A sensible question, the autopsy should have been carried out in Texas by law FACT However government agents forcably removed the body from Parklands hospital for the autopsy to be carried out in Washington FACT. question is why ? Also why were witnesses told they were mistaken and only heard three shots before anybody had even heard of Oswald ? These 2 instances alone should make you suspicious as is the fact Oswald can'tbe tied to the gun and parafin tests prove he did not fire a gun that day
Maybe the lone-nutter trolls can give us a non-sinister explanation as to why Moorman's #4 Polaroid disappeared? It apparently showed the upper floors of the TSBD. If it depicted a rifle sticking out of the window, don't you think it would have been on the front page of every newspaper?
We've been told for years that Kennedy clutched at his throat. Take a good look at the Z-film, and I think you will see that his arms are akimbo, elbows high, hands in balls, moving in a slight circular motion, entirely consistent with the back wound's damage to the nervous system to that kind of back wound angle low from the Dal-Tex building, not TSD. The neck wound was one of entrance, said Dallas doctors indicating It occurred at another time, say bullet fragment from the windshield shot?
@FRTothus You have no idea what you're blabbering about! All you're doing is repeating the same old crap and nonsense the pro-misleaders have been producing for decades!
Your not a physician. Your not a forensic pathologist! You're not in law enforcement! You know nothing about ballistics, weapons, characteristics of bullets, the effects they have on people when they're struck and you have no experience in investigating crimes.
You are a parrot though. Repeating baloney over and over and over.
@LoneNutter1 You have no idea who I am, what my background and schooling is, what I know, what I've read. You are quick to personal attacks, and quick to scorn and ridicule that which doesn't match what you've already decided is so, facts be damned. In this regard, I am the one who is not surprised.
It's really easy to figure out how you think when you attach yourself to foolishness like "Zapruder Film Fakery"!
You must take serious issue with Jim Garrison's use of the film in the Clay Shaw trial. You must take serious issue with Oliver Stone for using the film in his movie and the famous "Back and to the left".
You must take serious issue with those who say the film shows a shot to the front.
Common sense says it was easier to destroy the film than alter it!
@LoneNutter1 Yes, I do take issue with the integrity of the Z-film as presented, am aware of how it was altered to obscure what really happened, how the film's elements were toyed with. I'm also aware of the overwhelming testimony and evidence of shots from the front right, as well as from the rear. What you call common sense is merely what you believe it is, what is commonly accepted because it is politically expedient, not what comports with the facts and evidence, not that which is true.
@FRTothus Politically expedient my eye! I don't believe in shots from the front for the following facts (not opinion)
1. All 9 forensic pathologists for the HSCA said there is no medical evidence of JFK being struck from the front. All the entry wounds (2) were from above and behind.
2. The particulate matter from the 3rd shot went forward-The Connally's , Agents Greer and Kellerman were covered in the material
3.The physical evidence (JFK's clothing) says the shots were from above and behind.
@FRTothus 4. The bullet fragment were found to the front of JFK. Once again, this supports shots from behind and not the front.
5. Not a single person saw anyone firing any weapon from the knoll
6.There was at least 1 witness who saw a rifle firing from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
I'm not about to start listing the reasons it was LHO firing the rifle, but this entire notion of the Z-film being fudged is totally absurd! There was no technology available to alter the images. There wasn't time
@FRTothus to alter the images with Zapruder maintaining possession of the camera and film until it was developed and copies were made while he waited at the location where it was processed. If the Z-film was altered was was the alteration suppose to prove or disprove? The film isn't essential to prove a murder took place. Most killings aren't filmed or photographed yet we prosecute accused people every year based on the medical, physical, forensic and ballistic evidence.
@FRTothus Instead of chasing silly alteration theories that emanate from people who have a single agenda of exploiting the killing of a president for the sake of profit.
@LoneNutter1 I get it. You believe what the government tells you you believe. That's okay. There are lots of others who do the same. It's difficult to think independently in the face of such official claims, no matter how ludicrous or devoid of fact. I don't know what you expect to accomplish by repeating official lies. You are certainly not convincing anyone, certainly not me. Going to start name-calling again?
@FRTothus I believe facts and evidence regardless of the source mixed with a little common sense. It's difficult to dismiss the findings of the 9 pathologists for the HSCA. It's difficult to dismiss the physical evidence of JFK's clothing. It's difficult to dismiss the finding of Dr. Vincent Guinn and the analysis of the bullet fragments found in the limo. I have a difficult time believing that 8mm film in 1963 was altered by some entity of the government because the technology didn't exist to
@FRTothus make the alleged alterations. In fact, there's no technology today that could make the alterations you allege. I have a difficult time believing all of the different conspiracies that have been publicized because they all differ significantly. And common sense says all of them cannot be correct. If you have documentation that the film was altered; if you have a witness that says they took part in the alteration and they explained how it was done I'd listen. IIf you can offer an
@LoneNutter1 There is plenty of evidence that contradicts what you posit. There are many doctors at Parkland who describe a massive wound of exit in the back of his head, plenty of evidence of a cover-up and the selective use of evidence to support a pre-determined outcome, namely that LHO was the lone gunman, acting by himself. There is a vast history of such government lies, deceit, trickery, and obfuscation, here and elsewhere, all outlandish, yet all stubbornly believed by many.
@FRTothus Parkland Hospital doctors were were trying to save JFK's life. They did not perform a physical examination of him nor did they turn him over and any observations of the specific woulds would have been cursory. Physicians trained in determining the cause of death are better equipped to make a detailed evaluation of the remains and not the physicians who are trying to save a life in the ER. The physician who performed the autopsy and all 9 of the HSCA pathologists are in agreement about
@LoneNutter1 With regard to the wounds, the Parkland doctors saw gunshot wounds all the time, were not so busy as to not see what they saw, and they and everyone else who had anything to say about the wounds, all who were in attendance all describe the same huge blow-out wound to the back of the head. Such contemporary medical unanimity has great credibility, but directly contrary to the Warren Commission’s conclusion that it must have been Oswald, so Parkland's doctors, too, must be "mistaken".
@FRTothus The doctors at Parkland never turned him over. They never knew about the entry wound to his upper back. How is it possible for people to see the back of his head when he was always face up and the back of his head was in a cradle? And yes, the doctors were mistaken. How do you explain the 9 forensic pathologists for the HSCA unanimously agreeing he was struck from behind by tow bullets? Obviously, they would have to be part of the cover-up. Suddenly your small group of conspirators
@FRTothus is beginning to increase in size. It means that all the the doctors at the original autopsy would have to be part of this conspiracy and the military personnel too. Plus the attendants who took JFK out of the casket for the autopsy, plus the people that put him in the casket, plus the mortician who prepared JFK's body. All of them would have to keep their mouths shut and if they said anything to a friend, a colleague, or a member of their family they would have to keep quiet too.
@FRTothus Now your little group is growing exponentially and you're believing it's not only possible but probable that all these hundreds of people were going to remain silent plus their friends, family and colleagues as well?? This is just too absurd to be seriously considered.
@FRTothus what they saw regarding entry and exit wounds and the cause of death. With your logic, anything and everything the government says is untrue. That isn't reasonable and contrary to what common sense says. I certainly don't believe everything the "govt." says but I don't dis-believe them all the time either.
@LoneNutter1 Such a perception limits what is allowed consideration, what falls under the category of questionable, or suspect. I maintain Oswald was the patsy he said he was, being compromised insofar as he actively participated in the creation of his own “legend” as a communist sympathizer to gain credibility for what he likely was told was US anti-communist national security purposes. Oswald was tied into the shadow US, on the payroll. He did what he was told to do by his handlers.
@FRTothus You defend the official line. You believe they are being as truthful as possible, that it would take too many people. I take the opposite approach. I believe a small team could have pulled this off, just as with other false flags. The surviving officials they have every reason NOT for the truth to come out, NOT to have someone break ranks, not to disobey and risk one’s security clearance or possible promotion.
@LoneNutter1 I am not here to entertain you. The questions you ask, the facts you demand I show you that refute every one of your conclusions are to be found in the many books devoted to the subject in the years since. If you had read those books, if you had done your research, looked with eyes open at the huge discrepancies and "coincidences" in that research, you would already have the correct answers, wouldn't be asking such silly questions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@FRTothus The books you read were written by carnival sideshow hucksters who have no interest in finding the truth. They're interested in making a buck. You go right ahead and hand over your money willingly to those who'll be happy to sell you their version of "The Truth". Too bad there are dozens of differing "truths" for sale. Too bad all of them can't be "the truth". Too bad that most of them are wrong. Why is your belief the correct one and ALL the other theories wrong?
@LoneNutter1 It's interesting that you would trust a hand-picked set of doctors to review (redacted) approved, safe material, provided to them eleven years later by the very FBI that was complicit in covering things up the first time around over the doctors and nurses at Parkland who had no dog in the fight. Instead of photos they were given drawings of photos!?! Read "High Treason" by Livingstone for a good start.
@FRTothus The set of hand picked doctors included Cyril Wecht. Are you familiar with his record?
If you're attempting to smear the character of the doctors then I assume you have something that supports your innuendo? No?? You don't??! What a pity and it comes as no surprise.
@LoneNutter1 Many if not all of the answers are in "High Treason" by Livingstone and Groden, and Livingstone's "The Hoax of the Century: Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film", among others. Here's a few names to research: David Atlee Phillips, Maurice Bishop, Lucien Conain, George deMorenschildt.
@FRTothus Bob Groden? Is that the same Bob Groden who was exposed as a fraud at the 2nd OJ Simpson trial? The same Bob Groden who never finished high school, never took a class in photography, never took a class in how to ID a faked photo, the same Bob Groden who never belonged to a professional forensic photography society and the same Bob Groden who couldn't name a professional society of forensic photography? Is this the same Bob Groden you spoke about?
@LoneNutter1 I'm sorry, but the technology of matte layering DID exist at the time. Simply because you refuse to think so, simply because no one come forward and admit to doing it (and why on earth would they admit to a crime?) on the Z-film, is no reason to think that it couldn't have or didn't occur. We can go around and around. Bottom line: I believe this was a false-flag coup d'etat, and I think the evidence for it is everywhere one with eyes open looks.
@FRTothus I'm sure one can find unicorns if they have their eyes open. Matte layering does not explain how a double image appeared through the sprocket holes.
But you've never answered the question why the film was altered?
One last question, how do you explain the images in the photographs taken by Jay Skaggs?
@FRTothus Do you know who Jay Skaggs is? Do you know what he had in his possession for nearly 40 years? Do you know what was revealed in his photographs?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@FRTothus The pictures sat in his home for nearly 40 years (the govt. didn't alter them) and they show the people on the sides of Elm and Houston exactly where the Zapruder film shows them. No alterations, no tricks, no matte layering, no unicorns .
@LoneNutter1 I believe you are more interested in ridicule than much of anything else. Your lack of respect says a lot about your upbringing. I've been to the 6th Floor Museum, and it was just like it was in 1963 -- there was no Oswald there. I fail to see what there is in the photo that has any bearing on what might or might not have been done to the Z-film. Resort to ridicule or personal attacks one more time, and this conversation is over.
@FRTothus explanation why the Z-film was altered and it what it was intended to do, I'd listen. But I'm not going to entertain a "theory" based on junk science from hacks who have zero credentials, zero experience and are virtual unknowns in their field. and I'm not going to entertain a theory from another theorist who's primary purpose is to make a buck off the slaughter of another human being.
@FRTothus The physical evidence contradicts your claim of the throat wound being an entry wound. The fibers on JFK's tie and shirt collar were pushed away from him towards the front. This is clear and convincing physical proof of a bullet exiting his throat.
Compare the photos (1 & 2, 4:22) with the color shot of them in Dealy Plaza. Notice the shoes. The Zapruder film has been doctored. They WERE in the street like they said they were, not on the grass at all as the Zapruder film would have us believe. Further, there are many more discrepancies with the Z-film, not the least of which is that it does not show the car slowing almost to a stop, as many witnesses testified. The Z-film is has been altered.
@LoneNutter1 Actually, examination of the other photos taken reveal that all the others are consistent with one another, the Z film being the odd one out. Zapruder said that he filmed the entire motorcade, didn't stop and re-start. Take a look at the people in the Z-film. They are not looking at the president's car, but are looking up the street, still waiting for it to arrive.
@LoneNutter1 The testimony of Abraham Zapruder was taken at 1 p.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Texas, by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's [Warren] Commission.
@FRTothus Did you read Zapruder's testimony to the Warren Commission where he said he did not stop and re-start the camera? Or did you read that he said that from another source?
@FRTothus I have. I'm asking if you read it and saw where he said he did not stop and re-start the camera or did you read about his testimony from another source.
@LoneNutter1 There is not room here to reproduce Zapruder's testimony. He began when the motorcade was on Houston, not Elm. He noted during his July 22, 1964 testimony that several things in the film were not as he remembered. In February 13, 1969 (Clay Shaw trial) he is asked to authenticate the film, but there is no indication in the court record where in the sequence the film begins, the jump in today's Z-film is not mentioned ("no missing frames"), thus were absent from the viewing.
@FRTothus I'm not asking your to reproduce anything!! I asked if YOU read his WC testimony OR did YOU read that he did not stop and re-start the camera from another source.
Your answers could be:
1. Yes. I read his testimony in the Warren Commission records.
@FRTothus I'm reading his WC testimony and your characterization about not remembering things in the film is highly misleading! You've left out essential information from his testimony where after expressing some confusion about some of the photos he's shown, he acknowledges to the Commission that he understands and recognizes the picture(s) in question.
You never read his testimony did you? You're getting this nonsense from a Pro-conspiracy/misleading book!
@LoneNutter1 While there was at least one shot from behind, from up the street, probably from the Dal-Tex building, which makes the trajectory correct, they are looking up the street, waiting for the motorcade, not up. See the Altgens photo. Z-film is missing the turn, doesn't show the slowing. See Moorman's shot and where that puts her (not on the grass, no white shoes). Zapruder says he began filming w/ motorcade on Houston, through to overpass.
JFK Conspiracy: Worst Foot Forward. VOTE NO to this horrible video! It makes a MOCKERY of US who seek the TRUTH!! The maker of the video is an AGENT of the GOVERNMENT and shows TRUTH SEEKERS as DEFORMED!! VOTE NO!! VOTE NO!!
WE who seek the TRUTH will WIN and discover the TRUTH for AMERICA! This HORRIBLE video MUST be VOTED DOWN!! VOTE NO!!
Hey, check out the Socrates Johnson video for the song 'Rambler Man', which tells the story of Roger Craig - who saw what he said was Oswald being picked up shortly after the assasination in a Rambler Station wagon.
Part of it is filmed from the old Court House Building and Dealey plaza
It is interesting that any witness who's testimony does not match the WCR is branded an opportunist and is trying to profit by telling lies. When in fact, if you look who profited most from JFK's death, they are the people who's account draws the most scrutiny from the overwhelming majority. Those who sold the single shooter theory ( and yes, its a theory, not fact ) by far and away, benefited immensely when Kennedy was assassinated.
Jean Hill's credibility was so bad that Gerry Spence didn't want her as a witness in the Oswald trial. She was given strict instructions that she was to stay far away from the location of the trial.
well it proves to me that when i was just a teenager that the federal government and the warren commission lied as always , the federal reserve and the illuminati were and still in the buisness of killing people , thank you yorkshire and scottish rite freemasons . thanks to bush and obama you are more powerfull than ever . lee harvey oswald was really innocent .
I really don't know why I am knocking my fucking pan out trying to explain this to a fucking useless airhead cunt and troll like you. What's your next inane and asinine question going to be?? Maybe....Where's Dealey Plaza??
Hill and Moorman were both wearing black shoes (see Poloroid #1 and #2). When you see them in the Z film their shoes are painted white. hmmmmm. Also in another picture in this presentation one's appears white and seems like one is half black.
I see badgeman clear as can be. There was a home invasion robbery/rape on my street three years ago and the two men who did it were dressed as sheriffs deputies... that's how they got past the locked front door. Nothing odd about wearing an authority figure's uniform to gain access. Happens all the time. Reason impersonating an officer is a crime.
Isn't it interesting Jean Hill didn't see anyone firing a weapon at the president. But within a few years of this interview she changed her story to where she saw the gunman firing at the president. How does that happen? I guess it may have something to do with money and fame. Jean Hill sacrificed truth for the illicit pursuit of fame and fortune.
@autoad Well.... What can I say?? You're not getting my point. Do you want me to show you pictures??!! Maybe if you got your head out of your ass for long enough as regards your lies and libels against Jean Hill, you just might get my point. Until then, let's have no more of your sanctimonious and pretentious drivel! Not to mention lies!! Do you get my point? You follow?
@2012Iivestream You don't have to get ugly abou it! I'm sorry. When your message says "Isn't it interesting....? Errrr..errrr..ummm.....ahhhhhh...NO?"
it's not a well formed, clear message. It sounds like you're speaking in some type of bizarre cryptic code. Plus, you can bottle the profanity. There's no need for it.
@autoad "Ugly"........"not well formed"..........Geez! That reminds me! When ARE you going to get that face-lift you've always promised yourself? Profanity?? What profanity? I never engage in "profanity"!! It's a big fucking no no with me.
@2012Iivestream Jean Hill was a flagrante opportunist. There is film of Jean Hill being interviewed with Mary Moorman and when asked if she saw anyone shooting she said "No". Even her family made fun of her getting on the conspiracy bandwagon and her passion to always were the color red as a "tribute". (To something she never saw and something that wasn't there) Even Gerry Spence didn't want anything to do with her for the LHO trial in London because her credibility was zero. Go ahead and defend
@2012Iivestream this obvoius exploiter! A man died and she found a way ( it's called lying) to insert herself into history when she had no business being there. She has passed on, and my condolences go to her family. But she can longer exploit the brutal death of JFK in her sick pursuit of fame.
@autoad " A man died" What the fuck do you care? What the fuck do you know about Jean Hill? Coming in here with your ignorant ill-founded slanders about a woman who was better than you'll ever fucking be!! Somebody should insert a dildo up your fucking greasy ass and fucking gag you! You fucking arrogant bitch who knows fuck all about anything. Get the fuck outa here!! You self-righteous cunt! Go tell your fucking lies somewhere else! You fucked-in-the-ass whore!!
@autoad Jean's family despises lying freaks like you! If I were you I'd stay clear of "Jean's family" and shove your "condolences" up where the sun don't shine! You mendacious hypocrite!
@FrankCIanton Good use of the word Mendacious. You bumped your head on the word hypocrite. Check the definition. A better choice would have been "pontificator" or " pompous stuffed-shirt".
Jean earned her place in history. As with most reliable witnesses, their memory of events gets a touch cloudy over time. With Jean, her memory and vision improved the further away in time she moved from the fall of '63. I'm not too worried about her family. I suspect they thought she was "different".
@autoad I'll check fuck all!! Jean was grabbed from behind by two secret servicemen who manhandled her and took the photo out of her pocket. They knew she had it her in pocket because they had been watching her and everybody else in Dealey Plaza that day. They then hauled, yes, dragged her to an office overlooking Dealey Plaza and threatened her over what she said she saw and heard. It was only years later that dear Jean was brave enough to tell what happened. How brave would you have been?
@2012Iivestream Jean had the photo? Really?? That's odd. Mary Moorman took the photo. The Secret Service manhandled her? Really?? That's odd. There were no Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey. And they were watching her all day?? Really?? Why would they be watching her all day? Why would they be watching her? Did they know she was going to have a photo on her pocket later that day? Were they able to predict the future? There were thousands of people in Dealey, were agents watching
@autoad You fucking brainless jam rag! Mary took the Polaroid photos and handed them to Jean who applied the special developing solvent to the photo! Jean then put the photos in her pocket! There were secret servicemen and individuals purporting to secret servicemen all over Dealey Plaza. Were you fucking born stupid or do you have to work at it? They were watching EVERYFUCKINGBODY! Predict the future? You fucking amoeba!! LOL They certainly knew what was going to happen!! LOL
@2012Iivestream everyone? Why didn't the SS manhandle Charles Brehm? He was standing right next to Jean and Mary with his son. Why didn't the SS manhandle Bill Newman and his wife and children? He was on the right side of the limo when JFK was struck in the head.
You're been watching the film JFK too much. It's a great film; but it's total garbage when it comes to being factual.
Jean Hill was a parasite who took shameful advantage of the death of JFK.
@autoad Aha!! " Jean Hill was a parasite who took shameful advantage of the death of JFK." Now we're getting to the truth about YOU!! You fucking brainless uneducated moron!! So much for condolences to Jean's family. You HYPOCRITE!! You fucking FRAUD!! You EVIL lump of vile scum!! You dirty obnoxious little runt! You've been living too long. It's time you got cancer and died quickly or slowly! Whatever. A sordid spiteful little bitch like you has no right to be alive!!
@autoad Typical of you gays!! You ask if they are gay and they interpret the question as a request for sexual favors! Jean Hill has not been dead ten years and anyway, she looks better now than you ever will!! I think we can say with confidence that we we have established beyond a reasonable doubt and a moral certainty that you are, in fact, gay.
@2012Iivestream Jean Hill: Born February 11, 1931-Died November 7,2000.
Let's see 2010 minus 2000 = 10 years!
If you want to bellieve I'm gay, go ahead. I don't care. There have been men besides yourself who have taken a fancy to me. You need to understand, you're not the first.
@autoad I was just wondering what happens when you give a blow job. I suppose with you having Alzheimer's and all that, it just sorta goes right out of your head five minutes later?
@autoad If you don't care then why the fuck even mention it? Anyway, what man would be interested in an arrogant, embittered and twisted little bitch like you?
An arrogant, embittered and twisted little bitch who spends her time pumping out her hatred for Jean Hill? Have you no fucking boyfriends? You know fuck all about Jean Hill and you write like a 6 year old child. A 6 year old child would write better than you! Your fucking laughable questions and total lack of knowledge are hilarious!
@autoad "As we all know ranting, raving, swearing, cursing and threatening trumps facts and logic everytime."
Yes, and you should have known that before you opened your big mouth. It requires very little effort to put a dyslexic cretin and Alzheimer's sufferer like you in their place.
@autoad So!! You do not deny you have a big mouth!! This is a sort of progress.
I admire your honesty! You really must stop suspecting!! How many times do you have to be told? I am trying to make allowances for your unfortunate dyslexia and Alzheimer conditions (which in your case I feel were deserved) BUT I cannot go on making excuses for your stupidity!
@autoad Are you gay? So, how long have you had the hots for Jean Hill? This is a case of sexual envy and jealousy with you. Isn't it? I can spot these things.
Okay, Jean was a good looking woman. But that doesn't give you the right to slander her.
@autoad LOL So you found your long lost tattered old dictionary!!
Libel is the written word. Slander is the spoken word. In law the two terms are used together "to cover instances of such which appear in the digital media". Those who libel in print and various aural media invariably also slander in speech and various oral media.
@autoad Jean earned nothing. She didn't want "a place in history" and she didn't go looking for one on 112263. She went with Mary to take pictures of a cop she had the hots for.The further away from the events of 112263 the more confident she felt that she could tell what she knew based on what she'd seen and heard. This was typical of many witnesses who were there that day. Jean's memory and vision have nothing to do with it. She was healthy in mind and body right up to her death. R.I.P.
@autoad No dikding!? You don't say!! I'd never have guessed. Don't feel too bad. Some of the world's greatest assholes have been dyslexic. On enoffse indented.
jean hill is wrong from the start " he was looking at a dog in the midlle of the seat" the dog is as real the badge man which is not at all, hill claimed to step out on the street but the Z film not only shows she was she on the grass she wasnt even looking at the limo when she photographed McBride then years later she saw $ in her eyes, a true attention just like beverly oliver who wasnt the babushka lady
@Obelisk2290 you havent read about what actually happened. The president was given a gift of some kind of stuffed dog. It was down in the seat. idiot.
The JFK Assassination in time it will come to be seen for what it is : The latest example of a cosseted, self-absorbed generation’s inability to come to grips with the occasional and chance cruelties of real life.
You people better leave my Nazi Lebensborn bastard child Dr. Lowry/cddummkoph alone! He can't help it that he's a lying sack of shit, it's all my fault.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Having lots of suspects can allow you to explain away any inconvenient evidence. To avoid facing the evidence against LHO you need to claim the DPD lied, FBI tampered w/evidence, WC members engaged in a cover-up, that experts working for the HSCA lied when they authenticated evidence against LHO . Well why not claim all that? You've got gobs of people whose behavior and motives are suspect, right ?
The only thing you don't have is a coherent and sensible CON-Spiracy Theory
@VinnyShitHead ..your name suits you..anything you say can't be taken seriously.you've seen a clip of a lady who was actually there at the shooting and you choose to believe another version...you prick..are you an American?stupid fucking yanks..how much clearer must the facts be you muppet.
@bobeagle007 lol @ muppet. You gotta be either an aussie or a brit. I love that insult. It's such a sillier image than a regular puppet, which are generally creepy stalkers that sit at the end of your bed at night watching you sleep. Not to say that fozzy bear doesn't do the same.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To CON-Spiracist's it seems that 'more suspects' there are is better. If there are a lot of groups/individuals who had some plausible motive to kill JFK it must follow that some of them did. If there are a lot of suspects everybody can have a suspect that they can hate (R) can blame liberals (D) can blame the CIA/FBI/SS Northerners hating the South can blame right-wing Texas oil
If blaming a lone commy LHO isn't sufficiently satisfying , everybody can blame the Mafia
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Does 218 suspects in the assassn. mean that some of them must have conspired to kill JFK ? Or does it indicate the weakness of CON-Spiracy Theorys?
In real world criminal investigations having literally 100's of suspects is an indication that the probe is in very deep & serious trouble.
The evidence isn't converging to point to one suspect or a few suspects who may have conspired. The evidence against one suspect is as good as evidence against any other
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In real world criminal probes we can expect some of our evidence to be erroneous. Documents record "facts" that turn out to be untrue. Witnesses say things that are wrong . But suppose you're not willing to write off documents and witnesses as mistaken.
What kind of theories does that lead to ?
What we have now :
CON-Spiracists believing JFK was killed by many different people , for many different reasons and in many different ways !
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In any real world criminal investigation evidence is gathered to exculpate the innocent and incriminate the guilty . When the public criminal community of researchers 'Hi-Jacked History' the list suspects increased and continues to increase to this day !
Why ?
So more money can be made on books , video's and speaking tours if the list suspects is endless and is based upon bullshit so high it would of capsized the Titanic .
Another No-JFK-No-Brainer CON-Spiracy scam exposed ! Live w/it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Before 911 toothers came JFK toothers !
Dark machinations in the death of President Kennedy laid the spiritual groundwork for todays bizarre plots behind 9/11 .
In both cases the obviously guilty culprits are ignored in favor of politically expedient and more desirable targets for personal profit and self aggrandizement"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The SBT is now The Single Bullet Fact , backed by feild experimentation ! Dr. Lattimer , Dr. Nichols , Dr. Fakler can't all be wrong .... conSpiracy ? No experimentations done in 46 years of ceaseless hoaxing , brainwashing the American Public into "patsy"fication .
@VIDEOTIMEMACHINE That's correct. He didn't grab his chest. He put his hands up to his throat on the first shot, slumped forward, then became upright. I think the photo she got shows him on the second shot. Don't know where his hands were then, but doubtful they were at his chest.
I like what Bugliosi says about Jean Hill..'Her story is like fine wine as it gets better with age."
Compare Hills initial statement to Dallas PD and her words years later in Jim Marrs book. Her evolving and changing story is the product of a liar and an attention whore.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Moorman forgot to coat finish her picture with the film's supplied emulsion , thus losing forever whatever the picture had in detail of supposed grassy knoll assassin's.
This didn't deter CTer crayola artists in drawing in assassin's in a blow up that represented a area no greater than 3/16" of the original image frame.
Talk about 'conspiracy' by 'co-conspirators' of dishonesty and a 'cover-up' to exonerate a overly guilty Lee Harvey Oswald !
It is the liar's story that never changes because the lie has been memorized. A normal person will rarely use the same combination of words to relate the same story. Get your own story straight, dreadnaught2.
cdddraftsman When are you going to stop pedling this bullshit of yours like some cheap carnival barker? Why don't you get a life and face facts? The magic bullet theory (MBT) is a crock of shit forced on the American people and the biggest crock of shit of all was the WC. As President Nixon said of the WC: "If the American people believe this shit, they'll believe anything." The MBT is JUST one piece of shit wrapped in another piece of shit (WC). And you sure love your shit, boy. Don't you?
@Mobilecheese It was one guy, one gun, three bullets; end of story!!! All the rest is just fantasy bullshit by delusional people who need to get a life.
@proferic So YOU'RE that Snow White proferic and the three dwarfs with the bullet shaped dicks?!!? I've heard so much about you! So how is life with the fairies??
You got any more really good fairy stories to tell?
@k1IIer2one People resort to personal attacks when they've lost on the issues. Read "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner and get educated. Otherwise, your'e just blathering on. Peace dude!
@proferic OMG Gerald Posner!! LMFAO You talk about personal attacks and you write this: "All the rest is just fantasy bullshit by delusional people who need to get a life." Are you some sort of fucking nut?? Go fuck yourself! Dude! And fuck Posner while you're at it!! I heard Posner does a nice line in "fantasy bullshit". LOL
There was no dog in the limo.. if they are mistaken about that then you can't give them much credibility as to other things they allegedly saw that day.
A sensible question, the autopsy should have been carried out in Texas by law FACT However government agents forcably removed the body from Parklands hospital for the autopsy to be carried out in Washington FACT. question is why ? Also why were witnesses told they were mistaken and only heard three shots before anybody had even heard of Oswald ? These 2 instances alone should make you suspicious as is the fact Oswald can'tbe tied to the gun and parafin tests prove he did not fire a gun that day
edge78a 3 weeks ago
the "dog" she thought she saw actually was a stuffed animal of Lamb Chop that someone had given Jackie at Love Field.
pat442389 1 month ago
Maybe the lone-nutter trolls can give us a non-sinister explanation as to why Moorman's #4 Polaroid disappeared? It apparently showed the upper floors of the TSBD. If it depicted a rifle sticking out of the window, don't you think it would have been on the front page of every newspaper?
fallspeed 2 months ago
How come her story changed so much later ??
dks13827 3 months ago
We've been told for years that Kennedy clutched at his throat. Take a good look at the Z-film, and I think you will see that his arms are akimbo, elbows high, hands in balls, moving in a slight circular motion, entirely consistent with the back wound's damage to the nervous system to that kind of back wound angle low from the Dal-Tex building, not TSD. The neck wound was one of entrance, said Dallas doctors indicating It occurred at another time, say bullet fragment from the windshield shot?
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus You have no idea what you're blabbering about! All you're doing is repeating the same old crap and nonsense the pro-misleaders have been producing for decades!
Your not a physician. Your not a forensic pathologist! You're not in law enforcement! You know nothing about ballistics, weapons, characteristics of bullets, the effects they have on people when they're struck and you have no experience in investigating crimes.
You are a parrot though. Repeating baloney over and over and over.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 You have no idea who I am, what my background and schooling is, what I know, what I've read. You are quick to personal attacks, and quick to scorn and ridicule that which doesn't match what you've already decided is so, facts be damned. In this regard, I am the one who is not surprised.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus
It's really easy to figure out how you think when you attach yourself to foolishness like "Zapruder Film Fakery"!
You must take serious issue with Jim Garrison's use of the film in the Clay Shaw trial. You must take serious issue with Oliver Stone for using the film in his movie and the famous "Back and to the left".
You must take serious issue with those who say the film shows a shot to the front.
Common sense says it was easier to destroy the film than alter it!
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 Yes, I do take issue with the integrity of the Z-film as presented, am aware of how it was altered to obscure what really happened, how the film's elements were toyed with. I'm also aware of the overwhelming testimony and evidence of shots from the front right, as well as from the rear. What you call common sense is merely what you believe it is, what is commonly accepted because it is politically expedient, not what comports with the facts and evidence, not that which is true.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus Politically expedient my eye! I don't believe in shots from the front for the following facts (not opinion)
1. All 9 forensic pathologists for the HSCA said there is no medical evidence of JFK being struck from the front. All the entry wounds (2) were from above and behind.
2. The particulate matter from the 3rd shot went forward-The Connally's , Agents Greer and Kellerman were covered in the material
3.The physical evidence (JFK's clothing) says the shots were from above and behind.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus 4. The bullet fragment were found to the front of JFK. Once again, this supports shots from behind and not the front.
5. Not a single person saw anyone firing any weapon from the knoll
6.There was at least 1 witness who saw a rifle firing from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
I'm not about to start listing the reasons it was LHO firing the rifle, but this entire notion of the Z-film being fudged is totally absurd! There was no technology available to alter the images. There wasn't time
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus to alter the images with Zapruder maintaining possession of the camera and film until it was developed and copies were made while he waited at the location where it was processed. If the Z-film was altered was was the alteration suppose to prove or disprove? The film isn't essential to prove a murder took place. Most killings aren't filmed or photographed yet we prosecute accused people every year based on the medical, physical, forensic and ballistic evidence.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus Instead of chasing silly alteration theories that emanate from people who have a single agenda of exploiting the killing of a president for the sake of profit.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 I get it. You believe what the government tells you you believe. That's okay. There are lots of others who do the same. It's difficult to think independently in the face of such official claims, no matter how ludicrous or devoid of fact. I don't know what you expect to accomplish by repeating official lies. You are certainly not convincing anyone, certainly not me. Going to start name-calling again?
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus I believe facts and evidence regardless of the source mixed with a little common sense. It's difficult to dismiss the findings of the 9 pathologists for the HSCA. It's difficult to dismiss the physical evidence of JFK's clothing. It's difficult to dismiss the finding of Dr. Vincent Guinn and the analysis of the bullet fragments found in the limo. I have a difficult time believing that 8mm film in 1963 was altered by some entity of the government because the technology didn't exist to
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus make the alleged alterations. In fact, there's no technology today that could make the alterations you allege. I have a difficult time believing all of the different conspiracies that have been publicized because they all differ significantly. And common sense says all of them cannot be correct. If you have documentation that the film was altered; if you have a witness that says they took part in the alteration and they explained how it was done I'd listen. IIf you can offer an
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 There is plenty of evidence that contradicts what you posit. There are many doctors at Parkland who describe a massive wound of exit in the back of his head, plenty of evidence of a cover-up and the selective use of evidence to support a pre-determined outcome, namely that LHO was the lone gunman, acting by himself. There is a vast history of such government lies, deceit, trickery, and obfuscation, here and elsewhere, all outlandish, yet all stubbornly believed by many.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus Parkland Hospital doctors were were trying to save JFK's life. They did not perform a physical examination of him nor did they turn him over and any observations of the specific woulds would have been cursory. Physicians trained in determining the cause of death are better equipped to make a detailed evaluation of the remains and not the physicians who are trying to save a life in the ER. The physician who performed the autopsy and all 9 of the HSCA pathologists are in agreement about
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 With regard to the wounds, the Parkland doctors saw gunshot wounds all the time, were not so busy as to not see what they saw, and they and everyone else who had anything to say about the wounds, all who were in attendance all describe the same huge blow-out wound to the back of the head. Such contemporary medical unanimity has great credibility, but directly contrary to the Warren Commission’s conclusion that it must have been Oswald, so Parkland's doctors, too, must be "mistaken".
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus The doctors at Parkland never turned him over. They never knew about the entry wound to his upper back. How is it possible for people to see the back of his head when he was always face up and the back of his head was in a cradle? And yes, the doctors were mistaken. How do you explain the 9 forensic pathologists for the HSCA unanimously agreeing he was struck from behind by tow bullets? Obviously, they would have to be part of the cover-up. Suddenly your small group of conspirators
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 You have obviously not taken the time to read and listen to the testimony of the doctors at Parkland.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus is beginning to increase in size. It means that all the the doctors at the original autopsy would have to be part of this conspiracy and the military personnel too. Plus the attendants who took JFK out of the casket for the autopsy, plus the people that put him in the casket, plus the mortician who prepared JFK's body. All of them would have to keep their mouths shut and if they said anything to a friend, a colleague, or a member of their family they would have to keep quiet too.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus Now your little group is growing exponentially and you're believing it's not only possible but probable that all these hundreds of people were going to remain silent plus their friends, family and colleagues as well?? This is just too absurd to be seriously considered.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus what they saw regarding entry and exit wounds and the cause of death. With your logic, anything and everything the government says is untrue. That isn't reasonable and contrary to what common sense says. I certainly don't believe everything the "govt." says but I don't dis-believe them all the time either.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 Such a perception limits what is allowed consideration, what falls under the category of questionable, or suspect. I maintain Oswald was the patsy he said he was, being compromised insofar as he actively participated in the creation of his own “legend” as a communist sympathizer to gain credibility for what he likely was told was US anti-communist national security purposes. Oswald was tied into the shadow US, on the payroll. He did what he was told to do by his handlers.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus You defend the official line. You believe they are being as truthful as possible, that it would take too many people. I take the opposite approach. I believe a small team could have pulled this off, just as with other false flags. The surviving officials they have every reason NOT for the truth to come out, NOT to have someone break ranks, not to disobey and risk one’s security clearance or possible promotion.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus You're spewing off the same old tired rhetoric that means absolutely nothing. Empty words. Empty theory. Bore bore bore.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 I am not here to entertain you. The questions you ask, the facts you demand I show you that refute every one of your conclusions are to be found in the many books devoted to the subject in the years since. If you had read those books, if you had done your research, looked with eyes open at the huge discrepancies and "coincidences" in that research, you would already have the correct answers, wouldn't be asking such silly questions.
FRTothus 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@FRTothus The books you read were written by carnival sideshow hucksters who have no interest in finding the truth. They're interested in making a buck. You go right ahead and hand over your money willingly to those who'll be happy to sell you their version of "The Truth". Too bad there are dozens of differing "truths" for sale. Too bad all of them can't be "the truth". Too bad that most of them are wrong. Why is your belief the correct one and ALL the other theories wrong?
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 @LoneNutter1 " carnival sideshow hucksters" ??!! LOL
That's YOU!!!!! LOL
TROLL!!
usuIkane 2 months ago 7
@LoneNutter1 It's interesting that you would trust a hand-picked set of doctors to review (redacted) approved, safe material, provided to them eleven years later by the very FBI that was complicit in covering things up the first time around over the doctors and nurses at Parkland who had no dog in the fight. Instead of photos they were given drawings of photos!?! Read "High Treason" by Livingstone for a good start.
FRTothus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FRTothus The set of hand picked doctors included Cyril Wecht. Are you familiar with his record?
If you're attempting to smear the character of the doctors then I assume you have something that supports your innuendo? No?? You don't??! What a pity and it comes as no surprise.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus Prove it. Show the evidence. I don't want to hear about a theory. I want to see proof that LHO was on the US payroll.
Who were his handlers?
How did he communicate with them?
When did they communicate?
How was he paid?
What bank account did he put the money?
Under what name? His or an alias?
You need to have all this and a boatload more evidence for any clear thinking person to seriously consider this "theory".
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 Many if not all of the answers are in "High Treason" by Livingstone and Groden, and Livingstone's "The Hoax of the Century: Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film", among others. Here's a few names to research: David Atlee Phillips, Maurice Bishop, Lucien Conain, George deMorenschildt.
FRTothus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FRTothus Bob Groden? Is that the same Bob Groden who was exposed as a fraud at the 2nd OJ Simpson trial? The same Bob Groden who never finished high school, never took a class in photography, never took a class in how to ID a faked photo, the same Bob Groden who never belonged to a professional forensic photography society and the same Bob Groden who couldn't name a professional society of forensic photography? Is this the same Bob Groden you spoke about?
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 I'm sorry, but the technology of matte layering DID exist at the time. Simply because you refuse to think so, simply because no one come forward and admit to doing it (and why on earth would they admit to a crime?) on the Z-film, is no reason to think that it couldn't have or didn't occur. We can go around and around. Bottom line: I believe this was a false-flag coup d'etat, and I think the evidence for it is everywhere one with eyes open looks.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus I'm sure one can find unicorns if they have their eyes open. Matte layering does not explain how a double image appeared through the sprocket holes.
But you've never answered the question why the film was altered?
One last question, how do you explain the images in the photographs taken by Jay Skaggs?
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 What do those images show that has any bearing?
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus Do you know who Jay Skaggs is? Do you know what he had in his possession for nearly 40 years? Do you know what was revealed in his photographs?
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 He took some shots around Dealy Plaza., including one of the motorcade after the turn onto Elm. Again, I fail to see the significance.
FRTothus 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@FRTothus The pictures sat in his home for nearly 40 years (the govt. didn't alter them) and they show the people on the sides of Elm and Houston exactly where the Zapruder film shows them. No alterations, no tricks, no matte layering, no unicorns .
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 I believe you are more interested in ridicule than much of anything else. Your lack of respect says a lot about your upbringing. I've been to the 6th Floor Museum, and it was just like it was in 1963 -- there was no Oswald there. I fail to see what there is in the photo that has any bearing on what might or might not have been done to the Z-film. Resort to ridicule or personal attacks one more time, and this conversation is over.
FRTothus 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@FRTothus You ridicule yourself when you attach meaning and significance to an event that didn't happen.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus explanation why the Z-film was altered and it what it was intended to do, I'd listen. But I'm not going to entertain a "theory" based on junk science from hacks who have zero credentials, zero experience and are virtual unknowns in their field. and I'm not going to entertain a theory from another theorist who's primary purpose is to make a buck off the slaughter of another human being.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FRTothus The physical evidence contradicts your claim of the throat wound being an entry wound. The fibers on JFK's tie and shirt collar were pushed away from him towards the front. This is clear and convincing physical proof of a bullet exiting his throat.
LoneNutter1 4 months ago
Compare the photos (1 & 2, 4:22) with the color shot of them in Dealy Plaza. Notice the shoes. The Zapruder film has been doctored. They WERE in the street like they said they were, not on the grass at all as the Zapruder film would have us believe. Further, there are many more discrepancies with the Z-film, not the least of which is that it does not show the car slowing almost to a stop, as many witnesses testified. The Z-film is has been altered.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus So if the Z-film was altered it means all the other photos taken in Dealey Plaza had to be altered so they would match the altered Z-film?
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 Actually, examination of the other photos taken reveal that all the others are consistent with one another, the Z film being the odd one out. Zapruder said that he filmed the entire motorcade, didn't stop and re-start. Take a look at the people in the Z-film. They are not looking at the president's car, but are looking up the street, still waiting for it to arrive.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus When, where and to whom did Zapruder say he filmed the entire motorcade, didn't stop and re-start"?
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 The testimony of Abraham Zapruder was taken at 1 p.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Texas, by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's [Warren] Commission.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus Thanks!
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus Did you read Zapruder's testimony to the Warren Commission where he said he did not stop and re-start the camera? Or did you read that he said that from another source?
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 Read his testimony.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus I have. I'm asking if you read it and saw where he said he did not stop and re-start the camera or did you read about his testimony from another source.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 There is not room here to reproduce Zapruder's testimony. He began when the motorcade was on Houston, not Elm. He noted during his July 22, 1964 testimony that several things in the film were not as he remembered. In February 13, 1969 (Clay Shaw trial) he is asked to authenticate the film, but there is no indication in the court record where in the sequence the film begins, the jump in today's Z-film is not mentioned ("no missing frames"), thus were absent from the viewing.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus I'm not asking your to reproduce anything!! I asked if YOU read his WC testimony OR did YOU read that he did not stop and re-start the camera from another source.
Your answers could be:
1. Yes. I read his testimony in the Warren Commission records.
OR
2. No. I read about this in another source.
See how simple the answers could be?
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus I'm reading his WC testimony and your characterization about not remembering things in the film is highly misleading! You've left out essential information from his testimony where after expressing some confusion about some of the photos he's shown, he acknowledges to the Commission that he understands and recognizes the picture(s) in question.
You never read his testimony did you? You're getting this nonsense from a Pro-conspiracy/misleading book!
Why am I not surprised at this??
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@FRTothus Actually, they're looking up the street towards the TSBD because of the shots being fired.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 LOL, okay. We must be talking about two different Zapruder films, I guess.
FRTothus 5 months ago
@FRTothus No. It's the same Zapruder film. In fact you can see people looking up at the TSBD in the Elsie Dorman film.
LoneNutter1 5 months ago
@LoneNutter1 While there was at least one shot from behind, from up the street, probably from the Dal-Tex building, which makes the trajectory correct, they are looking up the street, waiting for the motorcade, not up. See the Altgens photo. Z-film is missing the turn, doesn't show the slowing. See Moorman's shot and where that puts her (not on the grass, no white shoes). Zapruder says he began filming w/ motorcade on Houston, through to overpass.
FRTothus 5 months ago
These are some stupid ass women? No wonder they were allowed into the controlled crime scene!!! That's what Dealey plaza was that day
pearlofprice 6 months ago
There is no "badgeman" in the picture or anywhere else...
Com6in3d 7 months ago
@Com6in3d
Oh well, if you say so I guess that's it. OK everybody, lets go home. Com6in3d says there's nothing to see. Come on people, let's move along.
Puck2442 6 months ago
fakes.....all kennedy assasination photographs and footage.......seems more plausable.....
aifammafiaaifam 9 months ago
JFK Conspiracy: Worst Foot Forward. VOTE NO to this horrible video! It makes a MOCKERY of US who seek the TRUTH!! The maker of the video is an AGENT of the GOVERNMENT and shows TRUTH SEEKERS as DEFORMED!! VOTE NO!! VOTE NO!!
WE who seek the TRUTH will WIN and discover the TRUTH for AMERICA! This HORRIBLE video MUST be VOTED DOWN!! VOTE NO!!
GrassyKnoller 9 months ago
I thnk the "dog in the middle of the seat" was the second shooter
bradmj68 10 months ago
Hey, check out the Socrates Johnson video for the song 'Rambler Man', which tells the story of Roger Craig - who saw what he said was Oswald being picked up shortly after the assasination in a Rambler Station wagon.
Part of it is filmed from the old Court House Building and Dealey plaza
PTroubadour 11 months ago
It is interesting that any witness who's testimony does not match the WCR is branded an opportunist and is trying to profit by telling lies. When in fact, if you look who profited most from JFK's death, they are the people who's account draws the most scrutiny from the overwhelming majority. Those who sold the single shooter theory ( and yes, its a theory, not fact ) by far and away, benefited immensely when Kennedy was assassinated.
slotstikskimboards 1 year ago
@slotstikskimboards Who benefited from the single bullet fact?
autoad 1 year ago
Jean Hill's credibility was so bad that Gerry Spence didn't want her as a witness in the Oswald trial. She was given strict instructions that she was to stay far away from the location of the trial.
She was just a common opportunist.
autoad 1 year ago
well it proves to me that when i was just a teenager that the federal government and the warren commission lied as always , the federal reserve and the illuminati were and still in the buisness of killing people , thank you yorkshire and scottish rite freemasons . thanks to bush and obama you are more powerfull than ever . lee harvey oswald was really innocent .
1948tc 1 year ago
I really don't know why I am knocking my fucking pan out trying to explain this to a fucking useless airhead cunt and troll like you. What's your next inane and asinine question going to be?? Maybe....Where's Dealey Plaza??
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream My next question is :Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?
autoad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad Your NEXT question??
Answer these questions!!
1/ Are you gay? 2/ How long have you had the hots for Jean Hill?
3/ Who's buried in your mother's grave?
2012Iivestream 1 year ago 2
"what kind of car was that?" 2:57
nocomplyimpossible 1 year ago
Hill and Moorman were both wearing black shoes (see Poloroid #1 and #2). When you see them in the Z film their shoes are painted white. hmmmmm. Also in another picture in this presentation one's appears white and seems like one is half black.
elainemax2 1 year ago
I spent some time with Jean Hill, both in Dallas & San Francisco. What a sweet lady. I have a picture of her, myself, and daughter Jacqueline.
ringtalk3 1 year ago
I see badgeman clear as can be. There was a home invasion robbery/rape on my street three years ago and the two men who did it were dressed as sheriffs deputies... that's how they got past the locked front door. Nothing odd about wearing an authority figure's uniform to gain access. Happens all the time. Reason impersonating an officer is a crime.
1G3001 1 year ago
"what kind of a car was that?" eh? what a dumb fuck question.
TonyBananas101 1 year ago
Isn't it interesting Jean Hill didn't see anyone firing a weapon at the president. But within a few years of this interview she changed her story to where she saw the gunman firing at the president. How does that happen? I guess it may have something to do with money and fame. Jean Hill sacrificed truth for the illicit pursuit of fame and fortune.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad 5 months ago
" Isn't it interesting....? "
Errrr..errrrr..ummm....ahhhhh.......NO?
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream Sorry. I'm not getting your point.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad Well.... What can I say?? You're not getting my point. Do you want me to show you pictures??!! Maybe if you got your head out of your ass for long enough as regards your lies and libels against Jean Hill, you just might get my point. Until then, let's have no more of your sanctimonious and pretentious drivel! Not to mention lies!! Do you get my point? You follow?
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream You don't have to get ugly abou it! I'm sorry. When your message says "Isn't it interesting....? Errrr..errrr..ummm.....ahhhhhh...NO?"
it's not a well formed, clear message. It sounds like you're speaking in some type of bizarre cryptic code. Plus, you can bottle the profanity. There's no need for it.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad "Ugly"........"not well formed"..........Geez! That reminds me! When ARE you going to get that face-lift you've always promised yourself? Profanity?? What profanity? I never engage in "profanity"!! It's a big fucking no no with me.
Do you fucking mean obscenity? Well? Do YOU!!!???
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream Jean Hill was a flagrante opportunist. There is film of Jean Hill being interviewed with Mary Moorman and when asked if she saw anyone shooting she said "No". Even her family made fun of her getting on the conspiracy bandwagon and her passion to always were the color red as a "tribute". (To something she never saw and something that wasn't there) Even Gerry Spence didn't want anything to do with her for the LHO trial in London because her credibility was zero. Go ahead and defend
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad "Go ahead and defend" LOL Okay....YOU'RE A CUNT!!
I rest my case.
FrankCIanton 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream this obvoius exploiter! A man died and she found a way ( it's called lying) to insert herself into history when she had no business being there. She has passed on, and my condolences go to her family. But she can longer exploit the brutal death of JFK in her sick pursuit of fame.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad " A man died" What the fuck do you care? What the fuck do you know about Jean Hill? Coming in here with your ignorant ill-founded slanders about a woman who was better than you'll ever fucking be!! Somebody should insert a dildo up your fucking greasy ass and fucking gag you! You fucking arrogant bitch who knows fuck all about anything. Get the fuck outa here!! You self-righteous cunt! Go tell your fucking lies somewhere else! You fucked-in-the-ass whore!!
You filthy lying turd!
FrankCIanton 1 year ago
@FrankCIanton How do you really feel? I get the impression you're holding back something.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad Feeling great? You?
FrankCIanton 1 year ago
@autoad Jean's family despises lying freaks like you! If I were you I'd stay clear of "Jean's family" and shove your "condolences" up where the sun don't shine! You mendacious hypocrite!
FrankCIanton 1 year ago
@FrankCIanton Good use of the word Mendacious. You bumped your head on the word hypocrite. Check the definition. A better choice would have been "pontificator" or " pompous stuffed-shirt".
Jean earned her place in history. As with most reliable witnesses, their memory of events gets a touch cloudy over time. With Jean, her memory and vision improved the further away in time she moved from the fall of '63. I'm not too worried about her family. I suspect they thought she was "different".
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad I'll check fuck all!! Jean was grabbed from behind by two secret servicemen who manhandled her and took the photo out of her pocket. They knew she had it her in pocket because they had been watching her and everybody else in Dealey Plaza that day. They then hauled, yes, dragged her to an office overlooking Dealey Plaza and threatened her over what she said she saw and heard. It was only years later that dear Jean was brave enough to tell what happened. How brave would you have been?
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream Jean had the photo? Really?? That's odd. Mary Moorman took the photo. The Secret Service manhandled her? Really?? That's odd. There were no Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey. And they were watching her all day?? Really?? Why would they be watching her all day? Why would they be watching her? Did they know she was going to have a photo on her pocket later that day? Were they able to predict the future? There were thousands of people in Dealey, were agents watching
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad You fucking brainless jam rag! Mary took the Polaroid photos and handed them to Jean who applied the special developing solvent to the photo! Jean then put the photos in her pocket! There were secret servicemen and individuals purporting to secret servicemen all over Dealey Plaza. Were you fucking born stupid or do you have to work at it? They were watching EVERYFUCKINGBODY! Predict the future? You fucking amoeba!! LOL They certainly knew what was going to happen!! LOL
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream You're still holding back on me. How do you REALLY feel?
autoad 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream everyone? Why didn't the SS manhandle Charles Brehm? He was standing right next to Jean and Mary with his son. Why didn't the SS manhandle Bill Newman and his wife and children? He was on the right side of the limo when JFK was struck in the head.
You're been watching the film JFK too much. It's a great film; but it's total garbage when it comes to being factual.
Jean Hill was a parasite who took shameful advantage of the death of JFK.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad Aha!! " Jean Hill was a parasite who took shameful advantage of the death of JFK." Now we're getting to the truth about YOU!! You fucking brainless uneducated moron!! So much for condolences to Jean's family. You HYPOCRITE!! You fucking FRAUD!! You EVIL lump of vile scum!! You dirty obnoxious little runt! You've been living too long. It's time you got cancer and died quickly or slowly! Whatever. A sordid spiteful little bitch like you has no right to be alive!!
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream As we all know ranting, raving, swearing, cursing and threatening trumps facts and logic everytime.
I'm still mystified over the use of the word hypocrite.......
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad Answer the questions!!
1/ Are you gay? 2/ How long have you had the hots for Jean Hill?
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream Am I gay? No. You'll have to look elsewhere for a partner.
As for Jean Hill; she's been dead just over 10 years and I wouldn't find her to be too attractive in her present state.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad Typical of you gays!! You ask if they are gay and they interpret the question as a request for sexual favors! Jean Hill has not been dead ten years and anyway, she looks better now than you ever will!! I think we can say with confidence that we we have established beyond a reasonable doubt and a moral certainty that you are, in fact, gay.
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream Jean Hill: Born February 11, 1931-Died November 7,2000.
Let's see 2010 minus 2000 = 10 years!
If you want to bellieve I'm gay, go ahead. I don't care. There have been men besides yourself who have taken a fancy to me. You need to understand, you're not the first.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad OMG I didn't know that. I shall have to update my death lists.
Can I call you "big mouth" from now on???
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream You abandoned "gay" awfully fast.
Sure...call me big mouth. I don't care.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad Gay? Don't worry about that. Of course I'm gay.
So......... big mouth!! How are you on blow jobs?
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream You'll never know.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad I guess you'll just have to keep on swinging that necklace of yours like a New York hooker in Times Square at 3 o'clock in the morning.
Just for the record, is your nick autoad or aUToad?
sharaIantam 1 year ago
@autoad You ugly TOAD!!
FrankCIanton 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream Hey,2012! I didn't know you were gay? You're kidding. Yeah??
FrankCIanton 1 year ago
@autoad I was just wondering what happens when you give a blow job. I suppose with you having Alzheimer's and all that, it just sorta goes right out of your head five minutes later?
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream Got to go! Time for my medication. AGAIN!!
Check out "hypocrite" and the difference between profanity and obscenity.
Use a good dic!! As you always do, of course.
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@autoad If you don't care then why the fuck even mention it? Anyway, what man would be interested in an arrogant, embittered and twisted little bitch like you?
An arrogant, embittered and twisted little bitch who spends her time pumping out her hatred for Jean Hill? Have you no fucking boyfriends? You know fuck all about Jean Hill and you write like a 6 year old child. A 6 year old child would write better than you! Your fucking laughable questions and total lack of knowledge are hilarious!
FrankCIanton 1 year ago 5
@autoad "As we all know ranting, raving, swearing, cursing and threatening trumps facts and logic everytime."
Yes, and you should have known that before you opened your big mouth. It requires very little effort to put a dyslexic cretin and Alzheimer's sufferer like you in their place.
2012Iivestream 1 year ago 2
@2012Iivestream I haven't "opened my big mouth". Here on YouTube we post messages by typing, not speaking.
But in your case I suspect you go ballistic (pardon the pun) on your computer and it does what you want when you rant, rave, threaten and curse at it.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad So!! You do not deny you have a big mouth!! This is a sort of progress.
I admire your honesty! You really must stop suspecting!! How many times do you have to be told? I am trying to make allowances for your unfortunate dyslexia and Alzheimer conditions (which in your case I feel were deserved) BUT I cannot go on making excuses for your stupidity!
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@autoad Are you gay? So, how long have you had the hots for Jean Hill? This is a case of sexual envy and jealousy with you. Isn't it? I can spot these things.
Okay, Jean was a good looking woman. But that doesn't give you the right to slander her.
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream Slander? That's not possible here on YouTube. You see slander is done by speaking.
You must mean Libel!! That's by use of the written or printed word.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad LOL So you found your long lost tattered old dictionary!!
Libel is the written word. Slander is the spoken word. In law the two terms are used together "to cover instances of such which appear in the digital media". Those who libel in print and various aural media invariably also slander in speech and various oral media.
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@autoad Jean earned nothing. She didn't want "a place in history" and she didn't go looking for one on 112263. She went with Mary to take pictures of a cop she had the hots for.The further away from the events of 112263 the more confident she felt that she could tell what she knew based on what she'd seen and heard. This was typical of many witnesses who were there that day. Jean's memory and vision have nothing to do with it. She was healthy in mind and body right up to her death. R.I.P.
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@autoad You patronizing illiterate bitch!!
You suspect too much!! It's time you started to KNOW!!!
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream I suspect? I suspect what??
I suspect you've been consuming a little too much conspiracy elixer.
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad Who wrote this "I suspect they thought she was "different"."
Can we now include Alzheimer's disease AND dyslexia on your list of medical problems?
LOL
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@autoad The word is "ELIXIR"!!
Now, fuck YOU!!
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream Exiler!! You're right! You have experience with it then! I knew I was right!
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad Obvoius???
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
@2012Iivestream dyslexia. That's my
autoad 1 year ago
@autoad No dikding!? You don't say!! I'd never have guessed. Don't feel too bad. Some of the world's greatest assholes have been dyslexic. On enoffse indented.
I really fucking mean that!!
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
jean hill is wrong from the start " he was looking at a dog in the midlle of the seat" the dog is as real the badge man which is not at all, hill claimed to step out on the street but the Z film not only shows she was she on the grass she wasnt even looking at the limo when she photographed McBride then years later she saw $ in her eyes, a true attention just like beverly oliver who wasnt the babushka lady
Obelisk2290 1 year ago
@Obelisk2290 you havent read about what actually happened. The president was given a gift of some kind of stuffed dog. It was down in the seat. idiot.
aburke673 1 year ago
"a calumny , as lunatic as they are contemptible , they come from the
imagination of hate , the pernicious concoctions of minds allergic to
reality and they are beneath the dignity of reasoning human beings"
Rex Murphy on conspiracy theories
watch?v=5u_4B6JDcgE&feature=related
VinnyShitHead 1 year ago
Jean Hill was a moron.
votrep1 1 year ago
@votrep1
The JFK Assassination in time it will come to be seen for what it is : The latest example of a cosseted, self-absorbed generation’s inability to come to grips with the occasional and chance cruelties of real life.
Hahahahaha !
Live with it !
VinnyShitHead 1 year ago
You people better leave my Nazi Lebensborn bastard child Dr. Lowry/cddummkoph alone! He can't help it that he's a lying sack of shit, it's all my fault.
VISIT MY CHANNEL to learn the "official" story!
MsDrLowry 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Having lots of suspects can allow you to explain away any inconvenient evidence. To avoid facing the evidence against LHO you need to claim the DPD lied, FBI tampered w/evidence, WC members engaged in a cover-up, that experts working for the HSCA lied when they authenticated evidence against LHO . Well why not claim all that? You've got gobs of people whose behavior and motives are suspect, right ?
The only thing you don't have is a coherent and sensible CON-Spiracy Theory
)-:Boo whoo:-(
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
@cdddraftsman
theMacvarish 1 year ago
@theMacvarish
A Conspiracy of Dunces
* Conspiracy Theories Keep Getting Thicker , But the Plot Gets Thinner
* Snide news mannekinspeak.
* Concocting the Dots
VinnyShitHead 1 year ago
@VinnyShitHead ..your name suits you..anything you say can't be taken seriously.you've seen a clip of a lady who was actually there at the shooting and you choose to believe another version...you prick..are you an American?stupid fucking yanks..how much clearer must the facts be you muppet.
bobeagle007 1 year ago
@bobeagle007 lol @ muppet. You gotta be either an aussie or a brit. I love that insult. It's such a sillier image than a regular puppet, which are generally creepy stalkers that sit at the end of your bed at night watching you sleep. Not to say that fozzy bear doesn't do the same.
MikeyAbbott 1 year ago
@MikeyAbbott ..Mmm,glad i could help..
bobeagle007 1 year ago
@cdddraftsman Will you hurry up and die already!!
breedmg 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To CON-Spiracist's it seems that 'more suspects' there are is better. If there are a lot of groups/individuals who had some plausible motive to kill JFK it must follow that some of them did. If there are a lot of suspects everybody can have a suspect that they can hate (R) can blame liberals (D) can blame the CIA/FBI/SS Northerners hating the South can blame right-wing Texas oil
If blaming a lone commy LHO isn't sufficiently satisfying , everybody can blame the Mafia
The Blame Game
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Does 218 suspects in the assassn. mean that some of them must have conspired to kill JFK ? Or does it indicate the weakness of CON-Spiracy Theorys?
In real world criminal investigations having literally 100's of suspects is an indication that the probe is in very deep & serious trouble.
The evidence isn't converging to point to one suspect or a few suspects who may have conspired. The evidence against one suspect is as good as evidence against any other
Which means it's no good at all
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In real world criminal probes we can expect some of our evidence to be erroneous. Documents record "facts" that turn out to be untrue. Witnesses say things that are wrong . But suppose you're not willing to write off documents and witnesses as mistaken.
What kind of theories does that lead to ?
What we have now :
CON-Spiracists believing JFK was killed by many different people , for many different reasons and in many different ways !
And ALL AT THE SAME TIME ! TOTAL BULLSHIT !
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In any real world criminal investigation evidence is gathered to exculpate the innocent and incriminate the guilty . When the public criminal community of researchers 'Hi-Jacked History' the list suspects increased and continues to increase to this day !
Why ?
So more money can be made on books , video's and speaking tours if the list suspects is endless and is based upon bullshit so high it would of capsized the Titanic .
Another No-JFK-No-Brainer CON-Spiracy scam exposed ! Live w/it.
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Before 911 toothers came JFK toothers !
Dark machinations in the death of President Kennedy laid the spiritual groundwork for todays bizarre plots behind 9/11 .
In both cases the obviously guilty culprits are ignored in favor of politically expedient and more desirable targets for personal profit and self aggrandizement"
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The SBT is now The Single Bullet Fact , backed by feild experimentation ! Dr. Lattimer , Dr. Nichols , Dr. Fakler can't all be wrong .... conSpiracy ? No experimentations done in 46 years of ceaseless hoaxing , brainwashing the American Public into "patsy"fication .
Case Closed !
cdddraftsman 1 year ago
We worked on a JFK investigation and Jean Hill was a total flake. She's not even getting it correct one hour after it happened.
She was not the only person in that area.
They had no dog in the car.
He didn't grab his chest Mary Moorman never lied like Jean Hill did.
VIDEOTIMEMACHINE 2 years ago
@VIDEOTIMEMACHINE That's correct. He didn't grab his chest. He put his hands up to his throat on the first shot, slumped forward, then became upright. I think the photo she got shows him on the second shot. Don't know where his hands were then, but doubtful they were at his chest.
xander7ful 1 year ago
@VIDEOTIMEMACHINE YOU??!!! Worked on the JFK investigation!!! LOL
What did you do? Make the fucking coffee??!! LOL
Worked on the JFK investigation!!! LMFAO
2012Iivestream 1 year ago
I like what Bugliosi says about Jean Hill..'Her story is like fine wine as it gets better with age."
Compare Hills initial statement to Dallas PD and her words years later in Jim Marrs book. Her evolving and changing story is the product of a liar and an attention whore.
dreadnaught2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
History repeats itself as no one was listening the first time.
----------
To think that a view must be true because it is widespread is to commit the FALLACY OF POPULAR SENTIMENTS.
----------
The truth is independent of belief , and belief systems.
----------
The truth has no requirement that anyone has to believe in it.
----------
Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa-- Vincent Bugliosi
cdddraftsman 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Moorman forgot to coat finish her picture with the film's supplied emulsion , thus losing forever whatever the picture had in detail of supposed grassy knoll assassin's.
This didn't deter CTer crayola artists in drawing in assassin's in a blow up that represented a area no greater than 3/16" of the original image frame.
Talk about 'conspiracy' by 'co-conspirators' of dishonesty and a 'cover-up' to exonerate a overly guilty Lee Harvey Oswald !
cdddraftsman 2 years ago
It is the liar's story that never changes because the lie has been memorized. A normal person will rarely use the same combination of words to relate the same story. Get your own story straight, dreadnaught2.
olga2415 2 years ago 4
cdddraftsman When are you going to stop pedling this bullshit of yours like some cheap carnival barker? Why don't you get a life and face facts? The magic bullet theory (MBT) is a crock of shit forced on the American people and the biggest crock of shit of all was the WC. As President Nixon said of the WC: "If the American people believe this shit, they'll believe anything." The MBT is JUST one piece of shit wrapped in another piece of shit (WC). And you sure love your shit, boy. Don't you?
Mobilecheese 2 years ago 20
@Mobilecheese It was one guy, one gun, three bullets; end of story!!! All the rest is just fantasy bullshit by delusional people who need to get a life.
proferic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@proferic "It was one guy, one gun, three bullets......"
And all it takes is ONE deranged asshole faggot like YOU to believe that fucking fairy-tale story! Snowhite!!!
FrankCIanton 1 year ago 5
@proferic So YOU'RE that Snow White proferic and the three dwarfs with the bullet shaped dicks?!!? I've heard so much about you! So how is life with the fairies??
You got any more really good fairy stories to tell?
k1IIer2one 1 year ago 11
@k1IIer2one People resort to personal attacks when they've lost on the issues. Read "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner and get educated. Otherwise, your'e just blathering on. Peace dude!
proferic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@proferic OMG Gerald Posner!! LMFAO You talk about personal attacks and you write this: "All the rest is just fantasy bullshit by delusional people who need to get a life." Are you some sort of fucking nut?? Go fuck yourself! Dude! And fuck Posner while you're at it!! I heard Posner does a nice line in "fantasy bullshit". LOL
2012Iivestream 1 year ago 2
@Mobilecheese ,i think i no about the funny walking cop....
SuperBandstand 11 months ago
@SuperBandstand OMG Don't tell anybody!! It's Me!!
Mobilecheese 11 months ago
a) Impossible/sweat/oil on hands evaporates after death
b) U mean someone planted the shirt on LHO?)
c) Extreme conjecture/CE-399 SBT came from that gun/rifling proved that
d) U mean shell casings were 1st ID'd as automatic don't you?
e) 8 witnesses identified LHO)
f) Fritz's notes were found
cdddraftsman 2 years ago
There was no dog in the limo.. if they are mistaken about that then you can't give them much credibility as to other things they allegedly saw that day.
Rocketrob67 2 years ago
Comment removed
dplumer1 2 years ago
The CTer plan from the outset :