTW, when I say
GK area this includes the area just east of the triple underpass so it's
not confined to just where the pagoda and it's immediate area is.
Whether or not others were clear on what you meant, I assure you that I certainly was, even before I began typing this present reply. ;-)
Post by El Tiante
There
were also witnesses standing on the north side of Elm St, immediately
across the street from the GK and riding on cars ahead and just behind the
presidents limousine who heard shots from the GK area.
Yes, they thought ALL the shots came from the GK area, correct?
Meaning one single gunman in one single location. ;-)
Post by El Tiante
Jean Hill,
Who said all the shots sounded as if they came from the same direction, even *before* she changed her story dramatically.
Post by El Tiante
Jean
Newman,
Who said all the shots sounded as if they came from the same direction, correct?
Post by El Tiante
William Newman,
Who said all the shots sounded as if they came from behind him, n'est pas?
Post by El Tiante
A. J. Millican,
"Just after the President's car passed, I heard three shots come from up toward Houston and Elm right by the Book Depository Building, and then immediately I heard two more shots from the Arcade between the Book Store and the Underpass, and then three more shots came from the same direction only sounded further back."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/millican.htm
I am quite curious as to why you, ah, "conveniently omitted" that, just for starters, Millican claimed there were eight shots total, from three different locations. That is something even the majority of conspiracy theorists do not subscribe to. Eight shots? So he heard five shots that almost no one else heard? My, my, he must have had the hearing capacity of a dog, rather than a human.
Post by El Tiante
Faye and John Chism,
Both of whom thought *all* of the shots came from that single direction, and not one shot, not one, from any other direction.
Post by El Tiante
Charles Brehm
as quoted in the DTH the evening of the 22nd,
I'd suggest you read that quote more carefully. He was quoted there as saying that he thought all of the shots came from one direction "or" another, not one direction "and" another.
Post by El Tiante
Mary Woodward and her three
friends,
Who thought every single shot came from one direction, correct?
Post by El Tiante
SS agents Paul Landis
In the midst of typing this sentence, I am looking directly at him saying that he thought that all the gunfire, all of it, came from behind him and to his right, i.e. the general direction of the TSBD. Why you are placing him in the "GK area" group of witnesses I can't imagine. Shall I quote him verbatim saying so, or will you?
From SA Landis report:

"It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a melon. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air and the President slumped out of sight towards Mrs. Kennedy.

The time lapse between the first and second report must have been about four or five seconds.

My immediate thought was that the President could not possibly be alive after being hit like he was. I still was not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, right-hand side of the road."

Read the last sentence and then tell me from where Landis heard THE shot. here's a witness who heard a shot from behind him and the front, from BOTH directions.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
and Forrest Sorrels.
You are interpreting him saying, "the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up on the terrace there" as being the "GK area"? That's a bit of a stretch. And did you notice what *else* he said to clarify that?
Nothing that would make it clear he didn't mean the terrace area until he was asked leading questions.

"Mr. STERN - Now, as to the apparent source of these reports, did you feel that all three reports came from the same direction?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes. Definitely so.
Mr. STERN - And that direction, as nearly as you can place it, was what?
Mr. SORRELS - To the right and back. That is about the only way I can express it.
And, as I said, the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up on the terrace there. And that is the reason I was looking around like that when the first shot. And I continued to look out until the other two shots. And then I turned on around and looked back to where the President's car was, and that is when I saw some movement there, and the car just seemed to leap forward.
Mr. STERN - When you looked at the terrace to the right of Elm Street, did you observe any unusual movement?
Mr. SORRELS - No; I didn't see anything unusual at that time.
Mr. STERN - Were you looking at that terrace when either the second or third shot was fired?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes; I was. And I saw just some movement of some people, but no firearms or anything like that, because we began to move out rather rapidly. And we were quite a ways down the street at that time.
Mr. STERN - How do you mean movement of people?
Mr. SORRELS - It seems I recall someone turned around and was going in the other direction, like moving away from the street. And that is all I can recall.
Mr. STERN - But you didn't observe anything that led you to feel that the shots might have been fired from that terrace there?
Mr. SORRELS - No, sir.
Mr. STERN - It sounded to you at first as though it came from there?
Mr. SORRELS - That is the way it sounded--back into the rear and to the right, back up in that direction. And in the direction, of course, of the building.
But the reports seemed to be so loud, that it sounded like to me in other words, that was my first thought, somebody up on the terrace, and that is the reason I looked there.
As we were approaching the overpass there, Mr. Lawson remarked that there was an officer on the overpass there. I saw a police officer standing there with two or three other persons over to his right."

The terrace and the building. Does he mean two different descriptions of the same area or descriptions of two different places, the terrace and the building (TSBD)?
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
I see that James Files is included in the implausible category. OK, can't
argue one way or the other. Arnold has corroborating evidence from Senator
Yardborough's observation he saw a man hit the dirt as Arnold describes.
Yarborough said the man was much closer to the street than Gordon Arnold claimed he was, and Yarborough was almost certainly talking about Bill Newman, the most well-known and visible man who "hit the dirt," for the obvious purpose of covering his child (his wife did the same thing and covered their other child).
Post by El Tiante
There's also the acoustic evidence scientifically arrived at by an
acoustic expert and presented to the HSCA and corroborated by Skennazy
(sp?) and his expert assistant which confirms there was a second shooter
behind the picket fence to a 95% probability. That's witness evidence
backed up by expert scientific evidence. I know it's going to be brought
up that evidence has been debunked by Dale Myers, whom I respect a lot but
he's not an expert on the field so I'll go with the expert evidence.
Oh boy, your research is really limited here, more than anything you've said above. That acoustic "evidence" has been debunked by a far larger number of people than Dale Myers, and the majority of people who have debunked it are real acoustics experts. You have also "conveniently omitted" that the HSCA didn't even bother to try to get a second opinion from any other *real* acoustics experts, but instead mindlessly accepted the first analysis they were given, without bothering to check the credibility of those who gave them that analysis. Almost within days of the HSCA releasing its final report, several *other* groups of very real acoustics experts examined the same audio recording, and soundly disputed the original findings.
Dale Myers didn't come along until about two decades later.
The acoustic evidence has NOT been debunked. See Hear No Evil by Donald Byron Thomas.
claviger
2017-05-23 22:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
First Thank you for your response. Film evidence shows me JFK went back
and to the left although he did go forward before frame 313 apparently as
a result from a head shot to the rear from the TSBD as several witnesses
described seeing a shooter or a rifle protruding from there.
See the Muchmore film. Jackie was close to him holding his arm after the
back-to-throat second shot. If he was hit from the GK at a 45º angle
it would have shoved him into Jackie and he would have ended up behind her
on the far side of the backseat. That did not happen. He bounced off the
back cushion forward and collapsed in her lap.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Plus the photo evidence found at the Paines house showing backyard photos
of General Walkers house taken with the same camera used by MO of LHO
posing with a rifle, handgun and leftist periodicals.
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
There's also witness evidence of people around the GK area who heard shots
from that area. The two who you include as standing on the pedestal are
Zapruder and his secretary I believe. AZ said the shots came from behind
him and his secretary did not give any statement.
Yes she did to author Josiah Thompson in a lengthy interview and he
considered her a good witness.
Post by El Tiante
Of the three men on the steps only one Emmet Hudson gave a statement
and it's unclear as to where the shots came from.
Hudson was groundskeeper and knew the plaza better than anyone. He
indicated the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. Another witness
on the steps was F Lee Mudd from Louisiana. He did not hear any shots
from close by. The third witness was a well dressed man, a companion to a
lady with a baby. She was nearby and is probably the figure called Black
Dog Man as she held her baby on the wall. This couple is seen in photos
in the same area after the shooting. They did not give a statement to
police.
Post by El Tiante
Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers who gave testimony to the FBI that shots
came from the GK area but were discouraged from saying so according to Tip
O'Neill. Who knows how many witness statements were changed to conform
with Hoovers.
Police place higher confidence in first reports by witnesses:
Kenneth P O'Donnell
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm
David F Powers
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/powers1.htm
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Lee Bowers said he saw a lot of commotion in that area prior to the
"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have
described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned,
something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred
which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what
this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not
identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of
light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of
the ordinary had occurred there."
Yes that is a bone he threw to Mark Lane in an interview. Police charged
up the hill and checked out all the witnesses in the area. Nobody with a
weapon was found.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area. Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yet there's the account of a DPD cop who was driving with his daughter on
Main St. I believe who saw a man get into a car, place an object in the
car and drive off. The cop followed him but lost him. I believe he gave a
statement to the DPD but nothing came of this. I may be a little fuzzy
about the details but this is the general gist of the account. I saw his
account on a You Tube video of the mock trial with Vincent Bugliosi.
Three DPD motorcycle officers raced to the knoll then dismounted and ran
up to the top and checked behind the fence. DPD Officer Foster was on top
of the Triple Underpass watching the parade. He saw no one with a weapon.
DPD Smith raced down the Elm Street extension lane to the parking lot.
He found no one with a weapon or a police car.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn. No shots
fired from that area. No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
This is just speculation as many witnesses standing in front of the TSBD
heard shots coming from the GK area.
Yes they did but no witness at the top of the GK saw or heard a shot from
up there.
Post by El Tiante
There were witnesses who smelled gunpowder and saw puff of smoke coming
from the GK area.
All witnesses who smelled gunpowder were on the street or in the parade.
DPD Brown on the Stemmons overpass west of Dealey Plaza smelled gunpowder
as the motorcade passed by.
Post by El Tiante
BTW, when I say
GK area this includes the area just east of the triple underpass so it's
not confined to just where the pagoda and it's immediate area is. There
were also witnesses standing on the north side of Elm St, immediately
across the street from the GK and riding on cars ahead and just behind the
presidents limousine who heard shots from the GK area. Jean Hill, Jean
Newman, William Newman, A. J. Millican, Faye and John Chism, Charles Brehm
as quoted in the DTH the evening of the 22nd, Mary Woodward and her three
friends, SS agents Paul Landis and Forrest Sorrels.
The large curved concrete Pergola no doubt reflected echoes of shots from
the 6th floor window.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Could be him. If true then it's evidence there was a conspiracy. There goes the
no gunman in the GK area theory.
His story is he fired one shot from the GK and two shots were fired by his
partner in the Dal-Tex Building. No witness reported any shots from that
building.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions. None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane. DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
I see that James Files is included in the implausible category. OK, can't
argue one way or the other. Arnold has corroborating evidence from Senator
Yardborough's observation he saw a man hit the dirt as Arnold describes.
Several Witnesses dove to the ground including Bill Newman and a guy
across the street. Unlikely Sen Yarborough could see GArnold behind the
wall where he claimed to be. GA said he hit the ground on the first shot.
Sen Yarborough said all three shots he heard came to from his right side,
not the GK.
Post by El Tiante
There's also the acoustic evidence scientifically arrived at by an
acoustic expert and presented to the HSCA and corroborated by Skennazy
(sp?) and his expert assistant which confirms there was a second shooter
behind the picket fence to a 95% probability. That's witness evidence
backed up by expert scientific evidence. I know it's going to be brought
up that evidence has been debunked by Dale Myers, whom I respect a lot but
he's not an expert on the field so I'll go with the expert evidence.
There are problems with the acoustic evidence including a bell ringing
heard on the tape. No bell in Dealey Plaza. Several members on the HSCA
rejected that evidence and other scientists found fault with that theory.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-25 05:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
First Thank you for your response. Film evidence shows me JFK went back
and to the left although he did go forward before frame 313 apparently as
a result from a head shot to the rear from the TSBD as several witnesses
described seeing a shooter or a rifle protruding from there.
See the Muchmore film. Jackie was close to him holding his arm after the
back-to-throat second shot. If he was hit from the GK at a 45?? angle
it would have shoved him into Jackie and he would have ended up behind her
on the far side of the backseat. That did not happen. He bounced off the
back cushion forward and collapsed in her lap.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Plus the photo evidence found at the Paines house showing backyard photos
of General Walkers house taken with the same camera used by MO of LHO
posing with a rifle, handgun and leftist periodicals.
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
There's also witness evidence of people around the GK area who heard shots
from that area. The two who you include as standing on the pedestal are
Zapruder and his secretary I believe. AZ said the shots came from behind
him and his secretary did not give any statement.
Yes she did to author Josiah Thompson in a lengthy interview and he
considered her a good witness.
Post by El Tiante
Of the three men on the steps only one Emmet Hudson gave a statement
and it's unclear as to where the shots came from.
Hudson was groundskeeper and knew the plaza better than anyone. He
indicated the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. Another witness
on the steps was F Lee Mudd from Louisiana. He did not hear any shots
from close by. The third witness was a well dressed man, a companion to a
lady with a baby. She was nearby and is probably the figure called Black
Dog Man as she held her baby on the wall. This couple is seen in photos
in the same area after the shooting. They did not give a statement to
police.
Silly. They did not call him Black Dog Man because he was a black man or
looked like a dog. He was a white man wearing a black so when he leaned
against the retaining wall his profile looked like a black dog sitting on
the retaining wall. The woman and man with the baby were black. Some
people think they were the black couple that Sitzman said she saw eating
their lunch on the park bench.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers who gave testimony to the FBI that shots
came from the GK area but were discouraged from saying so according to Tip
O'Neill. Who knows how many witness statements were changed to conform
with Hoovers.
Kenneth P O'Donnell
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm
David F Powers
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/powers1.htm
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Lee Bowers said he saw a lot of commotion in that area prior to the
"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have
described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned,
something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred
which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what
this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not
identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of
light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of
the ordinary had occurred there."
Yes that is a bone he threw to Mark Lane in an interview. Police charged
up the hill and checked out all the witnesses in the area. Nobody with a
weapon was found.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area. Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yet there's the account of a DPD cop who was driving with his daughter on
Main St. I believe who saw a man get into a car, place an object in the
car and drive off. The cop followed him but lost him. I believe he gave a
statement to the DPD but nothing came of this. I may be a little fuzzy
about the details but this is the general gist of the account. I saw his
account on a You Tube video of the mock trial with Vincent Bugliosi.
Three DPD motorcycle officers raced to the knoll then dismounted and ran
up to the top and checked behind the fence. DPD Officer Foster was on top
of the Triple Underpass watching the parade. He saw no one with a weapon.
DPD Smith raced down the Elm Street extension lane to the parking lot.
He found no one with a weapon or a police car.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn. No shots
fired from that area. No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
This is just speculation as many witnesses standing in front of the TSBD
heard shots coming from the GK area.
Yes they did but no witness at the top of the GK saw or heard a shot from
up there.
Post by El Tiante
There were witnesses who smelled gunpowder and saw puff of smoke coming
from the GK area.
All witnesses who smelled gunpowder were on the street or in the parade.
DPD Brown on the Stemmons overpass west of Dealey Plaza smelled gunpowder
as the motorcade passed by.
Post by El Tiante
BTW, when I say
GK area this includes the area just east of the triple underpass so it's
not confined to just where the pagoda and it's immediate area is. There
were also witnesses standing on the north side of Elm St, immediately
across the street from the GK and riding on cars ahead and just behind the
presidents limousine who heard shots from the GK area. Jean Hill, Jean
Newman, William Newman, A. J. Millican, Faye and John Chism, Charles Brehm
as quoted in the DTH the evening of the 22nd, Mary Woodward and her three
friends, SS agents Paul Landis and Forrest Sorrels.
The large curved concrete Pergola no doubt reflected echoes of shots from
the 6th floor window.
So YOUR theory is that it made 3 shots sound like 6 shots. How many
people said 6 shot?
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Could be him. If true then it's evidence there was a conspiracy. There goes the
no gunman in the GK area theory.
His story is he fired one shot from the GK and two shots were fired by his
partner in the Dal-Tex Building. No witness reported any shots from that
building.
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions. None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane. DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
I see that James Files is included in the implausible category. OK, can't
argue one way or the other. Arnold has corroborating evidence from Senator
Yardborough's observation he saw a man hit the dirt as Arnold describes.
Several Witnesses dove to the ground including Bill Newman and a guy
across the street. Unlikely Sen Yarborough could see GArnold behind the
wall where he claimed to be. GA said he hit the ground on the first shot.
Sen Yarborough said all three shots he heard came to from his right side,
not the GK.
Post by El Tiante
There's also the acoustic evidence scientifically arrived at by an
acoustic expert and presented to the HSCA and corroborated by Skennazy
(sp?) and his expert assistant which confirms there was a second shooter
behind the picket fence to a 95% probability. That's witness evidence
backed up by expert scientific evidence. I know it's going to be brought
up that evidence has been debunked by Dale Myers, whom I respect a lot but
he's not an expert on the field so I'll go with the expert evidence.
There are problems with the acoustic evidence including a bell ringing
heard on the tape. No bell in Dealey Plaza. Several members on the HSCA
You say you have a ringing in your ears? There are pills for that.
Post by claviger
rejected that evidence and other scientists found fault with that theory.
mainframetech
2017-05-25 12:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
First Thank you for your response. Film evidence shows me JFK went back
and to the left although he did go forward before frame 313 apparently as
a result from a head shot to the rear from the TSBD as several witnesses
described seeing a shooter or a rifle protruding from there.
See the Muchmore film. Jackie was close to him holding his arm after the
back-to-throat second shot. If he was hit from the GK at a 45º angle
it would have shoved him into Jackie and he would have ended up behind her
on the far side of the backseat. That did not happen. He bounced off the
back cushion forward and collapsed in her lap.
The story of bodies not being pushed by bullets is mostly true.
That's from a well respected forensic pathologist, Vincent DiMaio. And
the one shot that hit JFK from behind was in the upper back, and was a
dud. Details with cites and links on request.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Plus the photo evidence found at the Paines house showing backyard photos
of General Walkers house taken with the same camera used by MO of LHO
posing with a rifle, handgun and leftist periodicals.
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
There's also witness evidence of people around the GK area who heard shots
from that area. The two who you include as standing on the pedestal are
Zapruder and his secretary I believe. AZ said the shots came from behind
him and his secretary did not give any statement.
Yes she did to author Josiah Thompson in a lengthy interview and he
considered her a good witness.
Post by El Tiante
Of the three men on the steps only one Emmet Hudson gave a statement
and it's unclear as to where the shots came from.
Hudson was groundskeeper and knew the plaza better than anyone. He
indicated the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. Another witness
on the steps was F Lee Mudd from Louisiana. He did not hear any shots
from close by. The third witness was a well dressed man, a companion to a
lady with a baby. She was nearby and is probably the figure called Black
Dog Man as she held her baby on the wall. This couple is seen in photos
in the same area after the shooting. They did not give a statement to
police.
Witnesses heard shots from the GK or the TSBD and the walls around the
area would cause echoes. There were shots from both places, GK and TSBD,
as well as other places.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers who gave testimony to the FBI that shots
came from the GK area but were discouraged from saying so according to Tip
O'Neill. Who knows how many witness statements were changed to conform
with Hoovers.
Kenneth P O'Donnell
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm
David F Powers
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/powers1.htm
Where you put your "confidence" doesn't matter as much as which was
right.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Lee Bowers said he saw a lot of commotion in that area prior to the
"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have
described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned,
something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred
which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what
this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not
identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of
light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of
the ordinary had occurred there."
Yes that is a bone he threw to Mark Lane in an interview. Police charged
up the hill and checked out all the witnesses in the area. Nobody with a
weapon was found.
By that time they had gotten into a car and scrammed. Of course. And
Lee Bowers was afraid for himself and his family and so he did not tell
his whole to the WC. But after his death a few months later in a accident
where he went off the road and hit a concrete abutment, his friend Walter
Rischel told a reporter that Bowers had seen much more from his RR tower.
That Bowers had seen men firing rifles at the motorcade from behind the
fence, got into a car and got away. Later, a highway patrolman told an
interviewer that 3 people friends of Bowers) had been told by Bowers that
he had lied to the WC.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area. Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yet there's the account of a DPD cop who was driving with his daughter on
Main St. I believe who saw a man get into a car, place an object in the
car and drive off. The cop followed him but lost him. I believe he gave a
statement to the DPD but nothing came of this. I may be a little fuzzy
about the details but this is the general gist of the account. I saw his
account on a You Tube video of the mock trial with Vincent Bugliosi.
Three DPD motorcycle officers raced to the knoll then dismounted and ran
up to the top and checked behind the fence. DPD Officer Foster was on top
of the Triple Underpass watching the parade. He saw no one with a weapon.
DPD Smith raced down the Elm Street extension lane to the parking lot.
He found no one with a weapon or a police car.
There was no police car.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn. No shots
fired from that area. No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
This is just speculation as many witnesses standing in front of the TSBD
heard shots coming from the GK area.
Yes they did but no witness at the top of the GK saw or heard a shot from
up there.
Claviger decided not to mention Gordon Arnold, who was there and felt
the shots go over his shoulder and he hit the dirt. Claviger will say
that he wanted to be famous or some other reason that he lied. Here's his
story:


Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
There were witnesses who smelled gunpowder and saw puff of smoke coming
from the GK area.
All witnesses who smelled gunpowder were on the street or in the parade.
DPD Brown on the Stemmons overpass west of Dealey Plaza smelled gunpowder
as the motorcade passed by.
At that time a number of people on the overpass saw smoke issue from
under a tree in front of the fence. Some went down to the area to look
around. A man named Sam Holland went there and he says he found a place
where someone was standing around in the mud (it had rained that morning)
and also saw muddy footprints on the bumper of a car near the fence and
cigarette butts on the ground.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
BTW, when I say
GK area this includes the area just east of the triple underpass so it's
not confined to just where the pagoda and it's immediate area is. There
were also witnesses standing on the north side of Elm St, immediately
across the street from the GK and riding on cars ahead and just behind the
presidents limousine who heard shots from the GK area. Jean Hill, Jean
Newman, William Newman, A. J. Millican, Faye and John Chism, Charles Brehm
as quoted in the DTH the evening of the 22nd, Mary Woodward and her three
friends, SS agents Paul Landis and Forrest Sorrels.
The large curved concrete Pergola no doubt reflected echoes of shots from
the 6th floor window.
Or from the GK.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Could be him. If true then it's evidence there was a conspiracy. There goes the
no gunman in the GK area theory.
His story is he fired one shot from the GK and two shots were fired by his
partner in the Dal-Tex Building. No witness reported any shots from that
building.
There was supposedly a woman (Ruth Ann Martinez) that used a
walkie-talkie to signal all to fire together at the right time. She was
supposedly in the TSBD on the 6th floor.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions. None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane. DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
I see that James Files is included in the implausible category. OK, can't
argue one way or the other. Arnold has corroborating evidence from Senator
Yardborough's observation he saw a man hit the dirt as Arnold describes.
Several Witnesses dove to the ground including Bill Newman and a guy
across the street. Unlikely Sen Yarborough could see GArnold behind the
wall where he claimed to be. GA said he hit the ground on the first shot.
Sen Yarborough said all three shots he heard came to from his right side,
not the GK.
Yarborough was able to see the area where Gordon Arnold was at. He
was NOT completely behind any wall, it was a partial wall only.
Yarborough was in the 3rd vehicle in the motorcade, and not that far
behind. He could see over to the GK ahead.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
There's also the acoustic evidence scientifically arrived at by an
acoustic expert and presented to the HSCA and corroborated by Skennazy
(sp?) and his expert assistant which confirms there was a second shooter
behind the picket fence to a 95% probability. That's witness evidence
backed up by expert scientific evidence. I know it's going to be brought
up that evidence has been debunked by Dale Myers, whom I respect a lot but
he's not an expert on the field so I'll go with the expert evidence.
There are problems with the acoustic evidence including a bell ringing
heard on the tape. No bell in Dealey Plaza. Several members on the HSCA
rejected that evidence and other scientists found fault with that theory.
The acoustic study isn't necessary to determine there were men behind
the fence shooting at the motorcade.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-26 01:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
First Thank you for your response. Film evidence shows me JFK went back
and to the left although he did go forward before frame 313 apparently as
a result from a head shot to the rear from the TSBD as several witnesses
described seeing a shooter or a rifle protruding from there.
See the Muchmore film. Jackie was close to him holding his arm after the
back-to-throat second shot. If he was hit from the GK at a 45º angle
it would have shoved him into Jackie and he would have ended up behind her
on the far side of the backseat. That did not happen. He bounced off the
back cushion forward and collapsed in her lap.
The story of bodies not being pushed by bullets is mostly true.
That's from a well respected forensic pathologist, Vincent DiMaio. And
the one shot that hit JFK from behind was in the upper back, and was a
dud. Details with cites and links on request.
Wrong. Vince is a liar.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Marina testified LHO confessed to her that he shot General Walker. He
listened to the radio that night but nothing on the news about it. The
next morning a report said the shot missed and the General was still alive
after a near miss. LHO was angry and disappointed he missed.
Plus the photo evidence found at the Paines house showing backyard photos
of General Walkers house taken with the same camera used by MO of LHO
posing with a rifle, handgun and leftist periodicals.
Post by claviger
There is no evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. There were 8
witnesses on the knoll: 3 on the steps, 1 on the patio, 2 standing on a
pedestal in front of the Pergola and 2 more sitting on a bench on the lawn
in front of the Pergola. None of those witnesses report a shot from up
there. A tall lady standing on the pedestal could see over the wooden
fence. She neither heard a shot from back there nor saw anyone with a
rifle in back of the fence. The man on the park bench was sure he heard
shots from the TSBD, so he found a Deputy Sheriff and sent him to the
building. That Deputy was there when they found the rifle. The grounds
keeper for Dealey Plaza was on the steps at the time of the shooting. He
thought shots came from the direction of the TSBD building.
There's also witness evidence of people around the GK area who heard shots
from that area. The two who you include as standing on the pedestal are
Zapruder and his secretary I believe. AZ said the shots came from behind
him and his secretary did not give any statement.
Yes she did to author Josiah Thompson in a lengthy interview and he
considered her a good witness.
Post by El Tiante
Of the three men on the steps only one Emmet Hudson gave a statement
and it's unclear as to where the shots came from.
Hudson was groundskeeper and knew the plaza better than anyone. He
indicated the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. Another witness
on the steps was F Lee Mudd from Louisiana. He did not hear any shots
from close by. The third witness was a well dressed man, a companion to a
lady with a baby. She was nearby and is probably the figure called Black
Dog Man as she held her baby on the wall. This couple is seen in photos
in the same area after the shooting. They did not give a statement to
police.
Witnesses heard shots from the GK or the TSBD and the walls around the
area would cause echoes. There were shots from both places, GK and TSBD,
as well as other places.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers who gave testimony to the FBI that shots
came from the GK area but were discouraged from saying so according to Tip
O'Neill. Who knows how many witness statements were changed to conform
with Hoovers.
Kenneth P O'Donnell
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm
David F Powers
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/powers1.htm
Where you put your "confidence" doesn't matter as much as which was
right.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Railroad employee Lee Bowers was sitting in a tower overlooking the
parking lot facing south testified under oath no person was behind the
fence at the time of the shooting. RR employees standing on top of the
Triple Underpass immediately ran down into the parking lot to see if
anyone was back there with a rifle. They found no one in the area.
Lee Bowers said he saw a lot of commotion in that area prior to the
"At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have
described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned,
something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred
which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what
this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not
identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of
light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of
the ordinary had occurred there."
Yes that is a bone he threw to Mark Lane in an interview. Police charged
up the hill and checked out all the witnesses in the area. Nobody with a
weapon was found.
By that time they had gotten into a car and scrammed. Of course. And
Lee Bowers was afraid for himself and his family and so he did not tell
his whole to the WC. But after his death a few months later in a accident
where he went off the road and hit a concrete abutment, his friend Walter
Rischel told a reporter that Bowers had seen much more from his RR tower.
That Bowers had seen men firing rifles at the motorcade from behind the
fence, got into a car and got away. Later, a highway patrolman told an
interviewer that 3 people friends of Bowers) had been told by Bowers that
he had lied to the WC.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
DPD Officer Smith ran down the access lane to the parking lot from his
position at the intersection of Houston and Elm. He checked the bushes
around the Pergola and then the parking lot. No one with a rifle was
found in the area. Three other DPD motorcycle officers pulled over and
ran up the Grassy Knoll and searched the area. They found no person with
a rifle in the area. So police and RR employees converged on the parking
lot from 3 directions and found nothing.
Yet there's the account of a DPD cop who was driving with his daughter on
Main St. I believe who saw a man get into a car, place an object in the
car and drive off. The cop followed him but lost him. I believe he gave a
statement to the DPD but nothing came of this. I may be a little fuzzy
about the details but this is the general gist of the account. I saw his
account on a You Tube video of the mock trial with Vincent Bugliosi.
Three DPD motorcycle officers raced to the knoll then dismounted and ran
up to the top and checked behind the fence. DPD Officer Foster was on top
of the Triple Underpass watching the parade. He saw no one with a weapon.
DPD Smith raced down the Elm Street extension lane to the parking lot.
He found no one with a weapon or a police car.
There was no police car.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
A number of witnesses on the street thought shots came from the Triple
Underpass or the Grassy Knoll. There was a DPD Officer on top of the RR
Trestle over the Triple Underpass and one below on the lawn. No shots
fired from that area. No witness on top of the Grassy Knoll heard any
shots from up there. More than likely sound waves created by shots from
the LHO rifle on the 6th floor bounced off the curved concrete Pergola
which reflected the echo back toward the crowds on the street.
This is just speculation as many witnesses standing in front of the TSBD
heard shots coming from the GK area.
Yes they did but no witness at the top of the GK saw or heard a shot from
up there.
Claviger decided not to mention Gordon Arnold, who was there and felt
the shots go over his shoulder and he hit the dirt. Claviger will say
that he wanted to be famous or some other reason that he lied. Here's his
http://youtu.be/2C80oemEWpc
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
There were witnesses who smelled gunpowder and saw puff of smoke coming
from the GK area.
All witnesses who smelled gunpowder were on the street or in the parade.
DPD Brown on the Stemmons overpass west of Dealey Plaza smelled gunpowder
as the motorcade passed by.
At that time a number of people on the overpass saw smoke issue from
under a tree in front of the fence. Some went down to the area to look
around. A man named Sam Holland went there and he says he found a place
where someone was standing around in the mud (it had rained that morning)
and also saw muddy footprints on the bumper of a car near the fence and
cigarette butts on the ground.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
BTW, when I say
GK area this includes the area just east of the triple underpass so it's
not confined to just where the pagoda and it's immediate area is. There
were also witnesses standing on the north side of Elm St, immediately
across the street from the GK and riding on cars ahead and just behind the
presidents limousine who heard shots from the GK area. Jean Hill, Jean
Newman, William Newman, A. J. Millican, Faye and John Chism, Charles Brehm
as quoted in the DTH the evening of the 22nd, Mary Woodward and her three
friends, SS agents Paul Landis and Forrest Sorrels.
The large curved concrete Pergola no doubt reflected echoes of shots from
the 6th floor window.
Or from the GK.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
There is a confession by a Chicago hitman James Files that he was the man
on the Grassy Knoll who shot the President with a .221 Remington Fireball
XP-100 using a mercury tipped bullet. There are several articles and
photos on the internet about this confession.
Could be him. If true then it's evidence there was a conspiracy. There goes the
no gunman in the GK area theory.
His story is he fired one shot from the GK and two shots were fired by his
partner in the Dal-Tex Building. No witness reported any shots from that
building.
There was supposedly a woman (Ruth Ann Martinez) that used a
walkie-talkie to signal all to fire together at the right time. She was
supposedly in the TSBD on the 6th floor.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Another story by a person named Gordon Arnold who claims he was filming
the parade while standing on top of the Grassy Knoll. Several shots were
fired from behind him causing him to hit the dirt. Then the snipers
demanded his camera and took the film out and pitched the camera back to
him. They then jumped in a car and drove away. Three friends of Lee
Bowers tell a similar story.
Many problems with these dubious stories. The parking lot was a box
canyon situation with only one way in or out. Police and people watching
the parade converged on the Grassy Knoll from all directions. None of
them mention a Police Car in that area or leaving by the Elm Street
extension lane. DPD Officer Smith claims to be the first policeman behind
the Pergola. No mention of any police car with 2 officers inside. He did
see two men, one a Deputy Sheriff and another he thought was a Secret
Service Agent. Neither one had a rifle or mentioned a police car.
Gordon Arnold claimed to be wearing a summer US Army uniform that day.
None of the numerous witnesses who ran to the area mention seeing a guy in
Army clothes. Tragic events like this attract strange people who imagine
they were somehow involved. Gordon Arnold is one of those witnesses.
His story is totally implausible.
I see that James Files is included in the implausible category. OK, can't
argue one way or the other. Arnold has corroborating evidence from Senator
Yardborough's observation he saw a man hit the dirt as Arnold describes.
Several Witnesses dove to the ground including Bill Newman and a guy
across the street. Unlikely Sen Yarborough could see GArnold behind the
wall where he claimed to be. GA said he hit the ground on the first shot.
Sen Yarborough said all three shots he heard came to from his right side,
not the GK.
Yarborough was able to see the area where Gordon Arnold was at. He
was NOT completely behind any wall, it was a partial wall only.
Yarborough was in the 3rd vehicle in the motorcade, and not that far
behind. He could see over to the GK ahead.
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
There's also the acoustic evidence scientifically arrived at by an
acoustic expert and presented to the HSCA and corroborated by Skennazy
(sp?) and his expert assistant which confirms there was a second shooter
behind the picket fence to a 95% probability. That's witness evidence
backed up by expert scientific evidence. I know it's going to be brought
up that evidence has been debunked by Dale Myers, whom I respect a lot but
he's not an expert on the field so I'll go with the expert evidence.
There are problems with the acoustic evidence including a bell ringing
heard on the tape. No bell in Dealey Plaza. Several members on the HSCA
rejected that evidence and other scientists found fault with that theory.
The acoustic study isn't necessary to determine there were men behind
the fence shooting at the motorcade.
Chris
It proved that one shot came from the grassy knoll. You can't accept
their finding of 3 shots from the TSBD and then through out the grassy
knoll. Science first.
'
OHLeeRedux
2017-05-26 21:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
Post by claviger
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
The President did not go back and to the left. Jackie was sitting close
to him holding his arm. Had he gone "back and to the left" he would have
slammed into her. That did not happen. Another film from a different
perspective shows he went straight back into the seat cushion and bounced
off then fell into Jackie's lap. The confusion is he was leaning toward
Jackie at the time the shot knocked him backward into the seat cushion.
First Thank you for your response. Film evidence shows me JFK went back
and to the left although he did go forward before frame 313 apparently as
a result from a head shot to the rear from the TSBD as several witnesses
described seeing a shooter or a rifle protruding from there.
See the Muchmore film. Jackie was close to him holding his arm after the
back-to-throat second shot. If he was hit from the GK at a 45º angle
it would have shoved him into Jackie and he would have ended up behind her
on the far side of the backseat. That did not happen. He bounced off the
back cushion forward and collapsed in her lap.
The story of bodies not being pushed by bullets is mostly true.
That's from a well respected forensic pathologist, Vincent DiMaio. And
the one shot that hit JFK from behind was in the upper back, and was a
dud. Details with cites and links on request.
Wrong. Vince is a liar.
Pot, meet kettle.
bigdog
2017-05-18 01:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.

For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.

The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics. EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.

Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
mainframetech
2017-05-18 23:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
Since the Z-film was proven to have been altered, many LNs can't
reconcile the fact that it can't be used to determine much of anything at
the time around the frame 313 where the most alteration occurred.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics.
That's our in-house 'expert' speaking. Now pretending his knowledge of
these things is the best.
Post by bigdog
EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
The foolishness shown in the previous sentences points up the failure
to recognize that the medical 'experts' were misled from the beginning.
They had NO opportunity to see inside the body at the autopsy, as the
autopsy team did, and they had NO opportunity to interview the men working
in the Bethesda morgue. If they had been allowed to do that, they would
have come to different conclusions than what they read in the Autopsy
Report (AR). Among the tricks worked on the medical panels, were drawings
by Ida Dox that were exact copies of photos from the autopsy that had been
altered. One even had a bullet hole drawn on the back of the head of JFK,
but the original photo it came from had no such wound. This is the kind
of thing that was used to manipulate the findings of the panels. It was
for suckers.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
another foolish guess. If the head is in the right position, a bullet
can enter the right forehead and travel to the BOH and blow it out as
happened in this case. Choosing the GK as the location just helps make it
more foolish, since the angles don't work from that point for the bullet
hole in the right forehead/temple area.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-19 20:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
Since the Z-film was proven to have been altered, many LNs can't
reconcile the fact that it can't be used to determine much of anything at
the time around the frame 313 where the most alteration occurred.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics.
That's our in-house 'expert' speaking. Now pretending his knowledge of
these things is the best.
Post by bigdog
EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
The foolishness shown in the previous sentences points up the failure
to recognize that the medical 'experts' were misled from the beginning.
They had NO opportunity to see inside the body at the autopsy, as the
autopsy team did, and they had NO opportunity to interview the men working
in the Bethesda morgue. If they had been allowed to do that, they would
have come to different conclusions than what they read in the Autopsy
Report (AR). Among the tricks worked on the medical panels, were drawings
by Ida Dox that were exact copies of photos from the autopsy that had been
altered. One even had a bullet hole drawn on the back of the head of JFK,
but the original photo it came from had no such wound. This is the kind
of thing that was used to manipulate the findings of the panels. It was
for suckers.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
another foolish guess. If the head is in the right position, a bullet
can enter the right forehead and travel to the BOH and blow it out as
happened in this case. Choosing the GK as the location just helps make it
more foolish, since the angles don't work from that point for the bullet
hole in the right forehead/temple area.
It's always amusing when you share your alternative reality with the rest
of us. Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to reside.
mainframetech
2017-05-20 14:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
Since the Z-film was proven to have been altered, many LNs can't
reconcile the fact that it can't be used to determine much of anything at
the time around the frame 313 where the most alteration occurred.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics.
That's our in-house 'expert' speaking. Now pretending his knowledge of
these things is the best.
Post by bigdog
EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
The foolishness shown in the previous sentences points up the failure
to recognize that the medical 'experts' were misled from the beginning.
They had NO opportunity to see inside the body at the autopsy, as the
autopsy team did, and they had NO opportunity to interview the men working
in the Bethesda morgue. If they had been allowed to do that, they would
have come to different conclusions than what they read in the Autopsy
Report (AR). Among the tricks worked on the medical panels, were drawings
by Ida Dox that were exact copies of photos from the autopsy that had been
altered. One even had a bullet hole drawn on the back of the head of JFK,
but the original photo it came from had no such wound. This is the kind
of thing that was used to manipulate the findings of the panels. It was
for suckers.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
another foolish guess. If the head is in the right position, a bullet
can enter the right forehead and travel to the BOH and blow it out as
happened in this case. Choosing the GK as the location just helps make it
more foolish, since the angles don't work from that point for the bullet
hole in the right forehead/temple area.
It's always amusing when you share your alternative reality with the rest
of us. Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to reside.
WRONG! I had a feeling you wouldn't understand and couldn't picture
the path. So you come up with a wise crack to cover up.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-21 03:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
Since the Z-film was proven to have been altered, many LNs can't
reconcile the fact that it can't be used to determine much of anything at
the time around the frame 313 where the most alteration occurred.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics.
That's our in-house 'expert' speaking. Now pretending his knowledge of
these things is the best.
Post by bigdog
EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
The foolishness shown in the previous sentences points up the failure
to recognize that the medical 'experts' were misled from the beginning.
They had NO opportunity to see inside the body at the autopsy, as the
autopsy team did, and they had NO opportunity to interview the men working
in the Bethesda morgue. If they had been allowed to do that, they would
have come to different conclusions than what they read in the Autopsy
Report (AR). Among the tricks worked on the medical panels, were drawings
by Ida Dox that were exact copies of photos from the autopsy that had been
altered. One even had a bullet hole drawn on the back of the head of JFK,
but the original photo it came from had no such wound. This is the kind
of thing that was used to manipulate the findings of the panels. It was
for suckers.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
another foolish guess. If the head is in the right position, a bullet
can enter the right forehead and travel to the BOH and blow it out as
happened in this case. Choosing the GK as the location just helps make it
more foolish, since the angles don't work from that point for the bullet
hole in the right forehead/temple area.
It's always amusing when you share your alternative reality with the rest
of us. Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to reside.
WRONG! I had a feeling you wouldn't understand and couldn't picture
the path. So you come up with a wise crack to cover up.
When you are able to diagram that bullet path, let us know. Until then we
can just laugh it off.
mainframetech
2017-05-22 04:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
Since the Z-film was proven to have been altered, many LNs can't
reconcile the fact that it can't be used to determine much of anything at
the time around the frame 313 where the most alteration occurred.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics.
That's our in-house 'expert' speaking. Now pretending his knowledge of
these things is the best.
Post by bigdog
EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
The foolishness shown in the previous sentences points up the failure
to recognize that the medical 'experts' were misled from the beginning.
They had NO opportunity to see inside the body at the autopsy, as the
autopsy team did, and they had NO opportunity to interview the men working
in the Bethesda morgue. If they had been allowed to do that, they would
have come to different conclusions than what they read in the Autopsy
Report (AR). Among the tricks worked on the medical panels, were drawings
by Ida Dox that were exact copies of photos from the autopsy that had been
altered. One even had a bullet hole drawn on the back of the head of JFK,
but the original photo it came from had no such wound. This is the kind
of thing that was used to manipulate the findings of the panels. It was
for suckers.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
another foolish guess. If the head is in the right position, a bullet
can enter the right forehead and travel to the BOH and blow it out as
happened in this case. Choosing the GK as the location just helps make it
more foolish, since the angles don't work from that point for the bullet
hole in the right forehead/temple area.
It's always amusing when you share your alternative reality with the rest
of us. Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to reside.
WRONG! I had a feeling you wouldn't understand and couldn't picture
the path. So you come up with a wise crack to cover up.
When you are able to diagram that bullet path, let us know. Until then we
can just laugh it off.
Any excuse to dismiss evidence. I guess you can't picture it, so you
have to get away from it somehow.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 02:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
Since the Z-film was proven to have been altered, many LNs can't
reconcile the fact that it can't be used to determine much of anything at
the time around the frame 313 where the most alteration occurred.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics.
That's our in-house 'expert' speaking. Now pretending his knowledge of
these things is the best.
Post by bigdog
EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
The foolishness shown in the previous sentences points up the failure
to recognize that the medical 'experts' were misled from the beginning.
They had NO opportunity to see inside the body at the autopsy, as the
autopsy team did, and they had NO opportunity to interview the men working
in the Bethesda morgue. If they had been allowed to do that, they would
have come to different conclusions than what they read in the Autopsy
Report (AR). Among the tricks worked on the medical panels, were drawings
by Ida Dox that were exact copies of photos from the autopsy that had been
altered. One even had a bullet hole drawn on the back of the head of JFK,
but the original photo it came from had no such wound. This is the kind
of thing that was used to manipulate the findings of the panels. It was
for suckers.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
another foolish guess. If the head is in the right position, a bullet
can enter the right forehead and travel to the BOH and blow it out as
happened in this case. Choosing the GK as the location just helps make it
more foolish, since the angles don't work from that point for the bullet
hole in the right forehead/temple area.
It's always amusing when you share your alternative reality with the rest
of us. Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to reside.
WRONG! I had a feeling you wouldn't understand and couldn't picture
the path. So you come up with a wise crack to cover up.
When you are able to diagram that bullet path, let us know. Until then we
can just laugh it off.
Any excuse to dismiss evidence. I guess you can't picture it, so you
have to get away from it somehow.
No, that's what YOU do. If you don't like the evidence, you call it fake.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
El Tiante
2017-05-22 04:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
Since the Z-film was proven to have been altered, many LNs can't
reconcile the fact that it can't be used to determine much of anything at
the time around the frame 313 where the most alteration occurred.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics.
That's our in-house 'expert' speaking. Now pretending his knowledge of
these things is the best.
Post by bigdog
EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
The foolishness shown in the previous sentences points up the failure
to recognize that the medical 'experts' were misled from the beginning.
They had NO opportunity to see inside the body at the autopsy, as the
autopsy team did, and they had NO opportunity to interview the men working
in the Bethesda morgue. If they had been allowed to do that, they would
have come to different conclusions than what they read in the Autopsy
Report (AR). Among the tricks worked on the medical panels, were drawings
by Ida Dox that were exact copies of photos from the autopsy that had been
altered. One even had a bullet hole drawn on the back of the head of JFK,
but the original photo it came from had no such wound. This is the kind
of thing that was used to manipulate the findings of the panels. It was
for suckers.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
another foolish guess. If the head is in the right position, a bullet
can enter the right forehead and travel to the BOH and blow it out as
happened in this case. Choosing the GK as the location just helps make it
more foolish, since the angles don't work from that point for the bullet
hole in the right forehead/temple area.
Chris
What if it was a frangible bullet, Chris?
mainframetech
2017-05-22 21:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
Since the Z-film was proven to have been altered, many LNs can't
reconcile the fact that it can't be used to determine much of anything at
the time around the frame 313 where the most alteration occurred.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics.
That's our in-house 'expert' speaking. Now pretending his knowledge of
these things is the best.
Post by bigdog
EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
Of course, what he doesn't tell you, is that they fed certain evidence
to the medical panels, and got rid of others. There are missing X-rays
and photos stated by both X-ray Technicians and photographers that took
the films and saw that they were gone from the resultant sets. The key
info in the autopsy was seen by looking into the body at the time when the
organs were removed, but those photos can't be there, since since the
panels would have concluded something different if they had been allowed
to see those photos.
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
The foolishness shown in the previous sentences points up the failure
to recognize that the medical 'experts' were misled from the beginning.
They had NO opportunity to see inside the body at the autopsy, as the
autopsy team did, and they had NO opportunity to interview the men working
in the Bethesda morgue. If they had been allowed to do that, they would
have come to different conclusions than what they read in the Autopsy
Report (AR). Among the tricks worked on the medical panels, were drawings
by Ida Dox that were exact copies of photos from the autopsy that had been
altered. One even had a bullet hole drawn on the back of the head of JFK,
but the original photo it came from had no such wound. This is the kind
of thing that was used to manipulate the findings of the panels. It was
for suckers.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
another foolish guess. If the head is in the right position, a bullet
can enter the right forehead and travel to the BOH and blow it out as
happened in this case. Choosing the GK as the location just helps make it
more foolish, since the angles don't work from that point for the bullet
hole in the right forehead/temple area.
Chris
What if it was a frangible bullet, Chris?
That is certainly a possibility. The skull X-rays show a path of fine
particles from the entry point on the right forehead to the rear where the
blowout occurred. But that path has also been pointed to as if it were
from a bullet that struck from the BOH. I believe the evidence does not
show ANY wound in the BOH. Here's an example of the kind of fakery that
was done on the medical panels. They were shown a drawing in at least one
instance, where you see the BOH without the blowout, and with a bullet
hole just to the right of a ruler. Supposedly the family didn't want
anyone to look at the real photos of the body, so they did drawings:

Loading Image...

The drawing is by Ida Dox, and was from the original photo. Se the
bullet hole? Now look at the photo that came from:

Loading Image...

Notice there is NO bullet hole, and there is only a faint red spot that
Humes was asked about and he said it was nothing and didn't matter. The
drawing as shown to the medical panels, so promptly concluded that the AR
was right, when it said bullets from above and behind hit the BOH.

here are many other shocking things, but I'll save them for whether
you're interested.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 02:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
Since the Z-film was proven to have been altered, many LNs can't
reconcile the fact that it can't be used to determine much of anything at
the time around the frame 313 where the most alteration occurred.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics.
That's our in-house 'expert' speaking. Now pretending his knowledge of
these things is the best.
Post by bigdog
EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
The foolishness shown in the previous sentences points up the failure
to recognize that the medical 'experts' were misled from the beginning.
They had NO opportunity to see inside the body at the autopsy, as the
autopsy team did, and they had NO opportunity to interview the men working
in the Bethesda morgue. If they had been allowed to do that, they would
have come to different conclusions than what they read in the Autopsy
Report (AR). Among the tricks worked on the medical panels, were drawings
by Ida Dox that were exact copies of photos from the autopsy that had been
altered. One even had a bullet hole drawn on the back of the head of JFK,
but the original photo it came from had no such wound. This is the kind
of thing that was used to manipulate the findings of the panels. It was
for suckers.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
another foolish guess. If the head is in the right position, a bullet
can enter the right forehead and travel to the BOH and blow it out as
happened in this case. Choosing the GK as the location just helps make it
more foolish, since the angles don't work from that point for the bullet
hole in the right forehead/temple area.
Chris
What if it was a frangible bullet, Chris?
That is one theory, but it still might have some fragments which could
exit. But they do not have to exit on the other side from the entrance.
And the entrance could not be on the SIDE of the head. Given the
dustlike size of the fragments I think it was an explosive bullet.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-20 19:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
You are being ridiculous. Did you just read the Itek Report? We are
talking about just after the shot. JJK was already moving forward BEFORE
the head shot. Just AFTER the head shot his whole body went back and to
the lefy. WC defenders have made a cottage industry out of trying to
explain why. Some think it's a neuromuscular spasm. Others think it is the
Jet Effect. Others think it was caused by his back brace. Others think
Jackie was trying to pull him back out harm's way. SHow me your for your
"several inches" or stop making up crap.
Post by bigdog
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
You mean like Garrison described.
Post by bigdog
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
Maybe you don't have the Zapruder film so you can't see the motion. If
there is no motion, why would so many WC defenders try to explain it
away with competing theories? There would be no need for any Jet Effect.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling. The way one determines the direction of a gun
Something like that.
Post by bigdog
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics. EVERY
No, silly.
YOU can't tell the difference.
Post by bigdog
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence
Wrong.
Sometimes honest people know more than the professional cover-up artists.

.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
Again, all you do is make up false information. James Brady was shot in
the forehead and there was no corresponding exit wound on the opposite
side of his head. Because there was no exit. Because it was an explosive
bullet. Maybe you never knew that there are such bullets.
Post by bigdog
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
But the TOP was blown out. So you'd have to claim that the bullet came
from the opposite side, from below.
El Tiante
2017-05-22 04:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
Nah. It's a highly entertaining fictionalized account of DA Jim Garrison
and his quest to find the real assassin. It's a Hollywood movie that had a
real impact though as it lead to the formation of the AARB, I believe
that's the story.
Post by bigdog
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
OK. I'll look again. Thanks for the tip.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling.
But it does not eliminate the possibility that motion follows the
principle of for every action there's an equall and opposite reaction.
Have you seen firing squads were the free standing target falls backward
when hit? I have. I've also seen films of Eintzzengruppen killing squads
firing into free standing and kneeling victims who fell in the opposite
direction of the shot when hit.
Post by bigdog
The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics. EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
But can the photos be trusted? Wouldn't it have been better to have had a
real autopsy performed by qualified doctors in forensic pathology? Weren't
Humes, Boswell and Fink ordered not to discuss the examination? This
smells a little rotten. Also, it would have helped a great deal if JFK's
brain had been around for later examination.
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
Parkland hospital doctors and a nurse gave testimony the wound was to the
back of the head so the shot could and most probably did come from in
front and to the right. Maybe JFK's head was positioned slightly to his
right when hit and the direction of penetration was to his right temple as
seen in the original video account showing a guy in JFK's staff pointing
to his right temple.
Caeruleo
2017-05-22 21:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
Nah. It's a highly entertaining fictionalized account of DA Jim Garrison
and his quest to find the real assassin. It's a Hollywood movie that had a
real impact though as it lead to the formation of the AARB, I believe
that's the story.
Yes, it sort of led to the formation of the AARB, although "JFK" alone did
not achieve that.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling.
But it does not eliminate the possibility that motion follows the
principle of for every action there's an equall and opposite reaction.
Have you seen firing squads were the free standing target falls backward
when hit? I have. I've also seen films of Eintzzengruppen killing squads
firing into free standing and kneeling victims who fell in the opposite
direction of the shot when hit.
Exactly. And it can often depend on which direction they were *already*
leaning or tilted at the instant the shot was fired, correct? And I've
seen multiple videos of people being shot in the head, and not once, not
even once, have I seen the person's head move *nearly* as far as JFK's
head does, *unless* the person's head was already tilted in that direction
to begin with. The movement I typically see in such videos is a very
short jerk in the direction the bullet was traveling, nothing at all like
the far larger, and longer-lasting, "back and to the left" motion of JFK's
head.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics. EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
But can the photos be trusted? Wouldn't it have been better to have had a
real autopsy performed by qualified doctors in forensic pathology? Weren't
Humes, Boswell and Fink ordered not to discuss the examination? This
smells a little rotten.
Did it ever occur to you that the Kennedy family themselves didn't want
them to discuss the "examination," as you call it? Or are you going to
make the silly claim that one of the most powerful political families in
all United States history "could not even maybe" have had any influence on
that?
Post by El Tiante
Also, it would have helped a great deal if JFK's
brain had been around for later examination.
While I won't claim it to be "proven" in any irrefutable sense, there is
at least some evidence to the effect that Robert Kennedy himself was
responsible for the brain "disappearing."
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
Parkland hospital doctors and a nurse gave testimony the wound was to the
back of the head so the shot could and most probably did come from in
front and to the right.
That is so extremely wrong. The people at Parkland merely saw the
rearmost portion of the overall damage to his skull. Not one of them, not
one, peeled back his hair and scalp to expose the *complete* damage to his
skull.
Post by El Tiante
Maybe JFK's head was positioned slightly to his
right when hit
He was leaning quite far to his *left* when hit in the head. Not only was
his torso tilted far to the left, his head was tilted to the left also.
This is quite obvious from multiple films and photographs.
Post by El Tiante
and the direction of penetration was to his right temple as
seen in the original video account showing a guy in JFK's staff pointing
to his right temple.
So the bullet exited in the same direction from which it entered?

Jeez, talk about a "magic" bullet. It enters the right side of his head,
then turns around and blasts out of the right side of his head, causing
all that exit damage. What was the name of the bullet and the name of the
gun that did this?

You people almost never bother to mention that if the bullet entered the
right side of his head, the majority of the exit damage would have been on
the left side of his head. It should have been Jean Hill, Mary Moorman,
and others on the south side of Elm who would have seen the left side of
JFK's head explode *toward* them. Zapruder's camera would have thus
captured practically no damage to the right side of his head.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 11:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
Nah. It's a highly entertaining fictionalized account of DA Jim Garrison
and his quest to find the real assassin. It's a Hollywood movie that had a
real impact though as it lead to the formation of the AARB, I believe
that's the story.
Yes, it sort of led to the formation of the AARB, although "JFK" alone did
not achieve that.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling.
But it does not eliminate the possibility that motion follows the
principle of for every action there's an equall and opposite reaction.
Have you seen firing squads were the free standing target falls backward
when hit? I have. I've also seen films of Eintzzengruppen killing squads
firing into free standing and kneeling victims who fell in the opposite
direction of the shot when hit.
Exactly. And it can often depend on which direction they were *already*
leaning or tilted at the instant the shot was fired, correct? And I've
seen multiple videos of people being shot in the head, and not once, not
even once, have I seen the person's head move *nearly* as far as JFK's
head does, *unless* the person's head was already tilted in that direction
to begin with. The movement I typically see in such videos is a very
short jerk in the direction the bullet was traveling, nothing at all like
the far larger, and longer-lasting, "back and to the left" motion of JFK's
head.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics. EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
But can the photos be trusted? Wouldn't it have been better to have had a
real autopsy performed by qualified doctors in forensic pathology? Weren't
Humes, Boswell and Fink ordered not to discuss the examination? This
smells a little rotten.
Did it ever occur to you that the Kennedy family themselves didn't want
them to discuss the "examination," as you call it? Or are you going to
make the silly claim that one of the most powerful political families in
all United States history "could not even maybe" have had any influence on
that?
Post by El Tiante
Also, it would have helped a great deal if JFK's
brain had been around for later examination.
While I won't claim it to be "proven" in any irrefutable sense, there is
at least some evidence to the effect that Robert Kennedy himself was
responsible for the brain "disappearing."
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
Parkland hospital doctors and a nurse gave testimony the wound was to the
back of the head so the shot could and most probably did come from in
front and to the right.
That is so extremely wrong. The people at Parkland merely saw the
rearmost portion of the overall damage to his skull. Not one of them, not
one, peeled back his hair and scalp to expose the *complete* damage to his
skull.
Post by El Tiante
Maybe JFK's head was positioned slightly to his
right when hit
He was leaning quite far to his *left* when hit in the head. Not only was
his torso tilted far to the left, his head was tilted to the left also.
This is quite obvious from multiple films and photographs.
Post by El Tiante
and the direction of penetration was to his right temple as
seen in the original video account showing a guy in JFK's staff pointing
to his right temple.
So the bullet exited in the same direction from which it entered?
Jeez, talk about a "magic" bullet. It enters the right side of his head,
then turns around and blasts out of the right side of his head, causing
all that exit damage. What was the name of the bullet and the name of the
gun that did this?
You people almost never bother to mention that if the bullet entered the
right side of his head, the majority of the exit damage would have been on
the left side of his head. It should have been Jean Hill, Mary Moorman,
That makes no sense. You know nothing about bullets. This bullet broke
up into dozens of tiny fragments.
James Brady was hit by an explosive bullet which did not exit on the
opposite side of the head.
Post by Caeruleo
and others on the south side of Elm who would have seen the left side of
JFK's head explode *toward* them. Zapruder's camera would have thus
captured practically no damage to the right side of his head.
No, silly.
mainframetech
2017-05-22 21:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
Nah. It's a highly entertaining fictionalized account of DA Jim Garrison
and his quest to find the real assassin. It's a Hollywood movie that had a
real impact though as it lead to the formation of the AARB, I believe
that's the story.
Post by bigdog
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
OK. I'll look again. Thanks for the tip.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling.
But it does not eliminate the possibility that motion follows the
principle of for every action there's an equall and opposite reaction.
Have you seen firing squads were the free standing target falls backward
when hit? I have. I've also seen films of Eintzzengruppen killing squads
firing into free standing and kneeling victims who fell in the opposite
direction of the shot when hit.
Post by bigdog
The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics. EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
But can the photos be trusted? Wouldn't it have been better to have had a
real autopsy performed by qualified doctors in forensic pathology? Weren't
Humes, Boswell and Fink ordered not to discuss the examination? This
smells a little rotten. Also, it would have helped a great deal if JFK's
brain had been around for later examination.
Humes and Boswell were pathologists, but not very experienced. Humes
called in Finck, who was very experienced, including bullet wounds. All
of the prosectors were ordered to give an incorrect Autopsy Report (AR),
which I've proven, but many here will argue with.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
True as far as it goes. A shot could be fired and hit the right
forehead and go through the skull and blow out the BOH slightly on the
right side though, if the shooter were more forward of the limousine.
and there were a couple of positions that might fill that need. There is
no doubt that you can see a bullet hole in the right forehead/temple area
on JFK in the 'stare-of-death' photo. You just have to ENLARGE the photo
and look just under the hair hanging down. Here's the photo:

Loading Image...

Let me know what you see please.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-23 02:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
Nah. It's a highly entertaining fictionalized account of DA Jim Garrison
and his quest to find the real assassin. It's a Hollywood movie that had a
real impact though as it lead to the formation of the AARB, I believe
that's the story.
Post by bigdog
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
OK. I'll look again. Thanks for the tip.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling.
But it does not eliminate the possibility that motion follows the
principle of for every action there's an equall and opposite reaction.
Have you seen firing squads were the free standing target falls backward
when hit? I have. I've also seen films of Eintzzengruppen killing squads
firing into free standing and kneeling victims who fell in the opposite
direction of the shot when hit.
I'm sure you can find examples of a shooting victim falling away from the
shooter but there are also examples of a victim falling toward the
shooter, laterally to the shooter and in some they just drop straight
down. The point is the direction of the fall is not an indicator of the
direction of the shot. That's why forensic medicine is used to determine
that and that leaves no doubt that JFK was shot from behind. There is no
medical evidence of a shot from any other direction and I can guarantee
you that you won't find a qualified medical examiner who believes there
was. The medical evidence is cut and dried.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics. EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
But can the photos be trusted? Wouldn't it have been better to have had a
real autopsy performed by qualified doctors in forensic pathology? Weren't
Humes, Boswell and Fink ordered not to discuss the examination? This
smells a little rotten. Also, it would have helped a great deal if JFK's
brain had been around for later examination.
Of course it would have been better to have an experience medical examiner
conduct the autopsy but that was a mistake made by someone in an extremely
stressful situation that we can't undo. We have to make the best of it and
still determine the truth. Fortunately despite the flaws in the autopsy
enough good evidence was gathered to convince several panels of some of
the top medical examiners in the country that JFK was shot twice from
behind. The photos and x-rays showed the review panels what the original
autopsy team saw. If you aren't willing to trust those materials, there
really isn't much to go on. You can do like some on this forum and make up
a story you would rather believe in lieu of any evidence, but if you want
to follow the evidence to a logical conclusion, the only conclusion is
that JFK was shot twice from behind.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
Parkland hospital doctors and a nurse gave testimony the wound was to the
back of the head so the shot could and most probably did come from in
front and to the right.
The wound was disguised because Jackie closed most of the flaps of skull
on the way to Parkland to try to keep his brains inside his head. What she
couldn't close was the hole left by the Harper fragment which was blown
completely away and found later. This gave the impression that the blowout
was confined to the back of the head. In reality that was just the rear
tip of a much bigger blowout. The two doctors who had the best look at the
head wound realized how massive it was an they were the ones who made the
call to declare JFK dead. They knew because of the massive blowout, there
was no chance for survival.
Post by El Tiante
Maybe JFK's head was positioned slightly to his
right when hit and the direction of penetration was to his right temple as
seen in the original video account showing a guy in JFK's staff pointing
to his right temple.
If JFK was turned at all, it was slightly to his left. A GK shooter would
have had roughly the same look as Zapruder. He would have seen the side of
JFK's head. There is no way a shot from that angle would hit JFK on the
front right and exit the back right. Not unless you are a believer in
magic bullets.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-24 00:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
Nah. It's a highly entertaining fictionalized account of DA Jim Garrison
and his quest to find the real assassin. It's a Hollywood movie that had a
real impact though as it lead to the formation of the AARB, I believe
that's the story.
Post by bigdog
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
OK. I'll look again. Thanks for the tip.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling.
But it does not eliminate the possibility that motion follows the
principle of for every action there's an equall and opposite reaction.
Have you seen firing squads were the free standing target falls backward
when hit? I have. I've also seen films of Eintzzengruppen killing squads
firing into free standing and kneeling victims who fell in the opposite
direction of the shot when hit.
I'm sure you can find examples of a shooting victim falling away from the
shooter but there are also examples of a victim falling toward the
shooter, laterally to the shooter and in some they just drop straight
down. The point is the direction of the fall is not an indicator of the
direction of the shot. That's why forensic medicine is used to determine
that and that leaves no doubt that JFK was shot from behind. There is no
medical evidence of a shot from any other direction and I can guarantee
you that you won't find a qualified medical examiner who believes there
was. The medical evidence is cut and dried.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics. EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
But can the photos be trusted? Wouldn't it have been better to have had a
real autopsy performed by qualified doctors in forensic pathology? Weren't
Humes, Boswell and Fink ordered not to discuss the examination? This
smells a little rotten. Also, it would have helped a great deal if JFK's
brain had been around for later examination.
Of course it would have been better to have an experience medical examiner
conduct the autopsy but that was a mistake made by someone in an extremely
stressful situation that we can't undo. We have to make the best of it and
still determine the truth. Fortunately despite the flaws in the autopsy
enough good evidence was gathered to convince several panels of some of
the top medical examiners in the country that JFK was shot twice from
behind. The photos and x-rays showed the review panels what the original
autopsy team saw. If you aren't willing to trust those materials, there
really isn't much to go on. You can do like some on this forum and make up
a story you would rather believe in lieu of any evidence, but if you want
to follow the evidence to a logical conclusion, the only conclusion is
that JFK was shot twice from behind.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
Parkland hospital doctors and a nurse gave testimony the wound was to the
back of the head so the shot could and most probably did come from in
front and to the right.
The wound was disguised because Jackie closed most of the flaps of skull
on the way to Parkland to try to keep his brains inside his head. What she
couldn't close was the hole left by the Harper fragment which was blown
completely away and found later. This gave the impression that the blowout
was confined to the back of the head. In reality that was just the rear
Close, but actually the Harper fragment did not come from the back of the
head. The X-rays show all of the skullbones present in the back of the
head.
Post by bigdog
tip of a much bigger blowout. The two doctors who had the best look at the
head wound realized how massive it was an they were the ones who made the
call to declare JFK dead. They knew because of the massive blowout, there
was no chance for survival.
That, and no pulse. But even Reagan survived with no pulse and no brain.
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
Maybe JFK's head was positioned slightly to his
right when hit and the direction of penetration was to his right temple as
seen in the original video account showing a guy in JFK's staff pointing
to his right temple.
If JFK was turned at all, it was slightly to his left. A GK shooter would
have had roughly the same look as Zapruder. He would have seen the side of
JFK's head. There is no way a shot from that angle would hit JFK on the
front right and exit the back right. Not unless you are a believer in
magic bullets.
mainframetech
2017-05-25 12:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
Nah. It's a highly entertaining fictionalized account of DA Jim Garrison
and his quest to find the real assassin. It's a Hollywood movie that had a
real impact though as it lead to the formation of the AARB, I believe
that's the story.
Post by bigdog
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
OK. I'll look again. Thanks for the tip.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling.
But it does not eliminate the possibility that motion follows the
principle of for every action there's an equall and opposite reaction.
Have you seen firing squads were the free standing target falls backward
when hit? I have. I've also seen films of Eintzzengruppen killing squads
firing into free standing and kneeling victims who fell in the opposite
direction of the shot when hit.
I'm sure you can find examples of a shooting victim falling away from the
shooter but there are also examples of a victim falling toward the
shooter, laterally to the shooter and in some they just drop straight
down. The point is the direction of the fall is not an indicator of the
direction of the shot. That's why forensic medicine is used to determine
that and that leaves no doubt that JFK was shot from behind. There is no
medical evidence of a shot from any other direction and I can guarantee
you that you won't find a qualified medical examiner who believes there
was. The medical evidence is cut and dried.
WRONG! The kill shot came from in front. A lot was done to fool
folks into thinking that the shot came from behind, and they had to do
that, because the 'patsy' was in the TSBD building above and behind the
target. It was critical that there be NO other shooter but Oswald, so
that the plotters could go on about their lives with no looking over their
shoulders. All through the case you will see that the 'lone nut' scenario
is protected. And the medical evidence is knocked into a cocked hat when
you see the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area of JFK. To see that,
look at the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look under the
hair hanging down and you will see the kill shot. If a rifle bullet went
in there, it would pass through the skull and BLOW OUT the BOH of JFK, and
over 39 witnesses saw a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics. EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
But can the photos be trusted? Wouldn't it have been better to have had a
real autopsy performed by qualified doctors in forensic pathology? Weren't
Humes, Boswell and Fink ordered not to discuss the examination? This
smells a little rotten. Also, it would have helped a great deal if JFK's
brain had been around for later examination.
There is no doubt that the Autopsy Report (AR) was falsified. By
going through the autopsy statements of all the autopsy team, you find
that Humes at the end went home and wrote up an AR that was completely
different from what they ALL learned at the autopsy. Details with cites
and links on request.
Post by bigdog
Of course it would have been better to have an experience medical examiner
conduct the autopsy but that was a mistake made by someone in an extremely
stressful situation that we can't undo. We have to make the best of it and
still determine the truth.
It was the intention of the plotters to have the autopsy done at a
military hospital so that orders could be given that would be
followed...and that's what happened. That's why they took such chances
stealing the body from Parkland hospital and taking the limo too, and
flying them to Washington.
Post by bigdog
Fortunately despite the flaws in the autopsy
enough good evidence was gathered to convince several panels of some of
the top medical examiners in the country that JFK was shot twice from
behind. The photos and x-rays showed the review panels what the original
autopsy team saw. If you aren't willing to trust those materials, there
really isn't much to go on. You can do like some on this forum and make up
a story you would rather believe in lieu of any evidence, but if you want
to follow the evidence to a logical conclusion, the only conclusion is
that JFK was shot twice from behind.
WRONG! There are other conclusions, and they can be proved. Seeing
the bullet hole in the forehead of JFK tells much of the truth and gets
away from the phony LN stories they want you to believe. As well, se
statements of the various autopsy team members tell a different tale than
the AR, which was ordered to be followed by the prosectors.
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
Parkland hospital doctors and a nurse gave testimony the wound was to the
back of the head so the shot could and most probably did come from in
front and to the right.
The wound was disguised because Jackie closed most of the flaps of skull
on the way to Parkland to try to keep his brains inside his head. What she
couldn't close was the hole left by the Harper fragment which was blown
completely away and found later. This gave the impression that the blowout
was confined to the back of the head. In reality that was just the rear
tip of a much bigger blowout. The two doctors who had the best look at the
head wound realized how massive it was an they were the ones who made the
call to declare JFK dead. They knew because of the massive blowout, there
was no chance for survival.
That is one of the phony stories the LNs will try to get you to
believe. But when the body was leaving Parkland hospital, a nurse Diana
Bowron and another nurse with her washed the head and body and washed the
hair of some of the blood. I know from personal experience that handling
a head with a skull broken in pieces is recognizable immediately. You can
feel all the parts of the skull moving in wrong directions. The nurse
noticed nothing untoward except the large hole in the BOH. You will find
that there was only one major wound at the BOH at Parkland hospital, and
when the body is described at Bethesda, it suddenly had a wound that went
from the BOH around the right side and some of the top of the head. I can
show when that happened, details on request. The main thing is that
Jackie didn't spend her time closing up flaps on JFK's skull.
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
Maybe JFK's head was positioned slightly to his
right when hit and the direction of penetration was to his right temple as
seen in the original video account showing a guy in JFK's staff pointing
to his right temple.
If JFK was turned at all, it was slightly to his left. A GK shooter would
have had roughly the same look as Zapruder. He would have seen the side of
JFK's head. There is no way a shot from that angle would hit JFK on the
front right and exit the back right. Not unless you are a believer in
magic bullets.
The shooter that got in the kill shot had t be located more to the
left than the GK.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 02:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
Let me guess. You just watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK for the first time
and thought it was a factual account of the assassination. Hint: It
wasn't.
Nah. It's a highly entertaining fictionalized account of DA Jim Garrison
and his quest to find the real assassin. It's a Hollywood movie that had a
real impact though as it lead to the formation of the AARB, I believe
that's the story.
Post by bigdog
For starters JFK did not go back and to the left. When the shot hit his
head was driven forward several inches. We know this by comparing the
frame in which his head explode to the previous frame. His secondary
motion wasn't back and to the left like the movie described. JFK was
leaning left at the time of the impact so when he lurched backward
following the initial forward movement, it created the illusion he went
back and to the left. If you look closely at where JFK is when his back
hits the seatback of the limo you will see he is still in the right hand
corner. He has not moved left at all.
OK. I'll look again. Thanks for the tip.
Post by bigdog
The direction shooting victims fall is not predicated on which direction
the bullet is travelling.
But it does not eliminate the possibility that motion follows the
principle of for every action there's an equall and opposite reaction.
Have you seen firing squads were the free standing target falls backward
when hit? I have. I've also seen films of Eintzzengruppen killing squads
firing into free standing and kneeling victims who fell in the opposite
direction of the shot when hit.
Maybe you haven't been around to hear the WC defenders claim it was the
Jet Effect. A couple of them still believe it. So just for them I point
out that when there is a firing squad they have to tie the victim to a
post so that he doesn't go flying back at the shooters.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
The way one determines the direction of a gun
shot is to examine the wounds in the body and determine which are entrance
wounds and which are exit wounds. Each has unique characteristics. EVERY
medical examiner who has looked at the photos and x-rays from the autopsy
has concluded without a doubt that JFK was struck twice from behind, once
it the back and once in the back of the head. Not a single dissenting
opinion on that. It's is only amateur sleuths who think they know more
than people whose lives are devoted to the practice of forensic medicine
who think the medical evidence shows something other than what has been
concluded by every qualified person who has reviewed the medical
evidence.
But can the photos be trusted? Wouldn't it have been better to have had a
Yes, which ones? You may never see the couple of fakes. The only ones
you can see now are genuine.
Post by El Tiante
real autopsy performed by qualified doctors in forensic pathology? Weren't
No, you can't have that. It might start WWIII.

To avoid that problem I came up with a solution for the WC defenders. That
JFK was shot in the forehead by a shot from behind. After all, the CIA had
the excuse that that throat wound in the neck happened when JFK turned his
head to look back. So my hoax is that on the last shot the bullet just
barely missed JFK's head and hit the chrome topping causing it to ricochet
and hit JFK in the forehead.
Post by El Tiante
Humes, Boswell and Fink ordered not to discuss the examination? This
smells a little rotten. Also, it would have helped a great deal if JFK's
brain had been around for later examination.
Do you know what was in the original autopsy report that Humes had to
destroy by burning it in his fireplace? Maybe it suggested conspiracy.
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Lastly, if a bullet fired from the GK had actually struck JFK in the right
side of his head, the blowout would have been on the left side of the
head, not the upper right side. Although the entire skull was fractured,
there were no wounds of any kind on the left side of JFK's head and the
left hemisphere of his brain was largely intact.
Parkland hospital doctors and a nurse gave testimony the wound was to the
back of the head so the shot could and most probably did come from in
No, they didn't. Top of the head. So therefore you think the bullet had
to come from below? Do you understand what a tangential wound is?
That is how it was described. The entrance and exit are on the same side.
Post by El Tiante
front and to the right. Maybe JFK's head was positioned slightly to his
right when hit and the direction of penetration was to his right temple as
No. the Zapruder film shows his head tilted down and to his left.
Post by El Tiante
seen in the original video account showing a guy in JFK's staff pointing
to his right temple.
Not exactly. Kilduff was not a doctor and may have been going only on what
someone told him. But he naturally used his right hand to point his right
index finger at his forehead. He was off about an inch.

Loading Image...

BTW, we have one kook here who doesn't know the difference between the
TEMPLE and the FOREHEAD, and keeps conflating the terms. He keeps trying
to put his shoes on his hands and his gloves on his feet.
mainframetech
2017-05-18 18:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.

The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.

As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.

Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-19 17:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
mainframetech
2017-05-20 14:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-21 03:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
It won't convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist who will deny Oswald's
guilt no matter how much evidence is presented. However any sensible
person who looks at the evidence objectively will have no doubts that
Oswald was the assassin. As the late Vince Bugliosi observed, anyone who
believes Oswald was innocent either isn't familiar with the evidence or is
just a very silly person. Which camp do you fall in?
mainframetech
2017-05-22 04:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
It won't convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist who will deny Oswald's
guilt no matter how much evidence is presented. However any sensible
person who looks at the evidence objectively will have no doubts that
Oswald was the assassin. As the late Vince Bugliosi observed, anyone who
believes Oswald was innocent either isn't familiar with the evidence or is
just a very silly person. Which camp do you fall in?
It's a typical lawyer's trick to offer only 2 possibilities, when in
reality many decisions have many possibilities, and this is one of those
times. I've given evidence that says Oswald isn't guilty, whether it's
enough for a court or not. I've given evidence that shows that the MC
bullets did not hit or hurt anyone. From you I've neither seen nor heard
a word of solid proof that ANY MC bullet hit or hurt anyone. Want to try
for the first time to do that? Or are you gong to try and rest on your
opinions?

Chris
El Tiante
2017-05-22 04:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
It won't convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist who will deny Oswald's
guilt no matter how much evidence is presented. However any sensible
person who looks at the evidence objectively will have no doubts that
Oswald was the assassin. As the late Vince Bugliosi observed, anyone who
believes Oswald was innocent either isn't familiar with the evidence or is
just a very silly person. Which camp do you fall in?
I can't make a firm opinion yet on what LHO is innocent off and guilty
off. I'm fairly certain that LHO was involved and think it's possible,
even probable he was shooting from the 6th floor sniper nest. I'm also 95%
certain there was another shooter in the GK area based on scientific
studies and witness evidence. I'm 95% sure his fleeing the TSBD and
getting a gun from his room and then getting caught at the movie theater
with a gun trying to resist arrest makes him guilty of being involved in
some way with the shooting on Elm St. and 85% sure LHO shot Tippit. BTW,
why should there be an either or camp?
mainframetech
2017-05-22 21:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
It won't convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist who will deny Oswald's
guilt no matter how much evidence is presented. However any sensible
person who looks at the evidence objectively will have no doubts that
Oswald was the assassin. As the late Vince Bugliosi observed, anyone who
believes Oswald was innocent either isn't familiar with the evidence or is
just a very silly person. Which camp do you fall in?
I can't make a firm opinion yet on what LHO is innocent off and guilty
off. I'm fairly certain that LHO was involved and think it's possible,
even probable he was shooting from the 6th floor sniper nest. I'm also 95%
certain there was another shooter in the GK area based on scientific
studies and witness evidence. I'm 95% sure his fleeing the TSBD and
getting a gun from his room and then getting caught at the movie theater
with a gun trying to resist arrest makes him guilty of being involved in
some way with the shooting on Elm St. and 85% sure LHO shot Tippit. BTW,
why should there be an either or camp?
Along with the book I recommended above, there is another I would
recommend, which is very interesting. It is a diary of a man that was
connected with the Mafia and the CIA and similar groups. He was
supposedly in a bar with Mac Wallace, who was a heavy boozer. While
drunk, Wallace gave this fellow the names of everyone involved that were
on shooting 'teams', and it was a long list. 24 in all. He also had
Oswald present, but not shooting.

If true, then Oswald saw the cop come into the TSBD and put a gun to
him until his boss said he was OK, and he figured out that someone was
going to find his rifle and blame him for the murder of JFK. He decided
to get out while he still could, and probably wanted to go to talk with
the person that got him involved in the first place. Then the Tippit
situation occurred. I believe like you that that situation is not yet
resolved, and there is more to learn there.

Chris
El Tiante
2017-05-29 13:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
It won't convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist who will deny Oswald's
guilt no matter how much evidence is presented. However any sensible
person who looks at the evidence objectively will have no doubts that
Oswald was the assassin. As the late Vince Bugliosi observed, anyone who
believes Oswald was innocent either isn't familiar with the evidence or is
just a very silly person. Which camp do you fall in?
I can't make a firm opinion yet on what LHO is innocent off and guilty
off. I'm fairly certain that LHO was involved and think it's possible,
even probable he was shooting from the 6th floor sniper nest. I'm also 95%
certain there was another shooter in the GK area based on scientific
studies and witness evidence. I'm 95% sure his fleeing the TSBD and
getting a gun from his room and then getting caught at the movie theater
with a gun trying to resist arrest makes him guilty of being involved in
some way with the shooting on Elm St. and 85% sure LHO shot Tippit. BTW,
why should there be an either or camp?
Along with the book I recommended above, there is another I would
recommend, which is very interesting. It is a diary of a man that was
connected with the Mafia and the CIA and similar groups. He was
supposedly in a bar with Mac Wallace, who was a heavy boozer. While
drunk, Wallace gave this fellow the names of everyone involved that were
on shooting 'teams', and it was a long list. 24 in all. He also had
Oswald present, but not shooting.
If true, then Oswald saw the cop come into the TSBD and put a gun to
him until his boss said he was OK, and he figured out that someone was
going to find his rifle and blame him for the murder of JFK. He decided
to get out while he still could, and probably wanted to go to talk with
the person that got him involved in the first place. Then the Tippit
situation occurred. I believe like you that that situation is not yet
resolved, and there is more to learn there.
Chris
By any chance is this book The Men that Don't fit in by Roderick A.
MacKenkie III?
bigdog
2017-05-23 02:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
It won't convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist who will deny Oswald's
guilt no matter how much evidence is presented. However any sensible
person who looks at the evidence objectively will have no doubts that
Oswald was the assassin. As the late Vince Bugliosi observed, anyone who
believes Oswald was innocent either isn't familiar with the evidence or is
just a very silly person. Which camp do you fall in?
I can't make a firm opinion yet on what LHO is innocent off and guilty
off. I'm fairly certain that LHO was involved and think it's possible,
even probable he was shooting from the 6th floor sniper nest. I'm also 95%
certain there was another shooter in the GK area based on scientific
studies and witness evidence. I'm 95% sure his fleeing the TSBD and
getting a gun from his room and then getting caught at the movie theater
with a gun trying to resist arrest makes him guilty of being involved in
some way with the shooting on Elm St. and 85% sure LHO shot Tippit. BTW,
why should there be an either or camp?
The fact that you are willing to accept Oswald might be guilty puts you
way ahead of many longtime conspiracy hobbyists who will reject any and
all evidence of his guilt. That means there is hope that you will someday
come to learn the truth. If you can find credible evidence of a shot from
the GK, you will be the first person in 53 years to have done so. Good
luck.

There is no either/or. Oswald shot both JFK and JDT. That is what the
evidence clearly indicates. There is zero evidence he had accomplices in
either crime. If you learn how much evidence there is of Oswald's guilt
and look at the evidence objectively I have no doubt you will come to the
same conclusion. If you want to continue to fool yourself into believing
that somebody else took part in the crime, I have no doubt you will be
able to do that as well.
mainframetech
2017-05-25 12:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
It won't convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist who will deny Oswald's
guilt no matter how much evidence is presented. However any sensible
person who looks at the evidence objectively will have no doubts that
Oswald was the assassin. As the late Vince Bugliosi observed, anyone who
believes Oswald was innocent either isn't familiar with the evidence or is
just a very silly person. Which camp do you fall in?
I can't make a firm opinion yet on what LHO is innocent off and guilty
off. I'm fairly certain that LHO was involved and think it's possible,
even probable he was shooting from the 6th floor sniper nest. I'm also 95%
certain there was another shooter in the GK area based on scientific
studies and witness evidence. I'm 95% sure his fleeing the TSBD and
getting a gun from his room and then getting caught at the movie theater
with a gun trying to resist arrest makes him guilty of being involved in
some way with the shooting on Elm St. and 85% sure LHO shot Tippit. BTW,
why should there be an either or camp?
The fact that you are willing to accept Oswald might be guilty puts you
way ahead of many longtime conspiracy hobbyists who will reject any and
all evidence of his guilt. That means there is hope that you will someday
come to learn the truth. If you can find credible evidence of a shot from
the GK, you will be the first person in 53 years to have done so. Good
luck.
There is no either/or. Oswald shot both JFK and JDT. That is what the
evidence clearly indicates. There is zero evidence he had accomplices in
either crime. If you learn how much evidence there is of Oswald's guilt
and look at the evidence objectively I have no doubt you will come to the
same conclusion. If you want to continue to fool yourself into believing
that somebody else took part in the crime, I have no doubt you will be
able to do that as well.
Of course, the evidence actually shows that Oswald didn't fire his MC
rifle, though he was partially involved (probably) in the shooting from
the TSBD. That rifle was not in any condition to be fired, particularly
rapidly. The MC rifle had a scope that was misaligned from a bad
mounting, and it also had a sticky bolt and a double pull trigger. It was
necessary to fire it out the window of the TSBD to implicate Oswald and
satisfy the forensics, but it wasn't necessary to hit the target. That
would be done by the many other shooters.

Watch carefully as the various LNs try to convince you that the WCR has
all the answers, and Oswald was a 'lone nut' that did the whole crime
himself alone.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-26 01:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
It won't convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist who will deny Oswald's
guilt no matter how much evidence is presented. However any sensible
person who looks at the evidence objectively will have no doubts that
Oswald was the assassin. As the late Vince Bugliosi observed, anyone who
believes Oswald was innocent either isn't familiar with the evidence or is
just a very silly person. Which camp do you fall in?
I can't make a firm opinion yet on what LHO is innocent off and guilty
off. I'm fairly certain that LHO was involved and think it's possible,
even probable he was shooting from the 6th floor sniper nest. I'm also 95%
certain there was another shooter in the GK area based on scientific
studies and witness evidence. I'm 95% sure his fleeing the TSBD and
getting a gun from his room and then getting caught at the movie theater
with a gun trying to resist arrest makes him guilty of being involved in
some way with the shooting on Elm St. and 85% sure LHO shot Tippit. BTW,
why should there be an either or camp?
The fact that you are willing to accept Oswald might be guilty puts you
way ahead of many longtime conspiracy hobbyists who will reject any and
all evidence of his guilt. That means there is hope that you will someday
come to learn the truth. If you can find credible evidence of a shot from
the GK, you will be the first person in 53 years to have done so. Good
luck.
There is no either/or. Oswald shot both JFK and JDT. That is what the
evidence clearly indicates. There is zero evidence he had accomplices in
either crime. If you learn how much evidence there is of Oswald's guilt
and look at the evidence objectively I have no doubt you will come to the
same conclusion. If you want to continue to fool yourself into believing
that somebody else took part in the crime, I have no doubt you will be
able to do that as well.
Of course, the evidence actually shows that Oswald didn't fire his MC
rifle, though he was partially involved (probably) in the shooting from
So, you believe the sabot theory? How did the 2 large fragments get into
the limo? Some hobo dropped them in at Parkland?
Post by mainframetech
the TSBD. That rifle was not in any condition to be fired, particularly
rapidly. The MC rifle had a scope that was misaligned from a bad
mounting, and it also had a sticky bolt and a double pull trigger. It was
necessary to fire it out the window of the TSBD to implicate Oswald and
satisfy the forensics, but it wasn't necessary to hit the target. That
would be done by the many other shooters.
Watch carefully as the various LNs try to convince you that the WCR has
all the answers, and Oswald was a 'lone nut' that did the whole crime
himself alone.
Chris
El Tiante
2017-05-22 04:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
Chris
OK, Chris. The evidence that someone was shooting from the sixth floor
window of the TSBD is pretty solid. If it wasn't LHO who was it, and how
did he get in there with a rifle and then leave?
mainframetech
2017-05-22 21:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
Chris
OK, Chris. The evidence that someone was shooting from the sixth floor
window of the TSBD is pretty solid. If it wasn't LHO who was it, and how
did he get in there with a rifle and then leave?
I recommend a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and
Sample. They interviewed an American Indian (Lawrence Loy Factor) who
said he was recruited by a guy name Mac Wallace to be a shooter in a
group. He was tested and about a year later he got a call and was taken
to Dallas with a small group that went into the TSBD through a loading
dock door and went up to the 6th floor. The group consisted of Mac
Wallace (in charge), Ruth Ann Martinez and Factor. Factor also said that
Oswald was with them too, but the authors believed he just said that to
spread the guilt around and of himself.

He said that the woman used a walkie-talkie and gave a signal when it
was time for many to shoot at JFK. This may have explained there being
heard only 3-4 shots. When that was done, they quickly left down the back
stairs and out the loading dock door. Factor used the Oswald rifle, and
Wallace had his own rifle with him.

It has been said that when some of the perpetrators get old enough they
will start telling the story, and in this case, Factor was near death.
He died shortly after they had their 3rd and last interview with him. He
knew he was going to die.

Is it the truth? I can say that it fits many other things with the
case. There were witnesses that said that there were 2 men on the 6th
floor with a gun, and that fits, since both Factor and Wallace had guns.

If you read it, make up your own mind.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-23 14:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
Chris
OK, Chris. The evidence that someone was shooting from the sixth floor
window of the TSBD is pretty solid. If it wasn't LHO who was it, and how
did he get in there with a rifle and then leave?
I recommend a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and
Sample.
I recommend you don't follow any of Chris's recommendations unless you
like pissing away your time and your money.
Post by mainframetech
They interviewed an American Indian (Lawrence Loy Factor) who
said he was recruited by a guy name Mac Wallace to be a shooter in a
group. He was tested and about a year later he got a call and was taken
to Dallas with a small group that went into the TSBD through a loading
dock door and went up to the 6th floor. The group consisted of Mac
Wallace (in charge), Ruth Ann Martinez and Factor. Factor also said that
Oswald was with them too, but the authors believed he just said that to
spread the guilt around and of himself.
This book is based on a story supposedly told to Collum and Sample by a
guy who was dead by the time the book was published and therefore couldn't
refute them. Chris puts a lot of faith in such authors who cite dead
people as their primary source.
Post by mainframetech
He said that the woman used a walkie-talkie and gave a signal when it
was time for many to shoot at JFK. This may have explained there being
heard only 3-4 shots. When that was done, they quickly left down the back
stairs and out the loading dock door. Factor used the Oswald rifle, and
Wallace had his own rifle with him.
It has been said that when some of the perpetrators get old enough they
will start telling the story, and in this case, Factor was near death.
He died shortly after they had their 3rd and last interview with him. He
knew he was going to die.
IOW, the authors waited until their source was dead to publish their
bullshit story.
Post by mainframetech
Is it the truth? I can say that it fits many other things with the
case.
It fits with what Chris chooses to believe which is his sole criteria for
judging credibility.
Post by mainframetech
There were witnesses that said that there were 2 men on the 6th
floor with a gun, and that fits, since both Factor and Wallace had guns.
No witness said that. Chris has to modify what witnesses actually said to
make it sound as if they agree with him.
Post by mainframetech
If you read it, make up your own mind.
If you read it you will wonder why you wasted your time and your money on
it. I had that same sort of feeling of stupidity after I read David
Lifton's Best Evidence.
mainframetech
2017-05-25 12:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
Chris
OK, Chris. The evidence that someone was shooting from the sixth floor
window of the TSBD is pretty solid. If it wasn't LHO who was it, and how
did he get in there with a rifle and then leave?
I recommend a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and
Sample.
I recommend you don't follow any of Chris's recommendations unless you
like pissing away your time and your money.
Ut-oh! They're trying to keep you away from the truth already! Like
Trump telling everyone don't listen to the media, they lie! I'm
different. I think if you go ahead and review the articles and books the
LNs offer, shortly you'll se the problems with their thinking. If ever
there is ANYTHING they tell you that you need to know more about, let me
know.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They interviewed an American Indian (Lawrence Loy Factor) who
said he was recruited by a guy name Mac Wallace to be a shooter in a
group. He was tested and about a year later he got a call and was taken
to Dallas with a small group that went into the TSBD through a loading
dock door and went up to the 6th floor. The group consisted of Mac
Wallace (in charge), Ruth Ann Martinez and Factor. Factor also said that
Oswald was with them too, but the authors believed he just said that to
spread the guilt around and of himself.
This book is based on a story supposedly told to Collum and Sample by a
guy who was dead by the time the book was published and therefore couldn't
refute them. Chris puts a lot of faith in such authors who cite dead
people as their primary source.
LOL! It was an LN that said, in time, if there was a conspiracy, the
plotters will begin to get old and they will tell the true story. And now
that it has happened, they don't want to listen...:)
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He said that the woman used a walkie-talkie and gave a signal when it
was time for many to shoot at JFK. This may have explained there being
heard only 3-4 shots. When that was done, they quickly left down the back
stairs and out the loading dock door. Factor used the Oswald rifle, and
Wallace had his own rifle with him.
It has been said that when some of the perpetrators get old enough they
will start telling the story, and in this case, Factor was near death.
He died shortly after they had their 3rd and last interview with him. He
knew he was going to die.
IOW, the authors waited until their source was dead to publish their
bullshit story.
WRONG! They didn't wait for his death, and that shows who you really
are to think that way. They went about their business of writing and
putting out the book. And you've got nothing whatsoever to prove that
they lied about the whole story.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Is it the truth? I can say that it fits many other things with the
case.
It fits with what Chris chooses to believe which is his sole criteria for
judging credibility.
We are each judges of what we choose to believe. bd believes the WCR
which is based on theories.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were witnesses that said that there were 2 men on the 6th
floor with a gun, and that fits, since both Factor and Wallace had guns.
No witness said that. Chris has to modify what witnesses actually said to
make it sound as if they agree with him.
As bd knows but won't admit, is that there were 3 witnesses to there
being 2 men in the 6th floor, and 2 of those witnesses said the 2 men had
a gun. He is giving you false information when he says that I modify what
more than one witness said. ONE of the witnesses saw 2 men wit ha gun and
said the floor was the 3rd or 4th. I said she meant the 6th. My
reasoning was that many people saw a man with a gun ion the 6th floor, and
no one but this one witness saw anyone on floors 3-4. As well, if it were
true that a man was on the lower floor with a gun, was that another
shooting team we didn't figure on? Silly. So you can see why I said that
one witness made a mistake and it was the 6th floor and not the 3rd or
4th. I did not change the words of any other witness.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you read it, make up your own mind.
If you read it you will wonder why you wasted your time and your money on
it. I had that same sort of feeling of stupidity after I read David
Lifton's Best Evidence.
Well, there's the problem. Lifton was wrong about a few things, but
Douglas Horne, who was on the ARRB himself, picked up the slack and put
Lifton's work together with proof for many of the problem areas. The LNs
are much more often complaining about Lifton because Horne makes no
mistakes and gets too close to the truth.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-26 01:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
Chris
OK, Chris. The evidence that someone was shooting from the sixth floor
window of the TSBD is pretty solid. If it wasn't LHO who was it, and how
did he get in there with a rifle and then leave?
I recommend a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and
Sample.
I recommend you don't follow any of Chris's recommendations unless you
like pissing away your time and your money.
Ut-oh! They're trying to keep you away from the truth already! Like
Trump telling everyone don't listen to the media, they lie! I'm
different. I think if you go ahead and review the articles and books the
LNs offer, shortly you'll se the problems with their thinking. If ever
there is ANYTHING they tell you that you need to know more about, let me
know.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They interviewed an American Indian (Lawrence Loy Factor) who
said he was recruited by a guy name Mac Wallace to be a shooter in a
group. He was tested and about a year later he got a call and was taken
to Dallas with a small group that went into the TSBD through a loading
dock door and went up to the 6th floor. The group consisted of Mac
Wallace (in charge), Ruth Ann Martinez and Factor. Factor also said that
Oswald was with them too, but the authors believed he just said that to
spread the guilt around and of himself.
This book is based on a story supposedly told to Collum and Sample by a
guy who was dead by the time the book was published and therefore couldn't
refute them. Chris puts a lot of faith in such authors who cite dead
people as their primary source.
LOL! It was an LN that said, in time, if there was a conspiracy, the
plotters will begin to get old and they will tell the true story. And now
that it has happened, they don't want to listen...:)
First of all you are on record as saying the shooters were not plotters so
you can't count Loy Factor as a plotter. Oh wait. I forgot you get to
change the rules depending on what you want to argue. We don't know what
Factor told Collum and Sample. We only know what Collum and Sample claimed
he said.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He said that the woman used a walkie-talkie and gave a signal when it
was time for many to shoot at JFK. This may have explained there being
heard only 3-4 shots. When that was done, they quickly left down the back
stairs and out the loading dock door. Factor used the Oswald rifle, and
Wallace had his own rifle with him.
It has been said that when some of the perpetrators get old enough they
will start telling the story, and in this case, Factor was near death.
He died shortly after they had their 3rd and last interview with him. He
knew he was going to die.
IOW, the authors waited until their source was dead to publish their
bullshit story.
WRONG! They didn't wait for his death, and that shows who you really
are to think that way. They went about their business of writing and
putting out the book. And you've got nothing whatsoever to prove that
they lied about the whole story.
I was googling for some relevant facts and found this LA Times review of
the Collum and Sample's self published book written in 1996. It exposes
some of the major flaws in their story:

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-16/news/ls-25233_1_sixth-floor

The article confirms something I remember reading before but couldn't find
a source. The 6th floor of the TSBD could not be seen from the county
jail. That pretty much shoots down Johnny Powell's bullshit story.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Is it the truth? I can say that it fits many other things with the
case.
It fits with what Chris chooses to believe which is his sole criteria for
judging credibility.
We are each judges of what we choose to believe. bd believes the WCR
which is based on theories.
The difference is some of us tailor our beliefs to fit the facts while you
try to tailor the facts to fit your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were witnesses that said that there were 2 men on the 6th
floor with a gun, and that fits, since both Factor and Wallace had guns.
No witness said that. Chris has to modify what witnesses actually said to
make it sound as if they agree with him.
As bd knows but won't admit, is that there were 3 witnesses to there
being 2 men in the 6th floor, and 2 of those witnesses said the 2 men had
a gun.
As I pointed out earlier in this post, I found the source that indicates
Johnny Powell couldn't see the 6th floor from his prison cell. Carolyn
Walthers and Ruby Henderson didn't say the men they saw were on the 6th
floor.
Post by mainframetech
He is giving you false information when he says that I modify what
more than one witness said. ONE of the witnesses saw 2 men wit ha gun and
said the floor was the 3rd or 4th. I said she meant the 6th. My
reasoning was that many people saw a man with a gun ion the 6th floor, and
no one but this one witness saw anyone on floors 3-4. As well, if it were
true that a man was on the lower floor with a gun, was that another
shooting team we didn't figure on? Silly. So you can see why I said that
one witness made a mistake and it was the 6th floor and not the 3rd or
4th. I did not change the words of any other witness.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you read it, make up your own mind.
If you read it you will wonder why you wasted your time and your money on
it. I had that same sort of feeling of stupidity after I read David
Lifton's Best Evidence.
Well, there's the problem. Lifton was wrong about a few things, but
Douglas Horne, who was on the ARRB himself, picked up the slack and put
Lifton's work together with proof for many of the problem areas. The LNs
are much more often complaining about Lifton because Horne makes no
mistakes and gets too close to the truth.
The only thing Lifton and Horne proved is that there is one born every
minute.
mainframetech
2017-05-27 00:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
Chris
OK, Chris. The evidence that someone was shooting from the sixth floor
window of the TSBD is pretty solid. If it wasn't LHO who was it, and how
did he get in there with a rifle and then leave?
I recommend a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and
Sample.
I recommend you don't follow any of Chris's recommendations unless you
like pissing away your time and your money.
Ut-oh! They're trying to keep you away from the truth already! Like
Trump telling everyone don't listen to the media, they lie! I'm
different. I think if you go ahead and review the articles and books the
LNs offer, shortly you'll see the problems with their thinking. If ever
there is ANYTHING they tell you that you need to know more about, let me
know.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They interviewed an American Indian (Lawrence Loy Factor) who
said he was recruited by a guy name Mac Wallace to be a shooter in a
group. He was tested and about a year later he got a call and was taken
to Dallas with a small group that went into the TSBD through a loading
dock door and went up to the 6th floor. The group consisted of Mac
Wallace (in charge), Ruth Ann Martinez and Factor. Factor also said that
Oswald was with them too, but the authors believed he just said that to
spread the guilt around and of himself.
This book is based on a story supposedly told to Collum and Sample by a
guy who was dead by the time the book was published and therefore couldn't
refute them. Chris puts a lot of faith in such authors who cite dead
people as their primary source.
LOL! It was an LN that said, in time, if there was a conspiracy, the
plotters will begin to get old and they will tell the true story. And now
that it has happened, they don't want to listen...:)
First of all you are on record as saying the shooters were not plotters so
you can't count Loy Factor as a plotter. Oh wait. I forgot you get to
change the rules depending on what you want to argue. We don't know what
Factor told Collum and Sample. We only know what Collum and Sample claimed
he said.
Did I count Factor as a shooter? He was, of course. And there's no
doubt that he wasn't a plotter. Mac Wallace was another case, though he
probably was told only as much as was necessary and can't be called a
plotter.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He said that the woman used a walkie-talkie and gave a signal when it
was time for many to shoot at JFK. This may have explained there being
heard only 3-4 shots. When that was done, they quickly left down the back
stairs and out the loading dock door. Factor used the Oswald rifle, and
Wallace had his own rifle with him.
It has been said that when some of the perpetrators get old enough they
will start telling the story, and in this case, Factor was near death.
He died shortly after they had their 3rd and last interview with him. He
knew he was going to die.
IOW, the authors waited until their source was dead to publish their
bullshit story.
WRONG! They didn't wait for his death, and that shows who you really
are to think that way. They went about their business of writing and
putting out the book. And you've got nothing whatsoever to prove that
they lied about the whole story.
I was googling for some relevant facts and found this LA Times review of
the Collum and Sample's self published book written in 1996. It exposes
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-16/news/ls-25233_1_sixth-floor
The article confirms something I remember reading before but couldn't find
a source. The 6th floor of the TSBD could not be seen from the county
jail. That pretty much shoots down Johnny Powell's bullshit story.
Well, now we can shoot down your bullshit story. Try using Google
Earth and you will see that that the Criminal Courts building where the
cells are, has a clear sight line to the 6th floor of the TSBD. You can't
trust these kooky LN articles. Using Google Earth you can see the bars on
the windows of the building all the way up to the 6th floor. Further,
there was an argument about seeing a table saw in the 6th floor. How the
hell someone could see that from outside I don't know, and 2 witnesses say
they saw it. They saw it from inside. They were replacing flooring on
the 6th floor that day. A table saw would be a welcome tool.

The FBI (in 1963) say you can't see the TSBD 6th floor form the jail.
That is patently false. The FBI was working overtime to assure everyone
that Hoover's 'lone nut' theory was taken as true. Since you can indeed
see the TSBD 6th floor from the jail, that's just more proof of their
falsehoods.


Getting the rifles into the TSBD was easy. The MC rifle was already
there, having been brought in by Oswald. The other one was brought in
without any covering, and as long as no one was watching, anyone could
walk in through the loading dock door and up the stairs. Same for
leaving, and the MC rifle was left on the 6th floor to implicate Oswald.

Next, there was supposedly a problem with Ruth Ann Martinez giving
hand signals and Wallace and Factor would not see the gesture. Plain
foolishness! Ruth Ann had a Walkie-talkie and spoke into it. If she
spoke loud enough, the people on the 6th floor would hear her.

There were no other complaints, and all have ben answered. As I said,
we've shot down your bullshit story.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Is it the truth? I can say that it fits many other things with the
case.
It fits with what Chris chooses to believe which is his sole criteria for
judging credibility.
We are each judges of what we choose to believe. bd believes the WCR
which is based on theories.
The difference is some of us tailor our beliefs to fit the facts while you
try to tailor the facts to fit your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were witnesses that said that there were 2 men on the 6th
floor with a gun, and that fits, since both Factor and Wallace had guns.
No witness said that. Chris has to modify what witnesses actually said to
make it sound as if they agree with him.
As bd knows but won't admit, is that there were 3 witnesses to there
being 2 men in the 6th floor, and 2 of those witnesses said the 2 men had
a gun.
As I pointed out earlier in this post, I found the source that indicates
Johnny Powell couldn't see the 6th floor from his prison cell. Carolyn
Walthers and Ruby Henderson didn't say the men they saw were on the 6th
floor.
The story about Powell was proven false above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He is giving you false information when he says that I modify what
more than one witness said. ONE of the witnesses saw 2 men wit ha gun and
said the floor was the 3rd or 4th. I said she meant the 6th. My
reasoning was that many people saw a man with a gun ion the 6th floor, and
no one but this one witness saw anyone on floors 3-4. As well, if it were
true that a man was on the lower floor with a gun, was that another
shooting team we didn't figure on? Silly. So you can see why I said that
one witness made a mistake and it was the 6th floor and not the 3rd or
4th. I did not change the words of any other witness.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you read it, make up your own mind.
If you read it you will wonder why you wasted your time and your money on
it. I had that same sort of feeling of stupidity after I read David
Lifton's Best Evidence.
Well, there's the problem. Lifton was wrong about a few things, but
Douglas Horne, who was on the ARRB himself, picked up the slack and put
Lifton's work together with proof for many of the problem areas. The LNs
are much more often complaining about Lifton because Horne makes no
mistakes and gets too close to the truth.
The only thing Lifton and Horne proved is that there is one born every
minute.
I think the LN kooks have done that, with that phony WCR.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-27 22:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
Chris
OK, Chris. The evidence that someone was shooting from the sixth floor
window of the TSBD is pretty solid. If it wasn't LHO who was it, and how
did he get in there with a rifle and then leave?
I recommend a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor" by Collum and
Sample.
I recommend you don't follow any of Chris's recommendations unless you
like pissing away your time and your money.
Ut-oh! They're trying to keep you away from the truth already! Like
Trump telling everyone don't listen to the media, they lie! I'm
different. I think if you go ahead and review the articles and books the
LNs offer, shortly you'll see the problems with their thinking. If ever
there is ANYTHING they tell you that you need to know more about, let me
know.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They interviewed an American Indian (Lawrence Loy Factor) who
said he was recruited by a guy name Mac Wallace to be a shooter in a
group. He was tested and about a year later he got a call and was taken
to Dallas with a small group that went into the TSBD through a loading
dock door and went up to the 6th floor. The group consisted of Mac
Wallace (in charge), Ruth Ann Martinez and Factor. Factor also said that
Oswald was with them too, but the authors believed he just said that to
spread the guilt around and of himself.
This book is based on a story supposedly told to Collum and Sample by a
guy who was dead by the time the book was published and therefore couldn't
refute them. Chris puts a lot of faith in such authors who cite dead
people as their primary source.
LOL! It was an LN that said, in time, if there was a conspiracy, the
plotters will begin to get old and they will tell the true story. > > >
First of all you are on record as saying the shooters were not plotters so
you can't count Loy Factor as a plotter. Oh wait. I forgot you get to
change the rules depending on what you want to argue. We don't know what And now
Post by mainframetech
that it has happened, they don't want to listen...:)
Factor told Collum and Sample. We only know what Collum and Sample claimed
he said.
Did I count Factor as a shooter? He was, of course. And there's no
doubt that he wasn't a plotter. Mac Wallace was another case, though he
probably was told only as much as was necessary and can't be called a
plotter.
I guess I have to back up and remind you what you wrote.....AGAIN!!! I
made a comment casting doubt on the story supposed told to Collum and
Sample by Loy Factor. You responded "It was an LN that said, in time, if
there was a conspiracy, the PLOTTERS (emphasis mine) will begin to get old
and they will tell the true story. And now that it has happened, they
don't want to listen...:)". So it would seem you were trying count Factor
as a plotter when you presented him as an example of a plotter getting old
and telling "the true story".
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He said that the woman used a walkie-talkie and gave a signal when it
was time for many to shoot at JFK. This may have explained there being
heard only 3-4 shots. When that was done, they quickly left down the back
stairs and out the loading dock door. Factor used the Oswald rifle, and
Wallace had his own rifle with him.
It has been said that when some of the perpetrators get old enough they
will start telling the story, and in this case, Factor was near death.
He died shortly after they had their 3rd and last interview with him. He
knew he was going to die.
IOW, the authors waited until their source was dead to publish their
bullshit story.
WRONG! They didn't wait for his death, and that shows who you really
are to think that way. They went about their business of writing and
putting out the book. And you've got nothing whatsoever to prove that
they lied about the whole story.
I was googling for some relevant facts and found this LA Times review of
the Collum and Sample's self published book written in 1996. It exposes
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-16/news/ls-25233_1_sixth-floor
The article confirms something I remember reading before but couldn't find
a source. The 6th floor of the TSBD could not be seen from the county
jail. That pretty much shoots down Johnny Powell's bullshit story.
Well, now we can shoot down your bullshit story. Try using Google
Earth and you will see that that the Criminal Courts building where the
cells are, has a clear sight line to the 6th floor of the TSBD.
Yes the building does. That doesn't mean the jail cells do.
Post by mainframetech
You can't
trust these kooky LN articles. Using Google Earth you can see the bars on
the windows of the building all the way up to the 6th floor. Further,
there was an argument about seeing a table saw in the 6th floor. How the
hell someone could see that from outside I don't know, and 2 witnesses say
they saw it. They saw it from inside. They were replacing flooring on
the 6th floor that day. A table saw would be a welcome tool.
The FBI (in 1963) say you can't see the TSBD 6th floor form the jail.
That is patently false. The FBI was working overtime to assure everyone
that Hoover's 'lone nut' theory was taken as true. Since you can indeed
see the TSBD 6th floor from the jail, that's just more proof of their
falsehoods.
Getting the rifles into the TSBD was easy. The MC rifle was already
there, having been brought in by Oswald. The other one was brought in
without any covering, and as long as no one was watching, anyone could
walk in through the loading dock door and up the stairs. Same for
leaving, and the MC rifle was left on the 6th floor to implicate Oswald.
Next, there was supposedly a problem with Ruth Ann Martinez giving
hand signals and Wallace and Factor would not see the gesture. Plain
foolishness! Ruth Ann had a Walkie-talkie and spoke into it. If she
spoke loud enough, the people on the 6th floor would hear her.
There were no other complaints, and all have ben answered. As I said,
we've shot down your bullshit story.
Amazing you could believe all this goofy shit but you refuse to believe
something as simply as Oswald snuck his rifle into work and shot JFK with
it. That is the only scenario which is supported by real evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Is it the truth? I can say that it fits many other things with the
case.
It fits with what Chris chooses to believe which is his sole criteria for
judging credibility.
We are each judges of what we choose to believe. bd believes the WCR
which is based on theories.
The difference is some of us tailor our beliefs to fit the facts while you
try to tailor the facts to fit your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were witnesses that said that there were 2 men on the 6th
floor with a gun, and that fits, since both Factor and Wallace had guns.
No witness said that. Chris has to modify what witnesses actually said to
make it sound as if they agree with him.
As bd knows but won't admit, is that there were 3 witnesses to there
being 2 men in the 6th floor, and 2 of those witnesses said the 2 men had
a gun.
As I pointed out earlier in this post, I found the source that indicates
Johnny Powell couldn't see the 6th floor from his prison cell. Carolyn
Walthers and Ruby Henderson didn't say the men they saw were on the 6th
floor.
The story about Powell was proven false above.
No, you claimed it was false. You've never understood that claiming
something isn't the same as proving it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He is giving you false information when he says that I modify what
more than one witness said. ONE of the witnesses saw 2 men wit ha gun and
said the floor was the 3rd or 4th. I said she meant the 6th. My
reasoning was that many people saw a man with a gun ion the 6th floor, and
no one but this one witness saw anyone on floors 3-4. As well, if it were
true that a man was on the lower floor with a gun, was that another
shooting team we didn't figure on? Silly. So you can see why I said that
one witness made a mistake and it was the 6th floor and not the 3rd or
4th. I did not change the words of any other witness.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you read it, make up your own mind.
If you read it you will wonder why you wasted your time and your money on
it. I had that same sort of feeling of stupidity after I read David
Lifton's Best Evidence.
Well, there's the problem. Lifton was wrong about a few things, but
Douglas Horne, who was on the ARRB himself, picked up the slack and put
Lifton's work together with proof for many of the problem areas. The LNs
are much more often complaining about Lifton because Horne makes no
mistakes and gets too close to the truth.
The only thing Lifton and Horne proved is that there is one born every
minute.
I think the LN kooks have done that, with that phony WCR.
The WCR is still around and as valid as ever. Conspiracy books come and go
and get relegated to history's clearance table.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 02:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
And so the arguments begin. The small list of evidence that you will
see will not convince anyone that Oswald was in the 6th floor window and
was firing at the motorcade. Watch the list of evidence that will be
shown to you, and remember that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt
anyone, and I can prove it.
Chris
OK, Chris. The evidence that someone was shooting from the sixth floor
window of the TSBD is pretty solid. If it wasn't LHO who was it, and how
did he get in there with a rifle and then leave?
Emilio Santana. Walked.
El Tiante
2017-05-22 04:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
Facts are what I look for but so far many of those facts are not so cut
and dry that different interpretations can be just off handedly rules out.
What I've done so far with my limited knowledge of the subject is to
categorize the facts into a range of probability. For example I'll use a
range of probability of 100% certainty to 50% probability. 100% certainty
JFK is wounded and killed and JBC is wounded while in the limousine on Elm
St. 75% to 85% probability that LHO used Alek Hidell and variants as an
alias and that he used that alias to buy both the rifle and the handgun,
in his connection with the FPCC, the bogus draft card, etc. 50%
probability that it was LHO who was with two other guys in the Sylvia Odio
incident and also that LHO did practice with his rifle numerous times as
evidenced by witnesses who saw him firing at the rifle range.
mainframetech
2017-05-22 21:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
Facts are what I look for but so far many of those facts are not so cut
and dry that different interpretations can be just off handedly rules out.
What I've done so far with my limited knowledge of the subject is to
categorize the facts into a range of probability. For example I'll use a
range of probability of 100% certainty to 50% probability. 100% certainty
JFK is wounded and killed and JBC is wounded while in the limousine on Elm
St. 75% to 85% probability that LHO used Alek Hidell and variants as an
alias and that he used that alias to buy both the rifle and the handgun,
in his connection with the FPCC, the bogus draft card, etc. 50%
probability that it was LHO who was with two other guys in the Sylvia Odio
incident and also that LHO did practice with his rifle numerous times as
evidenced by witnesses who saw him firing at the rifle range.
The assignment of odds for the Sportsdrome range might approach zero.
That story was looked into by the WC and the FBI and neither wanted to use
it. And you can be sure they would have loved to prove that Oswald did
some practicing.

Chris
El Tiante
2017-05-29 13:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
Facts are what I look for but so far many of those facts are not so cut
and dry that different interpretations can be just off handedly rules out.
What I've done so far with my limited knowledge of the subject is to
categorize the facts into a range of probability. For example I'll use a
range of probability of 100% certainty to 50% probability. 100% certainty
JFK is wounded and killed and JBC is wounded while in the limousine on Elm
St. 75% to 85% probability that LHO used Alek Hidell and variants as an
alias and that he used that alias to buy both the rifle and the handgun,
in his connection with the FPCC, the bogus draft card, etc. 50%
probability that it was LHO who was with two other guys in the Sylvia Odio
incident and also that LHO did practice with his rifle numerous times as
evidenced by witnesses who saw him firing at the rifle range.
The assignment of odds for the Sportsdrome range might approach zero.
That story was looked into by the WC and the FBI and neither wanted to use
it. And you can be sure they would have loved to prove that Oswald did
some practicing.
Chris
The reason it was not used might be they would not consider the younger
Wood as credible because he saw LHO leave with another man in a car. I see
this as probative evidence because LHO was not present at the Paine's
house that Saturday and there's no way the younger Wood would have any
knowledge of this, IMHO or AFAIK or AFAICBD or UTETTC.

The reason I believe many CT's do not like this evidence is due to the
fact LHO did practice his marksmanship and was capable of making the shots
attributed to him.

bigdog
2017-05-23 02:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
Facts are what I look for but so far many of those facts are not so cut
and dry that different interpretations can be just off handedly rules out.
What I've done so far with my limited knowledge of the subject is to
categorize the facts into a range of probability. For example I'll use a
range of probability of 100% certainty to 50% probability. 100% certainty
JFK is wounded and killed and JBC is wounded while in the limousine on Elm
St. 75% to 85% probability that LHO used Alek Hidell and variants as an
alias and that he used that alias to buy both the rifle and the handgun,
in his connection with the FPCC, the bogus draft card, etc. 50%
probability that it was LHO who was with two other guys in the Sylvia Odio
incident and also that LHO did practice with his rifle numerous times as
evidenced by witnesses who saw him firing at the rifle range.
Whether that was Oswald or not in the Sylvia Odio incident seems
irrelevant to the question of conspiracy because no one at that time could
possibly have known the opportunity fate would deal to Oswald to kill the
POTUS.
mainframetech
2017-05-25 12:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
Facts are what I look for but so far many of those facts are not so cut
and dry that different interpretations can be just off handedly rules out.
What I've done so far with my limited knowledge of the subject is to
categorize the facts into a range of probability. For example I'll use a
range of probability of 100% certainty to 50% probability. 100% certainty
JFK is wounded and killed and JBC is wounded while in the limousine on Elm
St. 75% to 85% probability that LHO used Alek Hidell and variants as an
alias and that he used that alias to buy both the rifle and the handgun,
in his connection with the FPCC, the bogus draft card, etc. 50%
probability that it was LHO who was with two other guys in the Sylvia Odio
incident and also that LHO did practice with his rifle numerous times as
evidenced by witnesses who saw him firing at the rifle range.
Whether that was Oswald or not in the Sylvia Odio incident seems
irrelevant to the question of conspiracy because no one at that time could
possibly have known the opportunity fate would deal to Oswald to kill the
POTUS.
Oswald never practiced with his rifle. He didn't buy it to shoot
anyone either. The Sportsdrome story was rejected by both the FBI and the
WC. It appeared to be made by a friend of the new range to boost the
sales.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-26 01:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
Facts are what I look for but so far many of those facts are not so cut
and dry that different interpretations can be just off handedly rules out.
What I've done so far with my limited knowledge of the subject is to
categorize the facts into a range of probability. For example I'll use a
range of probability of 100% certainty to 50% probability. 100% certainty
JFK is wounded and killed and JBC is wounded while in the limousine on Elm
St. 75% to 85% probability that LHO used Alek Hidell and variants as an
alias and that he used that alias to buy both the rifle and the handgun,
in his connection with the FPCC, the bogus draft card, etc. 50%
probability that it was LHO who was with two other guys in the Sylvia Odio
incident and also that LHO did practice with his rifle numerous times as
evidenced by witnesses who saw him firing at the rifle range.
Whether that was Oswald or not in the Sylvia Odio incident seems
irrelevant to the question of conspiracy because no one at that time could
possibly have known the opportunity fate would deal to Oswald to kill the
POTUS.
Oswald never practiced with his rifle. He didn't buy it to shoot
So Marina lied? WHy?
Post by mainframetech
anyone either. The Sportsdrome story was rejected by both the FBI and the
WC. It appeared to be made by a friend of the new range to boost the
sales.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 02:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
El Tiante, if fairy tales are what you are looking for, you can certainly
find plenty of them here. Chris is just one of several prolific sources of
those. If you are interested in the facts, there is only one set of those
and they clearly tell us Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible
evidence that he had any accomplices.
Facts are what I look for but so far many of those facts are not so cut
and dry that different interpretations can be just off handedly rules out.
What I've done so far with my limited knowledge of the subject is to
categorize the facts into a range of probability. For example I'll use a
range of probability of 100% certainty to 50% probability. 100% certainty
JFK is wounded and killed and JBC is wounded while in the limousine on Elm
St. 75% to 85% probability that LHO used Alek Hidell and variants as an
alias and that he used that alias to buy both the rifle and the handgun,
in his connection with the FPCC, the bogus draft card, etc. 50%
probability that it was LHO who was with two other guys in the Sylvia Odio
incident and also that LHO did practice with his rifle numerous times as
evidenced by witnesses who saw him firing at the rifle range.
The WC defenders argue with a double standard. They demand 100% from the
conspiracy side and can't give 100% from their side.
When the acoustical evidence came out they dismissed it because they
said that 99.99% was not absolute proof. Yet they have 0% evidence for
their SBT.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-20 18:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
Something like that. It's called Cover-up Central. It is led by the
leader of the cover-up.
Post by mainframetech
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
No. You are a kook, an alterationist. You only object to evidence when
you don't like it.
Post by mainframetech
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
Chris
El Tiante
2017-05-22 04:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
Thanks for the heads up. I'm open to different interpretations and have not yet held to a firm opinion on just about any subject relating to the JFK assassination but I just can't see how there was this vast conspiracy of instantly faked documents and vast array of people who were in on the conspiracy. I think it's simpler. There was a conspiracy, LHO was involved in some way not yet clear to me, there was a cover up by government agencies to hide the fact they messed up in letting LHO fall under the radar, that LBJ knew that LHO was involved in some way with pro-Castro forces and feared that if this and the US government involvement in attempts to kill Castro became public he would be forced to ask for a declaration of war with Cuba which could lead to an escalation involving the USSR, the Warsaw Pact and NATO. IOW, JFK became expendable in order to avoid the possibility of a very costly war.
Post by mainframetech
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
I've seen parts of Horne's You Tube presentation but it's 6 hours long and I have to find the time to juggle work, family and other commitments to dig into works such as Inside the AARB, his You Tube video, HSCA, Church Committee, AARB, and other very interesting stuff. It will be years before I can get a firm grasp of the subject but it's interesting as hell. It will be a fun journey.
Post by mainframetech
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
Chris
Thank you for the offer, Chris. I'll definitely take you up on it.
mainframetech
2017-05-22 21:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
Thanks for the heads up. I'm open to different interpretations and have not yet held to a firm opinion on just about any subject relating to the JFK assassination but I just can't see how there was this vast conspiracy of instantly faked documents and vast array of people who were in on the conspiracy. I think it's simpler. There was a conspiracy, LHO was involved in some way not yet clear to me, there was a cover up by government agencies to hide the fact they messed up in letting LHO fall under the radar, that LBJ knew that LHO was involved in some way with pro-Castro forces and feared that if this and the US government involvement in attempts to kill Castro became public he would be forced to ask for a declaration of war with Cuba which could lead to an escalation involving the USSR, the Warsaw Pact and NATO. IOW, JFK became expendable in order to avoid the possibility of a very costly war.
It appears that you've hit on some of the story. I can help with more
of it, and I'm sure others here will want to try to sway you to their
view, which usually means the WCR version of things. In my opinion, it
was a conspiracy, and Oswald didn't fire his rifle into Dealey Plaza. He
brought his rifle in to the TSBD, but others used it. And NO bullet from
the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone, and no one here can prove otherwise.

By counting the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza, we can see that
there were multiple shooters. By reviewing the 'stare-of-death' photo, we
can tell that the kill shot hit the forehead of JFK and killed him. A
close examination of the testimonies and statements of the men at Bethesda
who were on the autopsy team, proves that the Autopsy Report (AR) was
faked. They had reached conclusions that DURING the autopsy that a
certain bullet had gone through JFK and come out a throat wound and then
hit Connally, yet remained almost 'pristine'. That bullet hit 2 men 7
times with 2 bone strikes and came out as if it almost didn't hit
anything.

The trouble with all that is that the autopsy team saw PROOF in the
body when the organs were removed that the upper back bullet never went
past the pleura (covering over the lungs). Therefore it couldn't go on to
hit Connally. That means the 'Single Bullet' theory is dead, and that
means that there was another shooter.
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
I've seen parts of Horne's You Tube presentation but it's 6 hours long and I have to find the time to juggle work, family and other commitments to dig into works such as Inside the AARB, his You Tube video, HSCA, Church Committee, AARB, and other very interesting stuff. It will be years before I can get a firm grasp of the subject but it's interesting as hell. It will be a fun journey.
Most of Horne's work related to the Z-film is in his volume 4 of 5
about the ARRB. He spends hundreds of pages explaining the witnesses that
proved the film went to a CIA lab to be altered, and CIA witnesses that
did the checking of the result of the alteration, He also makes clear the
technical methods that were available to alter the film in 1963, and he
interviews one of the witnesses here:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

skip to 25:00 to hear the question and answer session with Dino
Brugione, who was a CIA film Analyst who saw the ORIGINAL Z-film. He was
shocked later when he saw the changes they had done to the film. The
earlier part of the video is Horne describing more of the Z-film
background. All of which most others seem to shy away from. In fact they
all seem to shy away from anything that relates to the ARRB information.
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
Chris
Thank you for the offer, Chris. I'll definitely take you up on it.
Good Luck,
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 02:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
Thanks for the heads up. I'm open to different interpretations and have not yet held to a firm opinion on just about any subject relating to the JFK assassination but I just can't see how there was this vast conspiracy of instantly faked documents and vast array of people who were in on the conspiracy. I think it's simpler. There was a conspiracy, LHO was involved in some way not yet clear to me, there was a cover up by government agencies to hide the fact they messed up in letting LHO fall under the radar, that LBJ knew that LHO was involved in some way with pro-Castro forces and feared that if this and the US government involvement in attempts to kill Castro became public he would be forced to ask for a declaration of war with Cuba which could lead to an escalation involving the USSR, the Warsaw Pact and NATO. IOW, JFK became expendable in order to avoid the possibility of a very costly war.
LBJ? Before the shooting LBJ was not cleared to know about the attempts to
kill Castro. Shortly after the shooting LBJ was informed of Oswald's visit
to Mexico City. Immediately after the shooting LBJ assumed that it was a
first strike by the Russians and expected that soon they would be
launching missiles.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm
Post by El Tiante
Post by mainframetech
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses. You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
I've seen parts of Horne's You Tube presentation but it's 6 hours long and I have to find the time to juggle work, family and other commitments to dig into works such as Inside the AARB, his You Tube video, HSCA, Church Committee, AARB, and other very interesting stuff. It will be years before I can get a firm grasp of the subject but it's interesting as hell. It will be a fun journey.
Post by mainframetech
As well, another area of interest is the autopsy, which was described
in an Autopsy Report (AR). That report was faked, and the proof for that
is in the ARRB files and the testimony and statements of the men of
Bethesda Hospital who were on the autopsy team with the doctors who were
ordered to make the phony AR.
Many of the arguments hinge on these topics above, and you'll hear both
sides in the future, and will have to choose. If you're in doubt about
anything, let me know and I'll be glad to give my version of the truth,
most of which comes from cites and links from the files.
Chris
Thank you for the offer, Chris. I'll definitely take you up on it.
Caeruleo
2017-05-22 20:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
I am now, at least for the time being, replying to you again, Chris, and
that is because back in September you *finally* apologized to me for
falsely accusing me of being the same person as Sandy McCroskey way back
in February, 2015. My apologies now for taking so long to acknowledge
your own apology, but almost immediately after you apologized to me this
past September, I took one of my many long absences from this group, and
did not resume posting here until just a few days ago.

Now that we've gotten past that, let's see what you have to say.
Post by mainframetech
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
Fascinating. I've been posting here since October 6, 2002, and this
entire time it has seemed to me that there are an approximately equal
number of CTs and LNs who post to this newsgroup, so I find your claim
that it is "mostly what's called LNs" to be, well, rather novel. And as
far as "hidebound" I have noticed that equally often with CTs and LNs;
both, about equally often, espouse their "pet theories" to explain this or
that aspect of the assassination.
Post by mainframetech
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses.
I have seen you many times claim that it is "proven" that the Zapruder
film was altered, and every single time I've seen you say that, whenever
you've supplied any "evidence" for it, I've only seen you "cite"
"evidence" that I have found to be, shall we say, extremely tenuous. For
example, before I lifted you from my killfile, I saw that another poster
had quoted you as naming some CIA dude as claiming, more than three
decades later, that the "version" of the Zapruder film most often seen by
then conflicted with his recollection of what the head wounding looked
like when he saw the film more than three decades earlier. That hardly
amounts to "proof" of alteration.

And I've never asked you this question before, I don't think, but I will
do so now, and this applies to *anyone* who claims the film was, ah, um,
"altered":

It isn't the appearance of wounding in the film, almost all of which is
forward of JFK's right ear, that has caused millions of people to believe
that there was a shot from the right front; it is instead the "back and to
the left" motion of his head. So why on earth would "they" "alter" the
part of the film (the sudden appearance of damage forward of his right
ear) that DIDN'T make millions of people think there was a shot from his
right and in front of him, but NOT "alter" the part which HAS made
millions of people think there was a shot from the GK, the "back and to
the left" motion of his head? Why didn't "they" "alter" THAT part, and
make his head look as if it was rocketing FORWARD??

Oh, they're sophisticated enough to "alter" the appearance of the damage
to his head, but suddenly they're "not sophisticated enough" to "alter"
the *motion* of his head??

You know, the aspect of the film which, far more often, for a tremendously
larger number of people, has convinced people to think that that shot came
from in front of him and to his right?

You know perfectly well that a MUCH larger number of people have cited the
MOTION of his head as being one of their PRIMARY reasons for believing
that that shot came from the GK than have cited the appearance of damage
to his head, or the primary direction of the majority of the blood spray
seen in this "supposedly altered" film.

So in other words "they" "altered" the aspect of the film that was *less*
likely to convince people that there was a shot from the GK, but didn't
"alter" the aspect of the film that was *more* likely to convince people
that there was a shot from the GK.

Apparently your "alterationists" were some of the most incredibly
***STUPID*** people who have ever lived on this planet, with far, far less
than average intelligence. Millions of people with no more than *average*
intelligence have said that their ONE AND ONLY REASON for believing there
was a shot from the front was the "back and to the left" motion. I myself
have talked to dozens of such people, and whenever I have told them that
in the SAME FILM it ALSO shows the vast majority of the damage to his head
being forward of his right ear, and also told them that the majority of
the blood spray seen in the film goes forward, nearly all of them have
told me that they never, ever, ever noticed either of those things, no
matter how many or how few times they have watched the film.
Post by mainframetech
You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
I find it "fascinating" that you only name Douglas Horne, who is decidedly
in the *minority* in terms of the views expressed by the *majority* of
people who gave statements to the ARRB.
Post by mainframetech
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As I have seen you do so often before, you emphasize whoever disputed the
idea that all shots came from the TSBD, at the expense of all the evidence
that all shots came from a single location. I will remind you, yet again,
of that time when you added together the witnesses who said that ALL the
shots sounded as if they came ONLY from the grassy knoll, plus the tiny,
tiny minority of witnesses who said the shots sounded as if they came from
multiple directions, and acted as if these were all the same group of
witnesses, when in actual fact, they are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT groups of
witnesses:

One group said that ALL the shots sounded as if they came from the grassy
knoll and NO OTHER DIRECTION.

An entirely DIFFERENT group said the shots came from multiple directions.

You even used the pie-chart on Dr. McAdams's website, this one:

Loading Image...

I remember, far too clearly to be mistaken, that you said something like
this:

"34% of the witnesses thought the shots came from the grassy knoll and
from another direction."

Or else you conflated the OTHER group of witnesses, listed as "Other," and
said something like this:

"41% of the witnesses thought the shots came from the grassy knoll and
from at least one other direction."

Ah, but what that chart ***ACTUALLY*** says is that 31% thought that
***ALL*** of the shots came from the grassy knoll ***ONLY*** and that only
three percent thought the shots came from more than one direction. in
addition, "Other" includes witnesses who thought, for example, that *all*
of the shots sounded as if they came from the Triple Underpass and no
other direction.

Several of us, including me, corrected you on your very misleading
statement. Challenge me in the slightest on this, and I will of course do
my best to locate the exact article in which you said these things, quote
you verbatim saying these things, along with the exact Google Groups URL
which irrefutably proves that you did indeed post such an article.

In short, I find you to be just as bad, with no difference whatsoever,
except for the conclusion, as the Warren Commission, CIA, FBI, Secret
Service, etc., who in 1963-64 emphasized evidence of Oswald's sole guilt
and downplayed evidence to the contrary. You do exactly the same thing,
with no difference whatsoever, except in reverse: you emphasize evidence
that more people than Oswald were involved, and downplay evidence to the
contrary. I see no essential difference between you and the Warren
Commission, CIA, FBI and Secret Service. In other words, you criticize
others for something you do at least as often as they do.
mainframetech
2017-05-23 14:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by El Tiante
I'm relatively new to the JFK assassination topic so I'm here mainly to
learn. So far what I've seen and read is that the circumstantial evidence
linking Oswald to the JFK, Tippit murders is strong. Even the attempted
murder of Gen. Walker has pretty strong links to Oswald. What is not so
strong is the evidence that Oswald was the lone assassin. It is my opinion
that there had to be a shooter from the Grassy Knoll area because the
probability of JFK reacting to a shot by falling back and to the left as
shown in Zapruder frame 313 and beyond is pretty high. I can accept that
it's possible that JFK would react as he did due to a shot from the back
as from the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD but I can't accept that it's
as likely a reaction as a shot fired from the GK area.
It's obvious the WC new this and tried to keep it a secret. David Lifton
confronted Dulles with this evidence at a UCLA event and Dulles declared
he he had watched the Zapruder film a thousand times and had not seen JFK
go back and to the left, which was an obvious attempt by Dulles to hide
the fact being discussed. Also, nowhere in the WCR and the accompanying 26
volumes is this JFK back and to the left reaction to the shot on frame 313
discussed.
Due to the strong evidence of a shot from the front/ right front it's of
probative value there was a second shooter therefore a conspiracy.
I am now, at least for the time being, replying to you again, Chris, and
that is because back in September you *finally* apologized to me for
falsely accusing me of being the same person as Sandy McCroskey way back
in February, 2015. My apologies now for taking so long to acknowledge
your own apology, but almost immediately after you apologized to me this
past September, I took one of my many long absences from this group, and
did not resume posting here until just a few days ago.
Now that we've gotten past that, let's see what you have to say.
Post by mainframetech
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
Fascinating. I've been posting here since October 6, 2002, and this
entire time it has seemed to me that there are an approximately equal
number of CTs and LNs who post to this newsgroup, so I find your claim
that it is "mostly what's called LNs" to be, well, rather novel. And as
far as "hidebound" I have noticed that equally often with CTs and LNs;
both, about equally often, espouse their "pet theories" to explain this or
that aspect of the assassination.
Well, my experience is that there are more LNs, though it may be they
are more vocal, so more easily recognized. But we're both going with out
opinions.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses.
I have seen you many times claim that it is "proven" that the Zapruder
film was altered, and every single time I've seen you say that, whenever
you've supplied any "evidence" for it, I've only seen you "cite"
"evidence" that I have found to be, shall we say, extremely tenuous. For
example, before I lifted you from my killfile, I saw that another poster
had quoted you as naming some CIA dude as claiming, more than three
decades later, that the "version" of the Zapruder film most often seen by
then conflicted with his recollection of what the head wounding looked
like when he saw the film more than three decades earlier. That hardly
amounts to "proof" of alteration.
That was one of the CIA film Analysts, who was interviewed by Douglass
Horne. But he was NOT the only evidence, so please don't get hung up on
that. There is quire a long list of evidence you'll find in the 4th
volume of 5 on the ARRB, written by Douglas Horne. It uses hundreds of
pages of proofs that the film was taken to the CIA film lab in Rochester,
NY and altered there. It was first use to set up briefing boards for the
higher ups, and then after alteration, it was used separately by another
CIA Film Analyst to run more briefing boards for the higher ups all over
again. This was to compare the original film to the altered film to
decided if the work was acceptable. After this when the Life magazine
bought the rights for a exorbitant amount, They NEVER showed the film
again as a movie, always a frame here or there. And yet they paid an
extreme amount for it.

BTW, the Life magazine had connections to the intelligence community:

http://spartacus-educational.com/USAlife.htm
Post by Caeruleo
And I've never asked you this question before, I don't think, but I will
do so now, and this applies to *anyone* who claims the film was, ah, um,
It isn't the appearance of wounding in the film, almost all of which is
forward of JFK's right ear, that has caused millions of people to believe
that there was a shot from the right front; it is instead the "back and to
the left" motion of his head.
That is incorrect. If you will bear with me, I'll show you why it's
believed that the kill shot was from the right front. If you look closely
at the 'stare-of-death' photo, and ENLARGE it, look just under the hair
hanging down and tell me what you see there:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg



I've shown that to many people outside of this forum and most of them
see the same thing, and it's something surprising.
Post by Caeruleo
So why on earth would "they" "alter" the
part of the film (the sudden appearance of damage forward of his right
ear) that DIDN'T make millions of people think there was a shot from his
right and in front of him, but NOT "alter" the part which HAS made
millions of people think there was a shot from the GK, the "back and to
the left" motion of his head? Why didn't "they" "alter" THAT part, and
make his head look as if it was rocketing FORWARD??
You're asking the wrong person about their motives for some of their
alterations, but some make perfect sense. It was critical to the plotters
that the case rest completely on a single 'lone nut' shooter, and Hoover
was after that result from the beginning. So it had to be a hit from
above and behind, and the wounds seem to echo that.
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, they're sophisticated enough to "alter" the appearance of the damage
to his head, but suddenly they're "not sophisticated enough" to "alter"
the *motion* of his head??
I've said nothing about the alteration of the movement of the head. I
don't se a reason to change it, but it could be they did. The majority of
changes were in the 313 area and following.
Post by Caeruleo
You know, the aspect of the film which, far more often, for a tremendously
larger number of people, has convinced people to think that that shot came
from in front of him and to his right?
You know perfectly well that a MUCH larger number of people have cited the
MOTION of his head as being one of their PRIMARY reasons for believing
that that shot came from the GK than have cited the appearance of damage
to his head, or the primary direction of the majority of the blood spray
seen in this "supposedly altered" film.
As per Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" mentions that with
rifle shots there can be a "backsplash" from a wound going back in the
direction the bullet came in.
Post by Caeruleo
So in other words "they" "altered" the aspect of the film that was *less*
likely to convince people that there was a shot from the GK, but didn't
"alter" the aspect of the film that was *more* likely to convince people
that there was a shot from the GK.
I can't speak to that. If you listen to the explanations of Horne,
there might be answers to that in his volume 4.
Post by Caeruleo
Apparently your "alterationists" were some of the most incredibly
***STUPID*** people who have ever lived on this planet, with far, far less
than average intelligence. Millions of people with no more than *average*
intelligence have said that their ONE AND ONLY REASON for believing there
was a shot from the front was the "back and to the left" motion. I myself
have talked to dozens of such people, and whenever I have told them that
in the SAME FILM it ALSO shows the vast majority of the damage to his head
being forward of his right ear, and also told them that the majority of
the blood spray seen in the film goes forward, nearly all of them have
told me that they never, ever, ever noticed either of those things, no
matter how many or how few times they have watched the film.
I think you have also missed the list I made here of over 39 witnesses
to a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. There was a bullet hole in the right
forehead/temple area that went through the skull and blew out the BOH
slightly to the right of center. The list I made has the name of the
witness, the words they said, and the context (link) where it can be
found.

There was a 'large hole' in the BOH, but many people were fooled into
thinking that there was only a small bullet hole there. They even made
drawings that fit that scenario to fool people. They released the photos
supposedly of the autopsy, and said they were 'leaked'. Some of those
were also altered. And I'll be happy to show you which ones.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
I find it "fascinating" that you only name Douglas Horne, who is decidedly
in the *minority* in terms of the views expressed by the *majority* of
people who gave statements to the ARRB.
Minority or majority have no bearing when one set is better for
explanation than another. Horne was also in close contact with the ARRB
and was a team member of it. He listened to much sworn testimony and
administered some of it too.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As I have seen you do so often before, you emphasize whoever disputed the
idea that all shots came from the TSBD, at the expense of all the evidence
that all shots came from a single location. I will remind you, yet again,
of that time when you added together the witnesses who said that ALL the
shots sounded as if they came ONLY from the grassy knoll, plus the tiny,
tiny minority of witnesses who said the shots sounded as if they came from
multiple directions, and acted as if these were all the same group of
witnesses, when in actual fact, they are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT groups of
One group said that ALL the shots sounded as if they came from the grassy
knoll and NO OTHER DIRECTION.
An entirely DIFFERENT group said the shots came from multiple directions.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/McAdams.png
I remember, far too clearly to be mistaken, that you said something like
"34% of the witnesses thought the shots came from the grassy knoll and
from another direction."
If I quoted a percentage, I think it came from an article in McAdams
files. But that is overridden by counting the bullet strikes in Dealey
Plaza. That helps fix the number of shots. Much has changed since you
last were involved. Many proofs have strengthened.
Post by Caeruleo
Or else you conflated the OTHER group of witnesses, listed as "Other," and
"41% of the witnesses thought the shots came from the grassy knoll and
from at least one other direction."
I haven't used numbers like that in years. I no longer try to count
sources or shots by percentage of shots heard here or there. The count if
bullet strikes is what I use nowadays.
Post by Caeruleo
Ah, but what that chart ***ACTUALLY*** says is that 31% thought that
***ALL*** of the shots came from the grassy knoll ***ONLY*** and that only
three percent thought the shots came from more than one direction. in
addition, "Other" includes witnesses who thought, for example, that *all*
of the shots sounded as if they came from the Triple Underpass and no
other direction.
I no longer would know. The shot count by bullet strike is what I sue
now. If you have an interest I'll list some of them for you.
Post by Caeruleo
Several of us, including me, corrected you on your very misleading
statement. Challenge me in the slightest on this, and I will of course do
my best to locate the exact article in which you said these things, quote
you verbatim saying these things, along with the exact Google Groups URL
which irrefutably proves that you did indeed post such an article.
I'm sure I got those numbers from an article in McAdams files, and I
don't remember anything much about them.
Post by Caeruleo
In short, I find you to be just as bad, with no difference whatsoever,
except for the conclusion, as the Warren Commission, CIA, FBI, Secret
Service, etc., who in 1963-64 emphasized evidence of Oswald's sole guilt
and downplayed evidence to the contrary. You do exactly the same thing,
with no difference whatsoever, except in reverse: you emphasize evidence
that more people than Oswald were involved, and downplay evidence to the
contrary. I see no essential difference between you and the Warren
Commission, CIA, FBI and Secret Service. In other words, you criticize
others for something you do at least as often as they do.
Welp, as usual there you go again. If you try speaking to me in a
fairly decent manner, we can discuss the newer revelations I can impart,
but you may have a preconceived notion that I will be unable to change.
If you're interested in the newer things I've learned, let me know.

Chris
Caeruleo
2017-05-26 14:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
Fascinating. I've been posting here since October 6, 2002, and this
entire time it has seemed to me that there are an approximately equal
number of CTs and LNs who post to this newsgroup, so I find your claim
that it is "mostly what's called LNs" to be, well, rather novel. And as
far as "hidebound" I have noticed that equally often with CTs and LNs;
both, about equally often, espouse their "pet theories" to explain this or
that aspect of the assassination.
Well, my experience is that there are more LNs, though it may be they
are more vocal, so more easily recognized.
That also I find to be nonsensical. I've seen plenty of "vocal" CTs here,
and you yourself are every bit as "vocal" as any LN here, unless you are
using a very different definition of "vocal" than the majority of
English-speakers worldwide.
Post by mainframetech
But we're both going with out
opinions.
I have no idea what to make of that sentence since you yourself have
expressed your opinions many times.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses.
I have seen you many times claim that it is "proven" that the Zapruder
film was altered, and every single time I've seen you say that, whenever
you've supplied any "evidence" for it, I've only seen you "cite"
"evidence" that I have found to be, shall we say, extremely tenuous. For
example, before I lifted you from my killfile, I saw that another poster
had quoted you as naming some CIA dude as claiming, more than three
decades later, that the "version" of the Zapruder film most often seen by
then conflicted with his recollection of what the head wounding looked
like when he saw the film more than three decades earlier. That hardly
amounts to "proof" of alteration.
That was one of the CIA film Analysts, who was interviewed by Douglass
Horne. But he was NOT the only evidence, so please don't get hung up on
that.
It's still worth addressing though. A CIA film analyst, saying
approximately three decades after the assassination that what is now most
often presented as the Zapruder film is not what he recalled from three
decades earlier is hardly anything even remotely close to "solid" evidence
that the film was altered.
Post by mainframetech
There is quire a long list of evidence you'll find in the 4th
volume of 5 on the ARRB, written by Douglas Horne.
And I have seen many people (including at least a few CTs) say that they
find Douglas Horne to be extremely biased or some such thing.
Post by mainframetech
It uses hundreds of
pages of proofs that the film was taken to the CIA film lab in Rochester,
NY and altered there.
Ah, but exactly *which* *copy* of the film was taken to the CIA film lab?
Are you going to claim that at the time it was the *only* copy of the
film? Because if there was even *one* other copy of the film at that
time, then "they" would run the risk of an *unaltered* copy of the film
surfacing publicly.

It was first use to set up briefing boards for the
Post by mainframetech
higher ups, and then after alteration, it was used separately by another
CIA Film Analyst to run more briefing boards for the higher ups all over
again. This was to compare the original film to the altered film to
decided if the work was acceptable. After this when the Life magazine
bought the rights for a exorbitant amount, They NEVER showed the film
again as a movie, always a frame here or there. And yet they paid an
extreme amount for it.
http://spartacus-educational.com/USAlife.htm
Post by Caeruleo
And I've never asked you this question before, I don't think, but I will
do so now, and this applies to *anyone* who claims the film was, ah, um,
It isn't the appearance of wounding in the film, almost all of which is
forward of JFK's right ear, that has caused millions of people to believe
that there was a shot from the right front; it is instead the "back and to
the left" motion of his head.
That is incorrect.
No, it is *not* incorrect. The vast majority of people I have ever talked
to about the assassination, and thousands upon thousands of people I've
never talked to, but whose statements I have heard or seen on the
internet, in newspapers, magazines, on the radio and on television have
said that either the *primary* reason or one of the *main* reasons that
they believe there was a shot from the right front is because of the back
and to the left motion of his head. Nothing else. Just that. Or else
very little except for that motion. A tremendously *smaller* percentage
of people have ever said that it *isn't* the motion of the head that has
convinced them that there was a shot from the GK. A *much* smaller
percentage of people say anything at all about the appearance of the
damage to his head in the film, or about the apparent direction of blood
spray. The vast majority of people say it's the motion of his head that
has convinced them, more than any other evidence.
Post by mainframetech
If you will bear with me, I'll show you why it's
believed that the kill shot was from the right front.
Even before I look, I already know that what you're about to show me has
nothing to do with why the *majority* of people who believe in a GK gunman
say they believe this. Remember that the majority of people worldwide who
have any opinion whatsoever on this matter, regardless of what that
opinion is, have not studied the assassination nearly as thoroughly as we
here in this newsgroup. The vast majority have, at the most, in their
entire lives, seen no more than one or two or three documentaries about
the assassination, and/or have read no more than one or two or three
complete testimonies to the WC, and/or have only read, at the most, one or
two or three books about the assassination, and/or get all or most of
their information about the assassination from the movie "JFK." Stop at
least ten adults at random on the street and ask them what their opinion
is about the assassination and if they express any opinion at all, then
ask them how much they have actually studied the assassination, what their
exact reasons are for believing whatever they believe, and what their
sources of information are. I guarantee you that it is a 99% certainty
that you will find that the majority of them give away the fact that
they've barely studied the assassination at all.
Post by mainframetech
If you look closely
at the 'stare-of-death' photo, and ENLARGE it, look just under the hair
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
It would be helpful to post a much larger and more high-resolution scan of
that photo, such as this:

Loading Image...
Post by mainframetech
I've shown that to many people outside of this forum and most of them
see the same thing, and it's something surprising.
I'm assuming that what you are talking about is the sort of "jagged edge"
that appears to the right (JFK's right, that is, our "left" when viewing
the image) and somewhat above his right eye. If that's what you're
talking about (and it may not be) the unfortunate thing about both scans
of that photo that you and I produced is that that part of his head is so
much in shadow that it is difficult to make out what, exactly, it is.
And I could show that photo to people outside of this forum too,
especially to people who have never seen any *other* photos from the
autopsy, and they might naturally say it is "surprising" also.

But of course, since I *have* seen *all* photos of the autopsy that ever
been made public many times in my life, I knew exactly what that was
within the first three seconds of the first time I looked at the link you
provided. It is of course seen far more clearly in this color photo taken
of the right side of his head:

Loading Image...

It is shaped, somewhat, like a triangle, which is more or less "pointing"
toward his right eye, and it is quite obviously an area where part of his
skull is missing, and it goes through part of his right eyebrow. More or
less the same thing is shown in the frontal x-ray of his skull, in which
part of the right side of the skull of his forehead is missing down to
about the level of his right eyebrow:

Loading Image...

So, if that's what you're talking about (and I've already admitted that it
might not be) I don't see how that indicates that the Zapruder film was
altered. Just like in the film, the majority of the damage is shown to be
in the right hemisphere of his head, and also to be forward of his ear.
Notice I didn't say "all" of the damage; I said the "majority" of the
damage.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
So why on earth would "they" "alter" the
part of the film (the sudden appearance of damage forward of his right
ear) that DIDN'T make millions of people think there was a shot from his
right and in front of him, but NOT "alter" the part which HAS made
millions of people think there was a shot from the GK, the "back and to
the left" motion of his head? Why didn't "they" "alter" THAT part, and
make his head look as if it was rocketing FORWARD??
You're asking the wrong person about their motives for some of their
alterations, but some make perfect sense. It was critical to the plotters
that the case rest completely on a single 'lone nut' shooter, and Hoover
was after that result from the beginning. So it had to be a hit from
above and behind, and the wounds seem to echo that.
That still does not address what I said. The aspect of the film that is
most *likely* to convince the average person that there was a shot from
the right front is the back and to the left motion of his head, and this
has been borne out ever since the film was first seen by the general
public in 1975. Once again, the vast majority of people who have ever
expressed the opinion that there was a shot from the GK have specifically
said that it is either mainly, or exclusively, because they see his head
go back and to the left. A much smaller percentage mention anything about
the appearance of the damage to his head as their main reason for
believing there was a shot from the GK.

So once again, your "they" altered an aspect of the film that was far
*less* likely to convince the general public that there was a shot from
the right front, but left intact the aspect of the film that was far
*more* likely to convince them of such a thing.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Oh, they're sophisticated enough to "alter" the appearance of the damage
to his head, but suddenly they're "not sophisticated enough" to "alter"
the *motion* of his head??
I've said nothing about the alteration of the movement of the head.
I didn't say you did. What I obviously *am* saying is that you should pay
more attention to that aspect of the film regarding the overall majority
opinion of the general public as to exactly why they believe there was a
shot from the GK.
Post by mainframetech
I
don't se a reason to change it, but it could be they did.
You don't see a reason to change it??? You don't see any reason to change
the single aspect of the film that was far more likely than any other
aspect of the film to convince the general public that there was a shot
from the Grassy Knoll???
Post by mainframetech
The majority of
changes were in the 313 area and following.
Which includes the back and to the left movement of his head, the one
single aspect of that film that has convinced the majority of people who
believe in a GK gunman that there was a shot fired from the GK. No other
aspect of that film has served to convince nearly as many people to come
to this conclusion other than the motion of his head.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
You know, the aspect of the film which, far more often, for a tremendously
larger number of people, has convinced people to think that that shot came
from in front of him and to his right?
You know perfectly well that a MUCH larger number of people have cited the
MOTION of his head as being one of their PRIMARY reasons for believing
that that shot came from the GK than have cited the appearance of damage
to his head, or the primary direction of the majority of the blood spray
seen in this "supposedly altered" film.
As per Vincent DiMaio in his book "Gunshot Wounds" mentions that with
rifle shots there can be a "backsplash" from a wound going back in the
direction the bullet came in.
You still continue to evade me. The majority of people, worldwide, who
believe that the fatal head shot came from the GK have never read that
book. They believe this, exclusively, or almost exclusively, because they
see his head going back and to the left in the Zapruder film, and they
very seldom, if ever, cite any other evidence than that.

Are you clear that I am talking about the average person, not the average
JFK assassination researcher?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
So in other words "they" "altered" the aspect of the film that was *less*
likely to convince people that there was a shot from the GK, but didn't
"alter" the aspect of the film that was *more* likely to convince people
that there was a shot from the GK.
I can't speak to that.
You mean you *won't* speak to that. There is no "can't" in a circumstance
like this. All you have to do is make the decision to directly address,
in at least half as much detail as I have already done *without* being
asked to do so, which single aspect of the Zapruder film has convinced the
largest number of people that there was a shot from the GK. Altering a
far less obvious aspect of the film is pointless.
Post by mainframetech
If you listen to the explanations of Horne,
there might be answers to that in his volume 4.
Now wait a minute: there *might* be answers to that in his volume 4? You
mean you yourself don't even know for sure?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Apparently your "alterationists" were some of the most incredibly
***STUPID*** people who have ever lived on this planet, with far, far less
than average intelligence. Millions of people with no more than *average*
intelligence have said that their ONE AND ONLY REASON for believing there
was a shot from the front was the "back and to the left" motion. I myself
have talked to dozens of such people, and whenever I have told them that
in the SAME FILM it ALSO shows the vast majority of the damage to his head
being forward of his right ear, and also told them that the majority of
the blood spray seen in the film goes forward, nearly all of them have
told me that they never, ever, ever noticed either of those things, no
matter how many or how few times they have watched the film.
I think you have also missed the list I made here of over 39 witnesses
to a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.
Evasion, evasion, evasion. You continue to absolutely *refuse* to
*directly* address this obvious, glaring, and *fatal* problem with your
scenario: "they" altered the film, yet left intact in the film the back
and to the left motion, the single aspect of the film, far more than any
other aspect of the film, which has convinced millions of people that
there was a shot from the GK.

And apparently YOU have missed the HUNDREDS of articles that I have posted
to this newsgroup since 2002 in which I have plainly and unequivocally
said that I do indeed believe there was a hole in the back of his head,
and that the Parkland personnel, plus additional persons such as Clint
Hill, were absolutely correct about that. You also have apparently missed
the many articles I have posted here for the past fourteen years in which
I have soundly criticized, and even ridiculed, LNs who claim that all of
those witnesses were "wrong." As I've said to them many times, for
example, the average ten-year-old child, without a day of medical
training, can easily tell the difference between the front of a human head
and the back or rear, and can also easily tell the difference between that
and the right or left side of the head.

At this late date it is totally unnecessary for me to have ever seen your
"list" of those witnesses, since I had already read their statements close
to a decade before you first posted to this newsgroup.
Post by mainframetech
There was a bullet hole in the right
forehead/temple area that went through the skull and blew out the BOH
slightly to the right of center.
Coming from the right and in *front* of JFK? The exit damage would far
more likely be somewhere on the *left* of center.
Post by mainframetech
The list I made has the name of the
witness, the words they said, and the context (link) where it can be
found.
Which I have no need whatsoever to see now since I was already reading
those same statements fourteen years ago. And as I said above, I have
posted hundreds of articles here in which I have said I *agree* with those
witnesses.
Post by mainframetech
There was a 'large hole' in the BOH, but many people were fooled into
thinking that there was only a small bullet hole there. They even made
drawings that fit that scenario to fool people. They released the photos
supposedly of the autopsy, and said they were 'leaked'. Some of those
were also altered. And I'll be happy to show you which ones.
I've already been through all that years ago, thanks.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
You can also get the 4th volume
of 5 on the ARRB by Douglas Horne, who was on the group when they got
newer interviews with many people that hadn't had a chance to talk before.
I find it "fascinating" that you only name Douglas Horne, who is decidedly
in the *minority* in terms of the views expressed by the *majority* of
people who gave statements to the ARRB.
Minority or majority have no bearing when one set is better for
explanation than another.
You mean "better" in your opinion. Sorry, that isn't good enough. The
majority very obviously *does* have a bearing in a case like this. When
the majority of experts in a particular subject come to the same
conclusion, it should quite obviously be taken seriously.
Post by mainframetech
Horne was also in close contact with the ARRB
and was a team member of it. He listened to much sworn testimony and
administered some of it too.
So? He is nowhere even remotely close to the only person who did all
that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Many of the answers to questions are in those files. Horne spent hundreds
of pages explaining the proofs for the alteration of the Z-film, and he
explains also the technical details of how the film was altered with the
available equipment of 1963.
As I have seen you do so often before, you emphasize whoever disputed the
idea that all shots came from the TSBD, at the expense of all the evidence
that all shots came from a single location. I will remind you, yet again,
of that time when you added together the witnesses who said that ALL the
shots sounded as if they came ONLY from the grassy knoll, plus the tiny,
tiny minority of witnesses who said the shots sounded as if they came from
multiple directions, and acted as if these were all the same group of
witnesses, when in actual fact, they are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT groups of
One group said that ALL the shots sounded as if they came from the grassy
knoll and NO OTHER DIRECTION.
An entirely DIFFERENT group said the shots came from multiple directions.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/McAdams.png
I remember, far too clearly to be mistaken, that you said something like
"34% of the witnesses thought the shots came from the grassy knoll and
from another direction."
If I quoted a percentage, I think it came from an article in McAdams
files.
No. If I remember correctly you specifically cited that exact image of
that exact piechart to back up your claims.
Post by mainframetech
But that is overridden by counting the bullet strikes in Dealey
Plaza.
How on earth can someone "count" the bullet strikes in Dealey?
Post by mainframetech
That helps fix the number of shots. Much has changed since you
last were involved. Many proofs have strengthened.
Um, since I "last" was "involved"? How long ago, exactly, do you think I
was "last involved"? The dates on which I post to this newsgroup give no
indication whatsoever as to what *other* dates I study the assassination
on days when I *don't* post here. Yes, I am typically absent from this
newsgroup for months at a time. So? How do you know that I'm not
studying the assassination during the months I don't post here?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Or else you conflated the OTHER group of witnesses, listed as "Other," and
"41% of the witnesses thought the shots came from the grassy knoll and
from at least one other direction."
I haven't used numbers like that in years.
But you did at one time.
Post by mainframetech
I no longer try to count
sources or shots by percentage of shots heard here or there. The count if
bullet strikes is what I use nowadays.
And how on earth can anyone count the number of bullet strikes?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Ah, but what that chart ***ACTUALLY*** says is that 31% thought that
***ALL*** of the shots came from the grassy knoll ***ONLY*** and that only
three percent thought the shots came from more than one direction. in
addition, "Other" includes witnesses who thought, for example, that *all*
of the shots sounded as if they came from the Triple Underpass and no
other direction.
I no longer would know. The shot count by bullet strike is what I sue
now. If you have an interest I'll list some of them for you.
Please do, since I have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

:P
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Several of us, including me, corrected you on your very misleading
statement. Challenge me in the slightest on this, and I will of course do
my best to locate the exact article in which you said these things, quote
you verbatim saying these things, along with the exact Google Groups URL
which irrefutably proves that you did indeed post such an article.
I'm sure I got those numbers from an article in McAdams files, and I
don't remember anything much about them.
No article in his "files" that I've ever seen (and I've been looking at
his website since 2000, starting two years before I first posted to this
newsgroup) specifically says anything even remotely similar to what you
claimed at the time, unless it was an article written by a CT that he
chose to include just to give an alternate viewpoint. And I've already
shown you the very piechart that you referred directly to back then. All
right, let me see if I can find that exchange.

Yep, here it is, found it in less than five minutes:

https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.assassination.jfk/VKRW9jmuHpY/4cORJbr5BQoJ

In that article, which was a reply to Anthony Marsh (who in his turn was
replying to me) you said this:

"I believe the most recent numbers that John collected using his student
was 34-35% of the total thought shots came from the Grassy Knoll, and that
was after he applied his subjective view to some of the counts."

You were very *obviously* referring to this article on his website:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

Scroll down to the section titled "Definitive Tabulation" and there is
where he explains that his students helped him in this, and to the right
is the very same piechart I gave a link to in the article of mine to which
you are now responding. Nowhere in that entire section, nowhere, does it
say "34-35% of the total thought shots came from the Grassy Knoll." It
quite specifically says 31% thought the shots came from the Grassy Knoll
*only*, as in *all* of the shots. You very obviously added a completely
*different* group of witnesses, who are given only as "Other," which are
said there to comprise a mere 3%.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
In short, I find you to be just as bad, with no difference whatsoever,
except for the conclusion, as the Warren Commission, CIA, FBI, Secret
Service, etc., who in 1963-64 emphasized evidence of Oswald's sole guilt
and downplayed evidence to the contrary. You do exactly the same thing,
with no difference whatsoever, except in reverse: you emphasize evidence
that more people than Oswald were involved, and downplay evidence to the
contrary. I see no essential difference between you and the Warren
Commission, CIA, FBI and Secret Service. In other words, you criticize
others for something you do at least as often as they do.
Welp, as usual there you go again. If you try speaking to me in a
fairly decent manner,
Once again, that is the pot calling the kettle black. You were not
speaking to me in anything even remotely close to what most people would
call a "decent" manner when you falsely accused me of being the same
person as Sandy McCroskey, although you did eventually apologize for that.
But I have seen you many times address other posters here in a manner that
many people besides me would call rude and condescending, so you are
criticizing me for something you do at least as often as I do, if not more
often.
Post by mainframetech
we can discuss the newer revelations I can impart,
but you may have a preconceived notion that I will be unable to change.
If you're interested in the newer things I've learned, let me know.
I have always been interested in learning new things as I have
demonstrated here hundreds of times for fourteen years. But once again,
pot/kettle, Chris: you also, very obviously, have a preconceived notion,
whether you admit or or not, whether you realize it or not. You also have
demonstrated that here in hundreds of articles.

But please do go right ahead. If I have time, I will read all of your
replies to me, but right at this moment I have to stop because I have to
go to work, and today I work for nine hours straight.
mainframetech
2017-05-27 11:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
As a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
Fascinating. I've been posting here since October 6, 2002, and this
entire time it has seemed to me that there are an approximately equal
number of CTs and LNs who post to this newsgroup, so I find your claim
that it is "mostly what's called LNs" to be, well, rather novel. And as
far as "hidebound" I have noticed that equally often with CTs and LNs;
both, about equally often, espouse their "pet theories" to explain this or
that aspect of the assassination.
Well, my experience is that there are more LNs, though it may be they
are more vocal, so more easily recognized.
That also I find to be nonsensical. I've seen plenty of "vocal" CTs here,
and you yourself are every bit as "vocal" as any LN here, unless you are
using a very different definition of "vocal" than the majority of
English-speakers worldwide.
Fortunately, I'm mostly immune to opinions that take shots. What
you've seen is like me, purely opinion. I am indeed very vocal, but I'm
only one. I converse or defend to many LNs almost every day that think
I'm wrong for one reason or another. It's not a new thing for me.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
But we're both going with out
opinions.
I have no idea what to make of that sentence since you yourself have
expressed your opinions many times.
I will on occasion state an opinion, but usually I stick to statements
that I believe have been proven, and I also stick to quotes usually that I
get from the ARRB files.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
The Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses.
I have seen you many times claim that it is "proven" that the Zapruder
film was altered, and every single time I've seen you say that, whenever
you've supplied any "evidence" for it, I've only seen you "cite"
"evidence" that I have found to be, shall we say, extremely tenuous. For
example, before I lifted you from my killfile, I saw that another poster
had quoted you as naming some CIA dude as claiming, more than three
decades later, that the "version" of the Zapruder film most often seen by
then conflicted with his recollection of what the head wounding looked
like when he saw the film more than three decades earlier. That hardly
amounts to "proof" of alteration.
That was one of the CIA film Analysts, who was interviewed by Douglass
Horne. But he was NOT the only evidence, so please don't get hung up on
that.
It's still worth addressing though. A CIA film analyst, saying
approximately three decades after the assassination that what is now most
often presented as the Zapruder film is not what he recalled from three
decades earlier is hardly anything even remotely close to "solid" evidence
that the film was altered.
That's your opinion. Memory is funny. When a situation is emotional
or very important in some way, memory is enhanced.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/08/21/emotion-can-heighten-memories/43437.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-by-surprise/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438804000479

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v2/n3/abs/nn0399_289.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11166493

https://www2.bc.edu/elizabeth-kensinger/Kensinger_JML06.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10072696
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
There is quire a long list of evidence you'll find in the 4th
volume of 5 on the ARRB, written by Douglas Horne.
And I have seen many people (including at least a few CTs) say that they
find Douglas Horne to be extremely biased or some such thing.
I'm sure he's biased, since he was on the ARRB, and was very close to
the many proofs available there. I'm sure that he was convinced by the
evidence that he saw daily that we're dealing with a plot, and not a 'lone
nut' theory from the WCR. Others with opinions of him are welcome to
them, I have my own.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
It uses hundreds of
pages of proofs that the film was taken to the CIA film lab in Rochester,
NY and altered there.
Ah, but exactly *which* *copy* of the film was taken to the CIA film lab?
Are you going to claim that at the time it was the *only* copy of the
film? Because if there was even *one* other copy of the film at that
time, then "they" would run the risk of an *unaltered* copy of the film
surfacing publicly.
The other copies were also replaced by copies of the altered film.
That may have been facilitated by Life magazine. I'm not sure of the
method, though I believe that Horne dealt with it.
Post by Caeruleo
Post by mainframetech
It was first use to set up briefing boards for the
higher ups, and then after alteration, it was used separately by another
CIA Film Analyst to run more briefing boards for the higher ups all over
again. This was to compare the original film to the altered film to
decided if the work was acceptable. After this when the Life magazine
bought the rights for a exorbitant amount, They NEVER showed the film
again as a movie, always a frame here or there. And yet they paid an
extreme amount for it.
http://spartacus-educational.com/USAlife.htm
Post by Caeruleo
And I've never asked you this question before, I don't think, but I will
do so now, and this applies to *anyone* who claims the film was, ah, um,
It isn't the appearance of wounding in the film, almost all of which is
forward of JFK's right ear, that has caused millions of people to believe
that there was a shot from the right front; it is instead the "back and to
the left" motion of his head.
That is incorrect.
No, it is *not* incorrect. The vast majority of people I have ever talked
to about the assassination, and thousands upon thousands of people I've
never talked to, but whose statements I have heard or seen on the
internet, in newspapers, magazines, on the radio and on television have
said that either the *primary* reason or one of the *main* reasons that
they believe there was a shot from the right front is because of the back
and to the left motion of his head. Nothing else. Just that. Or else
very little except for that motion.
It's interesting how you come by knowledge. You have heard it from many
people, none of whom are named. And again you speak of a "majority" which
has nothing to do with truth.
Post by Caeruleo
A tremendously *smaller* percentage
of people have ever said that it *isn't* the motion of the head that has
convinced them that there was a shot from the GK. A *much* smaller
percentage of people say anything at all about the appearance of the
damage to his head in the film, or about the apparent direction of blood
spray. The vast majority of people say it's the motion of his head that
has convinced them, more than any other evidence.
Post by mainframetech
If you will bear with me, I'll show you why it's
believed that the kill shot was from the right front.
Even before I look, I already know that what you're about to show me has
nothing to do with why the *majority* of people who believe in a GK gunman
say they believe this. Remember that the majority of people worldwide who
have any opinion whatsoever on this matter, regardless of what that
opinion is, have not studied the assassination nearly as thoroughly as we
here in this newsgroup. The vast majority have, at the most, in