Why do we know that Milteer is "yapping"? Because while describing how to carry out a killing of JFK - from a tall building where you could disassemble a rifle etc - he ALSO says that a) JFK travels with "15" decoys so you'd never know if you got him and b) the security will check out tall buildings. So, far from going somewhere like Miami or Dallas, the place to do it is Washington. On the veranda of the White House. But that's not what happened, is it?
What the past few posts underline the old addage of throw enough stuff against the wall, and some will stick, even if it contradicts. So... we have Bowers, whose testimony at face value doesn't resembles anything that Hoffman states. Indeed, it's hard to fathom how Bowers could NOT have seen what Hoffman said he saw.
THEN, we have Milteer who says NOTHING about multiple gunmen, instead talking of a SINGLE sniper from a building - like Oswald.
parking lot was filled with cars so the shooter could not have walked through the lot and toss the rifle to someone without climbing over dozens of cars. Hoffman is one of the many people who tried to insert themselves into history by making up stories. There are others in the Kennedy assassination and they've all wanted to make a buck.
@LoneNutter1: Behind the picket fence were a lot of footprints in the mud and on a car bumper (cig butts too). Somebody was there. Reports didn't describe this lot like it was a wrecking yard one couldn't navigate thru. And what of the 3 tramps? Have you ever seen E Howard Hunt's video (I'm sure it's online) discussing JFK stuff? Lots of Dealey witness testimony was ignored, esp. if it pointed away from LHO. So much point to conspiracy...at least for skeptics with the eyes to see.
@regfsmith "Behind the picket fence were a lot of footprints in the mud and on a car bumper (cig butts too)." Yes, smoking humans were present there before the assassination. But Bowers had an unobstructed view, the lot was closed so there were few cars there meaning more visibility and he said he saw NO ONE behind the fence at the critical moment. He watched the motorcade, saw it turn on to Elm, then go behind the fence. There is NO WAY he would have not seen a sniper.
@1239jer Sorry I missed this post. This is my last reply to you: How can the 'lot be closed' YET he saw those 3 vehicles enter & leave? BTW, the lot was very full. His view of the motorcade disappeared at the east side of the pergola, right after the motorcade turned onto Elm. From there, Bower's sightline ended. Likely the commotion he noted which DREW his attention to the fence were the arrival of the folks from Dealey plaza there to check where they were sure the shots emanated from.
@regfsmith Footprints in the mud and on a car bumper- It shows someone was there at some point but what were they doing? Shooting at the president? How do you come to that conclusion from footprints in mud and on a bumper?
The 3 tramps-What about the three tramps? Were they seen on the knoll? No. Were they carrying a weapon? No. Were they seen shooting at JFK? No. Was a weapon found near them? No. Was a weapon found with their fingerprints on it? No. Was a weapon found in the vicinity? No.
@LoneNutter1: Holland found lots of footprints there. Point is: footprints present AFTER it stopped raining (approx hour before the murder) until they were discovered just after the event, so yeah, I can deduce someone was there @ the right time. You claim nobody was. Photos show 3 'tramps' marched under guard right through a fresh & busy crime scene w no record of their arrest on paper. It's suspicious to anyone but you! Are you sending me your email or not? If not, this ends soon.
@regfsmith So what's the big deal about the three tramps? Nothing.
E. Howard Hunt...confessing to the crime. Wait a moment; Charles Harrelson and James Files confessed to the same crime. Ooops... One crime, too many confessors. Of all the hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza not a single person saw anyone shoot at JFK from the knoll. No one was seen running from the knoll with a weapon and there's ZERO medical, forensic, ballistic and physical evidence JFK was shot from the front or side.
@LoneNutter1: Harrelson certainly did NOT confess to the crime. I've seen the video of him denying it. Re Files: who knows? A red herring, a fame-seeker? I dont know enough about him. And even if they'd confessed, you're permanently stuck in the one-shooter ONLY mode anyhow! The medical evidence is a f-ing joke for Pete's sake! Parkland drs saw wound of ENTRY @ JFK's throat & they'd seen lots before. To explain this to the press, Wade claimed JFK was turned right around facing TBD.
@LoneNutter1: Man, If you represent 'clear thinking people', I'm hoping you dont breed! I'm not 'marching off down Conspiracy Lane'...I'm walking in the direction that the signs I see along the way, point. Send me your email because I wont continue trying to convince someone as rigid as you are, in this forum, after today.
@regfsmith Here's a news Flash for you; Many years ago I was a firm believer there was conspiracy behind the assassination but not anymore. SIMPLE logic and a willingness to challenge my own beliefs and assumptions about the assassination took me out of the realm of foolishness and impossible plots, schemes and non-existant conspiracies. Show a little courage and challenge yourself and knock off the personal insults. Your credibility is self-eroding and you're not doing yourself any favors.
@LoneNutter1: Yesterday was my last post, but checked for your email. Nada? That says your mind is indeed 'welded shut' as I said! BTW, when scolded for my insults (out of frustration), I chilled. Your insults continue: 'realm of foolishness etc'. You dont want to believe where the evidence pointsa - your choice! We who see the likelihood of unseen hands are NOT fools or 'conspiracy nuts'; we resent that insulting label. Vast #s of dissenters are very well-educated. Courage is not
@LoneNutter1 Courage is challenging the 'official' story manipulated by powerful forces; questioning so many 'coincidences' & lies on the 'official' side. Courage is recognising how 'National Security' hides corruption. Ex: Bush family: In WW2 Sen. Prescott Bush 'traded w enemy' (Nazis), & his son Bush Sr. was an exCIA dir. - a combo that should be illegal. And 'George Dubya's' illegal war in Iraq! Their 'New World Order' has turned JFKs much-loved USA into the most hated nation.
@regfsmith Typical comment of the conspiracy obsessed by dragging in a boatload of non-related issues and by some strange and unknown method of "logic"connect the dots that compare apples to torque wrenches.
You forgot some of the other conspiracies; The Bermuda Triangle, Amelia Earhart, the faked moon landing, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa and the exact whereabouts of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Let me know when you connect those dots.
@LoneNutter1: 'Non-related' you say? I'm not surprised that you cant see the 'Big Picture' relevance; I've read your pap enough to know you wouldn't notice your ass if you glued your nose to your sphincter. There's been a scary shift in American politics to the far right (towards the 'Nazi' end of political spectrum, btw) since the 60s when 3 top Liberals were murdered. Pre JFK: Eisenhower's parting speech warned Americans re Military-Industrial Complex, yet all turned south in 63.
@LoneNutter1: MY dismissive tone!? So, what about your 'Tooth Fairy & Santa' comments etc.? Reread your postings & tone setting. As I said, you choose to disbelieve the likelihood of a 'bigger picture'; you ignore how murdering 3 key Liberals in the 60s could shift the US towards the far right. Only a willful fool is dismissive about politics employing very dark designs to attain POWER. History is full of that! BTW: If LHO acted alone, as you so firmly believe, what was his motive?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@regfsmith I dismiss the likelihood of your "bigger picture" that filled with conspiring images without a shred of evidence to connect them.
A far right shift to the right??? You don't know much about the 60's . The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was pushed for and signed by the architect of the assassination LBJ. significant number of Souther Democrats were opposed to the legislation and a majority of the Republicans were in favor.
@LoneNutter1: LBJ & esp. southern dems were considered hawkish and seen as the rightwing of their party (by far). LBJ carried forward JFKs unfinished business, Civil Rights, & signed it into law more for the glory than being esp. passionate about it. Then we saw Nixon, of all people, basking in the glory of Apollo 11's return from the moon in '69; a program JFK's vision set in motion. JFK was a rare leader with vision - the glory for which was ultimately usurped by his successors.
@regfsmith Nobody knows LHO's motives and in a murder case motive isn't required to prove guilt. I reference LHO's letter to his brother Robert that was written while in the USSR. He says that he "would kill any American who put on the uniform in the defense of his country...any American". JFK was the commander in chief and reports of Castro accusing JFK of trying to have him killed made the papers. LHO could have read the story and since he admired Castro, struck a blow for him to gain favor.
@LoneNutter1 The whereabouts of the Tooth Fairy is not a conspiracy and never was. Jimmy Hoffa, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are not conspiracies and NEVER were!! Is this the level of your JFK assassination research?? LOL
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DAVlDMlCHEALROBlNSON You want facts? OK. How many gunman have the pro-conspiracy people placed in Dealey Plaza from all of their "theories"?
Badge Man, Hard Hat Man, Black Dog Man, Coke Bottle Man, Waving at Maryann Mooremen Man, Behind the Picket Fence Man, Cowboy Hat Man, Behind the Pergola Man, Under The Grassy Knoll Man, Sewer Sniper Man, Jackie Man, Limo Driver Man, Gun Embedded In The Seat of The Limo Man, Shooter In The Trunk Of The Limo Man, Dal-Tex Man, Shooter Behind The TSBD Man,
@DAVlDMlCHEALROBlNSON Another Shooter In The TSBD Man, The Other Grassy Knoll Man, Umbrella Man and the list will continue to grow. I happen to believe there was one shooter in Dealey Plaza. Pro-conspiracy people believe there was at least 20 gunmen there. The can't identify the weapon, the order in which they fired, the type of bullets used,they can't agree on the motive, can't agree on the plotters, can't agree how any of the 20 gunmen escaped undetected, can't explain how none of the hundreds
@LoneNutter1: I know of no conspiracy that ever claimed there were more than 2 or 3 gunmen positioned to create a lethal crossfire. 20 is ridiculous - dont be daft! Most accept 2 or 3 shooters as a reasonable conclusion based on witness testimony. And really, the 'lone nut' concept is only believed, these days, by...lonenutters. I'm pro conspiracy and I believe 2 or 3 shooters at most were involved. Anything pointing away from the prefab LHO scenario scares the crap out of you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DAVlDMlCHEALROBlNSON of people in Dealey didn't see any of the pro-conspiracy shooters but some did see the person I believe shot JFK.
So David, you wanted facts I gave you some facts. It's to bad you had to use typical pro-conspiracy foul language. But, I've come to expect it from people who believe there were 20 world-class gunmen in Dealey Plaza blasting away at the presidential and none of them hit their intended target.
I got lots more facts and I'll be happy to share them :)
@LoneNutter1: Dont insult Hofmann with your jaded thinking! Yeah, some folk are 'heros' or profiteers, certainly not ALL; separate wheat from chaff! Check: Google video of Sam Holland describing shots from bldgs AND from knoll, a puff of smoke or steam, lots of footprints behind one car at the fence. Re 'Climbing over dozens of cars': C'mon! I'm sure few, IF ANY, car bumpers touched the fence! Normal would be for enough space to follow the fenceline. So Hofmann's story IS plausible.
@regfsmith Hoffman is not a credible source for the following reasons;
1.He told his story to the FBI nearly 4 years after the assassination. In his first version he said he was on the Stemmons Freeway and saw two men clutching something to their chest running from the rear of the TSBD. (You can't see the back of the TSBD from this position) Later the same day Hoffman returns to the FBI and says he could not have seen someone behind the building but it was possible he saw the two men on the
@regfsmith fence "or something like that". Unbeknownst to Hoffman the fence he was talking about wasn't built until 2 years before the assassination. In July of 1967 Hoffman's father and brother both told the FBI that Ed was known for distorting facts observed by him. Ed had told his brother and father that he had seen people running after the president was shot.
2. Ten years later Ed Hoffman is back with a new and improved version of his story.He tell the FBI in 1977
@regfsmith the two men he thought he saw behind the TSBD were now behind the picket fence. One of them had a rifle and the other a hand gun. Ed says that one of the men disassembled the rifle and put it in a suitcase and prior to that he saw "puffs of smoke".
3. A friend of Hoffman's who can understand sign language contacts the FBI and says Ed was concerned he had not made himself clear to the agents about what he saw. To clarify his statement Ed says he say two men standing behind the fence;
@regfsmith one had a rifle and the other had a pistol .After the motorcade sped away the man with the rifle broke it down and put it in some kind of dark suitcase that the other man was holding. The two men ran north on the railroad tracks. Both men were white males and wore white suits and ties. The FBI had Hoffman take them to the spot where he mad these observations. It was estimated to have been 200 yards away from the fence when Ed saw the men in white suits and ties. Ed embellished the
@regfsmith the story in the Documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". In that version Ed has one man firing a rifle (no mention of a pistol) and he's wearing a hat and a blue jacket (what happened to the white suit?) The man fired at the president turned and walked through the parking lot and tossed the rifle to the other man wearing the striped railroad worker shirt, turned and walked away. The man in the striped shirt walked over to the railway junction box, broke the rifle down, put it in a
Ed Hoffman didn't come out with his story until years later. He was 300 yards away from the back of the fence and the parking lot was filled with cars, Yet Hoffman said one of the men shot at JFK and walked to the back of the parking lot and tossed the rifle to another man. This other man walks over near the triple underpass, disassembles the rifle, puts it in a toolbox and calmly walks away. Baloney! There were 8 people standing on the triple overpass and they didn't see any of this. The
@LoneNutter1 Hoffman. He first told his story in 1967. And that story kept changing, and his father and brother doubted he really saw anything of interest.
@LoneNutter1: Heard of Bertrand Russell? He wrote "16 Questions on the Assassination". Sadly, Americans are woefully insular wrt how the rest of the world thinks/functions. Yet, US military is deployed all over the damn planet. Indeed, when a wise man in the US emerges like Ron Paul (who I have no doubt you'll now attack/ridicule) most of you ignore him or a lone nut emerges to kill him.
@regfsmith I'm not about to ridicule Ron Paul (again, you're wrong). I'm wondering how he managed to become part of the discussion about the Kennedy assassination. I pray none of our elected officials or candidates for office become targets of an assassination.
But what is so special about the 16 questions posed by Bertrand Russell? I think there are enough intelligent people who can think of their own questions without the assistance of Bertrand Russell.
@LoneNutter1: Because everything Russell said in his piece brilliantly encapsulates & underscores the numerous assassination issues which put the whole investigation into question. You seem smart enough, so Lord knows why you still believe the WC BS. But, in the final analysis, it's your right to ignore anything & everything that points away from your rigid view that it was LHO only, and which threatens your certainty that everything's just hunky-dory. Wheee!
@regfsmith Could you answer this for me please? There have been thousands of books written about the assassination with most of them being "conspiratorial" in tone. There are scores of different and differing theories in these books. They have different motives, with different plotters, with different number of shooters, firing a different number of shots from different locations, firing different weapons with different bullets and escaping undetected by different means. Could you explain to me
@LoneNutter1: Again logic fails you. The fact that there are numerous theories only points to dissatisfaction with the official WC conclusion. These theorists are typically educated people who did their own fact-checking wrt the evidence. Since JFK had made so many powerful enemies, it came down to putting together the puzzle pieces that fit the best, in their opinion. Personally, I accept the cabal concept of powerful people in politics and elsewhere, with rogue CIA involvement.
@regfsmith The numerous theories clearly point at people who were and still are pursuing the almighty dollar. Dozens of differing theories contradicting one another isn't logical whatsoever. You're free to believe whatever you wish but there's not a stitch of evidence to support rogue CIA involvement, powerful cabals, people in politics, etc.
Specifically, who are the powerful cabals and people who can be proven were involved in the assassination. I don't want opinion, I want credible evidence
@1239jer Re Bullshit: Yes, it does: I see BS has really pwned your brain! If you exercised any discernment, & viewed (NOT read) Hofmann's testimony (& not another's POV wrt it), then you might spot when someone's being honest. I dont doubt Mr. Hofmann for a moment. Clearly your 'discernment' operates by this rule of thumb: Anybody who points away from the Warren Commission has to be a conspiracy nut, and therefore delusional! Blinders on & full speed ahead to your unremitting ignorance!
@regfsmith I'm not questioning Hoffman's sincerity. Just whether anything he says adds up. It doesn't, that's the problem. His testimony (besides coming years later) is completely at odds with what other witnesses say. And there would have been multiple witnesses to what he said he saw. Bowers was watching the entire time. Others on the overpass as well. Yet none say they saw anything remotely close to what Hoffman said.
@1239jer: Nobody else was positioned to overlook the parking lot apart from Hofmann (west of RR tracks). Bowers, just doing his job 14 ft up in the tower, noted a few details (3 cars). He had no reason to scan the lot more carefully before the event. The overpass folks couldn't see thru the trees into the lot to their left. Some on overpass saw a puff of smoke at the fence & several in the motorcade reported a gunpowder smell in that same vicinity as their part of the parade passed by.
@regfsmith Employ some "critical thinking." If there were guys running with rifles, and given there was a witness with an unobstructed view (Bowers) and others on the overpass by Hoffman, we'd expect them to have similar accounts, if slightly varying in detail (which is normal). But we don't have anyone else saying anything remotely close to what Hoffman says, which suggests he likely embellished a story. His sincerity is not a factor, as most believe what they embellish is "fact."
@1239jer I answered most of this already re any others seeing what Hofmann did. Who knows what Bower's sightlines were wrt the commotion in the lot?! Were YOU in his tower? Any witness seeing unexpected events has, at best, minimal recall of details apart from general impressions. I'm inclined to believe Hofmann saw one man passing something to another who stashed it. You're not. Hofmann's impression certainly fits a scenario of real events to me. Disbelieve everyone - it's your choice.
@LoneNutter1: Mr. Hoffman promptly came forward to the authorities & got rebuffed; they weren't interested. Sadly, he's hardly unique wrt people who saw something but met with official disinterest. You have a transcript of Bowers, I own a video that incl. his testimony re the picket fence. Bowers saw curious activity in the parking lot preceding the event, incl. a man in an ordinary sedan circling the lot talking on in-car microphone.
@regfsmith Mr Hoffman's testimony is at odds with everyone else there, his brother and father doubted it and, sorry, he only came forward in 1967. These claims emerged after 1977 after his story changed yet again. If what he claimed indeed happened, there would have been at least a half dozen others who would have seen the same thing.
@regfsmith Bowers: This is likely from the same "video" in the Mark Lane documentary. You are now doubting this? The transcript comes from the filmmaker, Lane deliberately omitted it from the doc. Don't you find it odd that he is NEVER asked "was anyone behind the fence at the moment of the assassination"? There is a very good reason for that. Because the answer to that question is "NO." Instead, we have vague talk of a "commotion," of others milling about at the sides.
@1239jer You can eat your f-ing transcripts! I'd rather trust the face being interviewed. Bowers essentially said that he's not sure what drew his attention to the fence, but that something did. Yes, he never mentioned spotting anyone there specifically, perhaps due to shadows from trees. But what does it matter! His function wasn't to paint a detailed picture of rail yard parking (he was working) & he had no idea what was about to happen. Geez you're such an unrelenting moron!
@regfsmith I'm not talking about a "transcript," I;m talking about Bowers - who could discern a man talking to a radio in a car, who could identify license plates from his tower, somehow NOT noticing two guys tossing rifles and shooting behind the fence! Or... what about Sam Holland who immediately ran behind the fence with two others - and saw NOTHING! Additionally, some 10 to 12 were on the overpass - NONE saw what Hoffman saw. Time to employ some critical thinking here, reg.
@1239jer: Most of this I've answered; other witnesses w Hofmann's view = none. You want more 'critical thinking': Bowers could see details wrt to the cars that were much CLOSER to his tower. Wow what a critical stretch for you eh? Bower's only view of the motorcade from the tower was towards the intersection of Houston & Elm well to the left of the fence and pergola. That's where Bowers saw the limo. Elm is well downslope at the fence position and is @ ground level at the intersection!
@regfsmith ANd Bowers again - he was at work. Yes, but he described in great detail the comings and goings in the yard AND he testified he watched the limousine with the president as it passed! So his attention was definitely focused on the fence at the time of the assassination. Shadows of a tree? The trees were on the other side of the fence. Not on the parking lot side, and the fence was light-coloured so anyone against them would be easily visible.
@regfsmith I notice that once I start pointing out the silliness of your position and how it defies common sense, how your own witnesses often contradict each other on fundamental points, you resort to insults like "unrelenting moron." Sorry if logic and common sense is a stranger to you reg, but you have been fed a lot of b.s. by these people and have swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Once I realized how ridiculous these claims were, I started to realize how gullible I was.
@1239jer: Wrong I know the taste of bullshit - and I dont find it palatable. You switched from being critical & skeptical to join the ranks of the gullible; you joined the dark side & subscribed to the anything-but-critical WC apologists. These are people who think they make sense, never noting just how poorly their simplistic 'sense' actually covers the likelihoods. I'm sorry that my pent up frustration boils over into perjoratives. I will try to chill that.
@regfsmith "Bowers saw curious activity in the parking lot preceding the event, incl. a man in an ordinary sedan circling the lot talking on in-car microphone."
Interesting how specific he was on what he did see, eh? He describes a man in a van, he even describes licence plates, etc. What he DOESN'T describe - because he didn't see it - was a man standing there with a rifle. Indeed, if you embrace Hoffman, how could Bowers NOT have seen all that?!?
@regfsmith Milteer: Migod, you pull up every silly conspiracy buff allegation, don't you? First, who is Jack Brown? Second, when they talk about how JFK could be killed with all the agents around him, they state the obvious - from a building. Third, when they talk about taking apart a gun, they are talking about an assassination of JFK on the White House veranda. Clearly, this was a lot of yapping, and no action. Next.
@1239jer: How about addressing my Milteer question (& the rest I've written you've ignored) instead of glossing over. Milteer's voice on Somersett's secret recording describes the assassination days ahead of Dallas (I've also seen a photo of a man closely resembling Milteer taken in Dealey Plaza on the day). JFK's elimination was targeted for Chicago, Miami and then finally accomplished in Dallas. I googled Jack Brown & gave up trying to find him in the link; what's his pertinence?
@regfsmith Actually, I did address it. As I said, he was blowing smoke talking about one COULD get JFK if they wanted, and when they got specific he talked about the assassination happening at the veranda of the White House.
Besides, he doesn't "describe" the assassination in advance, he is asked by the informant how one would get past the bodyguards. Then he NAMES someone who would do it if there was someone to do it - Jack Brown. THEN, he says where it would be done - Washington.
@regfsmith "I googled Jack Brown & gave up trying to find him in the link; what's his pertinence?" Jack Brown is the guy he said would likely take out JFK when he says "it's in the works," but it is clear that he wouldn't be surprised that someone would try to take him out. From what he says its obvious is not aware of a specific plan, just on how it might be done. And he says Washington.
@1239jer: 'Yapping'? You dont see the timing's importance? Milteer had foreknowledge. No doubt you'll fob it off as coincidence or dismiss in some other way. And LBJ's curious selection to handle the JFK investigation: The former CIA dir., Dulles, whom JFK embarassed by firing. JJ McCloy: ties to Fed. Res.; those that JFK's monetary policy threatened. Congressman Ford (non-elected President post Nixon) former FBI man was FBI's WC informant (personally falsified bullet entry pt. on JFK).
@regfsmith Uh, no. By that date, the trip to Dallas was known. What he described on November 9 would take place in Washington. AFTER the assassintion, he is chortling as, indeed, a shot was fired from a building.
But... just a second... HE is talking about A gunman... there is nothing about a team of assassins...
@1239jer: Critical Thought: I didn't say the Dallas trip was unknown Nov. 9, I meant the details hardly filled the media almost 2 wks before the trip esp. in Miami. I've heard the tape & Milteer says nothing re shooting JFK on the White House balcony or Washington! Critical Thought: That Milteer talked about A gunman only makes sense; in his numerous foul associations with the extreme right, he heard talk of events to come and surmised A gunman, Milteer wasn't a freakin' planner of it!
@1239jer: '...state the obvious'!? 'Shooting from a bldg'!? You talk like details re Dallas were omnipresent. Not! Even day before, JFKs route changed. Csolgosz shot McKinley at streetlevel as did Archduke Ferdinand's assassin, & Hinckley's attempt on Reagan, RFK and so on! No attempted assassination in US EVER came from a tall bldg. The 'yappings' are yours esp wrt the mass of worthy questions concerning JFKs murder, & witness testimonies. Skepticism's healthy - you're rather sickly.
@regfsmith JFK's route didn't "change" the day before, that line of b.s. was debunked by the WC itself. The route ALWAYS had the turn to Elm as you couldn't get onto the freeway via Main.
As for "snipers", JFK HIMSELF stated to Jackie that day that there was little to be done to prevent a sniper in a building. So, was JFK part of the conspiracy to kill JFK? Further, Forest Sorrell testified that he raised the issue with Dallas police.
@1239jer: Crap. The motorcade route as published in the Dallas papers showed no dogleg turn onto Houston. The route either changed or was just initially misrepresented in the news, but as far as the public were concerned, the map in the press indicated a route straight up Main through Dealey plaza. Look it up! And yes, JFK reportedly said that to Jackie, so there can be no doubt JFK was indeed part of the conspiracy to assassinate himself. Brilliant logic, 1239jer (where are my shades?)
@regfsmith "Skepticism's healthy - you're rather sickly"
Hmmm. For one who accepts every theory as the truth, that's a laugh.
You embrace Bowers and Hoffman - even though what they say CONTRADICTS each other.
Then, even while citing evidence for a Knoll assassin, you spout Milteer who talks about a LONE gunman firing from... NOT a hill, but from a building - where Oswald was! HE said nothing about multiple gunman, indeed, one guy would do it!
@1239jer: No I dont feel silly at all; I feel I've read enough to form an educated opinion. BTW, where do I claim that every theory is truth!? Theories attempt to explain an unknown. I'm just open to the possibilities, whereas your mind seems welded shut. I accept it's perfectly natural to find wide-ranging opinions/solutions offered to speak to such a mystery as JFK's murder. I accept witness testimony doesn't get everything correct nor everything wrong. None of us are bloody vid cams!
@regfsmith "BTW, where do I claim that every theory is truth!? Theories attempt to explain an unknown. I'm just open to the possibilities, whereas your mind seems welded shut."
No, you are welded shut in concluding "conspiracy." You don;t seem to realize you've argued the veracity of three completely separate scenarios which can't all possibly be what really happened. I've shown you why these scenarios have fundamental problems. This stuff doesn't stick to the wall.
@1239jer: The more we go back&forth the more it's clear you just wanna believe US political change couldn't possibly come from within & so brutally as in banana republics. Guess what? Conspiracy has been with us since mankind was tribal. Power has, & always will, corrupt. JFK MLK RFK...ALL in the 60s: 3 top Liberals eliminated in a 5-year span & always by lone nuts! Really? Nothing political just a bumper crop of lone nuts in the 60s eh! I pity your woeful gullibility, you lone nut you.
@regfsmith "Conspiracy has been with us since mankind was tribal." Well, lone killers have been with us even longer. But that doesn't tell us what happened Nov 22 1963.
It seems to me that you WANT to believe there was a conspiracy. I sure thought that way, from about 1972 when I read "6 seconds," then saw "Executive Action" Nov 22 1973, through to the 90s.
I was as gullible as you, thinking I knew the "truth." I didn't and you don't.
@regfsmith As for MLK, THAT case sure smells like "conspiracy." I go by the places he hid in Toronto nearly every day. SO I don't reject "conspiracy," I just trust evidence over what people claim "realpolitik" suggests. If there was NO evidence against Oswald, there might be a case. But any scenario which suggests conspiracy MUST account for the evidence pointing at Oswald. Tossing out allegations which often contradict doesn't establish anything.
@1239jer: OMG I'm surprised to find you're Canadian too! (Im in Guelph). Americans should be having this dialogue! ;o) As I said, pls. post your email so we can continue off this site. Cool? Re evidence pointing at LHO: A 'patsy' is someone being framed by others with planted 'evidence'. LHO may have been involved on either side. LHO got in & out of USSR too easily, suggesting perhaps assoc'd w US intelligence. Indeed, for a dropout, he spoke Russian so fluently Marina thot he was one.
@1239jer: OMG I'm surprised to find you're Canadian too! (Im in Guelph). Americans should be having this dialogue! ;o) As I said, pls. post your email so we can continue off this site. Cool? Re evidence pointing at LHO: A 'patsy' is someone being framed by others with planted 'evidence'. LHO may have been involved on either side. LHO got in & out of USSR too easily, suggesting perhaps assoc'd w US intelligence. Indeed, for a dropout, he spoke Russian so fluently Marina thot he was one.
@LoneNutter1: In the video I own, the distance looks closer to 100-150yds for Mr. Hoffman. Trees block this view for those on the overpass. BTW: Bill Newman, his wife & 2 kids are the ones seen in many photos on the grass when the shots were fired. Mr. Newman was ex-military. I have video of Bill's immediate testimony given on TV - he clearly said shots were fired over his right shoulder (the knoll area). How many indicators do you need to consider LHO likely didn't act alone!?
@regfsmith Reg, we have maybe a hundred witnesses saying shots came from either the knoll or the TSBD. But virtually NONE say both. How is that possible? We have multiple witnesses who actually SAW someone shoot from the TSBD. But NONE from the knoll. And, since the Plaza is an echo chamber, the only reasonable conclusion is that since virtually all witnesses reported shots from a SINGLE direction, any who though "knoll" were fooled by echoes.
@1239jer: I'm sure some witnesses claimed shots from both directions. Regardless, in the moment, EVERYBODY was caught off guard. Your 'reasonable conclusion' that a bldg shots echo would be heard near the knoll, applies in reverse too. That is, a shot from the knoll would reverberate off the building(s). Stunning reasoning! Furthermore, shots are FAR MORE LIKELY to rebound from a hard wall of brick bldgs than from the other end where it's mostly grass, fence and trees! Dont be a tool!
@regfsmith You should read the Warren Commission testimony of Lee Bowers. He addresses to issue of sound and echos. He spent many years in the tower with the rail company and can attest to the echo effect in Dealey Plaza.
@regfsmith Shots from 2 directions. Very few said "2 directions." maybe 5 out of 100 and some of those were traveling in the motorcade. You miss the salient point. Sure, echoes could have come from a shot from the knoll. But we have multiple witnesses who actually SAW a man shooting from the TSBD or the rifle there. NONE saw a knoll sniper fire. So we know that source for sure. Since 95 per cent or so say "single direction" that suggests many were mistaken about the direction.
Anyway, putting aside the physics class, there is a fundamental point in terms of a knoll shooter. The one man who was actually behind the fence in his tower, Lee Bowers, said there was no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting! So, not only are we talking about a phantom bullet hitting JFK, we are also talking about a phantom sniper.
Mark Lane interviewed Bowers and avoided asking the obvious question, so Bowers supplied the answer - which Lane omitted from his documentary. Typical.
@1239jer: Bowers noted lots of things including a commotion/flash or something by the picket fence. I've seen all the relevent interviews of these witnesses and they believe something was fishy. So believe in the tooth fairy if you'd like; I'm tired of dancing with an idiot. Go sit this out - indeed, IF the kill shot was fired out your a-hole from the picket fence, you'd still deny...deny...deny.
@regfsmith Bowers. Here is what he said and which Lane omitted. "Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."
He quite clearly stated, after describing several man near the pergola (likely Emmet Hudson and a younger man), but NO ONE behind the fence
@regfsmith Bowers. Prime example of needing EVIDENCE. Bowers? If you read those interviews, you'd know he was watching the parking lot, watching the motorcade. Yet he unequivocally stated that at the time the motorcade passed there was no one behind the fence.
So, was the knoll assassin the Invisible Man? Or maybe he was the tooth fairy?
@1239jer: What attention to detail! I didnt say I READ a Bowers interview, I saw & heard him say it - it was a video shot in the day. Same with Roger Craig, and you can tell the man is sincere not BS-ing. So many other eyewitnesses to the knoll shot location, including a recently-deceased deaf/mute gentleman named Ed Hoffman. But none of this will with you. Dang, I guess the conspiracy was smart enough to not put someone out in the middle of the road who was left alive to stand trial.
@regfsmith Reg, don't you think it odd that Bowers never said anything about a person watching the motorcade from behind the fence? And that he was never directly asked about this? The WC asked him who he saw, they never asked about the knoll. However, Mark Lane conspicuously avoided that question, so Bowers, in the quote supplied offered it. He OMITTED it from his documentary. We only have the transcript.
@regfsmith You just listed a pile of less than credible witnesses. Hoffman said NOTHING until years later. Craig claimed Oswald ran across the knoll 15 minutes later. But we have witnesses on the bus and the cab - and Oswald himself - saying he was elsewhere.
You really have to do your homework, you are falling for a lot of b.s., as I did for some 25 years.
@1239jer: You besmirch Mr. Lane's sincerity; I respect him for his genuine efforts to bring facts to light...esp. in the face of the multitude of dim bulbs like you who maintain the WC bullshit is the final word. Read their books - they're not sensational, they're sincere efforts with good reasons to be skeptical. Re Bowers. Someone ought to take you, unsuspecting, outside to a busy place, have some surprising event occur and ask you to recall every detail. Bowers wasn't a f-ing vidcam!
@regfsmith Lane has repeatedly been caught lying. For example, with Helen Markham's testimony when he said she had been describing a man clearly not Oswald shooting Tippit. When the WC asked for the source, he refused to cooperate. Eventually it came out HE had fed her lines as he posed over the phone as Chief Curry. She said "no" to his descriptions and then claimed she had said it. He's done the same with many other witnesses who have called him on it.
@1239jer: Lane's a liar!? Everyone not in lockstep w WC must be liars, eh? What's Lane's motive for falsifying testimony? He was asked by LHO's mom to represent Oswald @WC; Lane asked WC & was refused. All Lane's books & others by serious researchers use footnotes leading to their sources for what they relate. Lane was involved w JFK's pres. campaign in NY & wanted truth not lies! Markhams video she says killer was 'short w ruddy complexion' - yeh, that's LHO! Marine records claim 5-11.
@regfsmith Lane is defintely NOT "sincere." You quote Ruby when he requested a move to Washington. But the very next words he said were "there was no conspiracy." There are a TON of instances where he misleads and fabricates when it comes to this case.
It;s one thing to simply ignore inconvenient evidence. It's quite another, as he does, to fabricate evidence and lie about what some are saying.
@1239jer: And you're a Lane expert, for sure. LMAO! Once again, having seen Lane talk on video I didnt discern a liar, I saw a sincere man trying to cut through the BS to find the truth. Nobody on WC was acting on Oswald's behalf, tho Lane tried to - he was already untouchable as the assassin...without due process...a trail, you know, trivial things like that. They didn't even try to find connections to Ferry (proven) or Bannister (proven), Shaw or Ruby etc.
@1239jer: BS~Nowhere on the videos does Ruby say 'there was no conspiracy'; you must work for Fox News. In the video Ruby was asked whether the forces behind the assassination reached to the highest levels of government...he answered 'yes'. On his deathbed, E Howard Hunt (likely the oldest of the 3 tramps & his own son accepts it) implicated LBJ, Cord Meyers etc. Sounds like a man clearing his conscience before passing. No doubt you'll think he was after fame...for his last 3 weeks.
@regfsmith Bowers - expecting him to recall "every detail." It would seem to me that seeing someone fire a rifle at a passing motorcade would be a "detail" one might note. Or the same man tossing a rifle to another man. Indeed, when a traumatic event like that happens, people tend to have vivid recollections. Besides, Bowers didn't say "I dont recall," he says what he saw at the time of the killing and who was behind the fence after - like the motorcycle cop. Very specific.
@1239jer: Geez, seems to me a shooter firing AWAY from Bowers is very EASY to miss, esp. if that's NOT where he was looking. Dont be so daft! Seems, cars may have blocked at least half of whomever he might have spotted, WERE HE EVEN LOOKING steadfastly @ the fence! In the swirl of traumatic events some things are vivid, but OMG, Bowers wasn't part of it, he just saw some commotion, perhaps he spotted the first folks to arrive back there; he didn't know what had transpired instantly!
@1239jer: A '200 gram bullet', you say? Really!? Let's see, genius (can I call you that?), there are 454 grams/pound, so you're claiming JFK was struck by a slug weighing almost a half pound! Wow~what were they shooting JFK with...a freakin' bazooka!!? And I'm supposedly the clueless one? A typical .22-long slug weighs about 2.5 grams but it's velocity is roughly 1200 ft/second & imparts a force of about 116 foot pounds! Anyone's head would easily move sharply back & to the left by that impact.
@regfsmith Very good, reg. I meant GRAINS obviously. Yes, you are completely clueless if you believe a bullet, say 2.5 grams traveling at that speed would knock someone over more than 1 -1/2 inches. By "clueless" I mean you don't know your physics.
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that a bullet as you describe would supply the equivalent of 116 pounds - like a body-check from a kid - to Kennedy? And you call ME "clueless"?
@1239jer: That's 116 FOOT pounds...not the 'weight of a kid'! I'm tired of dancing with you. Ask your local highschool physics teacher to explain foot pounds for you. And YES a frangible round fired from the knoll (my guess re distance = approx.100 ft) would have sufficient force to blow JFK's head 'back and to the left'. It split open JFK's head & blew a large skull fragment onto the street! That took more force than just the puny tap you think would occur. Pls. go and ask an expert.
@regfsmith Wow - you are completely out of your depth here, reg. And blissfully unaware of that fact. Beyond clueless. But reading some of your other posts here, I can see that you don't let facts - or basic physics - get in the way. As I said, check out the link, but I doubt you will comprehend it.
@regfsmith Actually, before you thoroughly embarrass yourself on a subject you clearly know nothing abouut (there's a typo for you to mock), here is a pretty thorough discussion on this very subject. Go to "Physics and the frontal hit that never was" on kenrahn dot com.
@1239jer: I cannot locate your reply that asks about the motivation to murder JFK. So I'm using this: JFK made many powerful enemies: He fired Dulles (the director) and 2 other top CIA after Bay of Pigs. JFK was starting a withdrawal of Vietnam; the Hawks (and profiteers) wanted that war. JFK was taking away the power & money from Federal Reserve Bank (owned by a few rich a-holes) - JFK had a batch of currency printed bypassing them. JFK was going to force Hoover to retire. See next...
@regfsmith Motivation. Reg, I could come up with 1000 different reasons why someone or some group or agency or country or what have you would want JFK dead. But we don't convict people of "motivation," we convict on EVIDENCE. And the facts in this case is we have a mountain of evidence pointing to OSwald and no one else. Even if we had others saying "we want JFK dead," that only matters if there is evidence linking them to the murder. "Motivation" isn't evidence.
@regfsmith In other words, in terms of motivation, we don't need to know WHY someone killed someone else, if the evidence shows that the person carried out the crime. It is a fallacy to claim that those who would want him dead in fact killed that person. Too often, in the case of, say, a murdered wife, the focus is on an obvious suspect like the husband despite evidence pointing to someone else. Lacking evidence, it'd be the place to explore. But not with. Same applies here.
@1239jer: Do you seriously think any of JFK's direct enemies, like Dulles or Hoover would grab a rifle & shoot JFK in the head? OR is it more likely they'd arrange it so a patsy, many layers removed from them, would be in a position to take the fall? C'mon, you say a lot but still fail to make sense, its all 'your people said vs my people said', and nowhere do you even allow the thought that powerful people pulled off the coup. So stay there, cosy in your bed of 'plausible deniability'.
@regfsmith Migod, reg, of course I don't believe those guys, if they wanted JFK dead, would personally do it. The problem there is no credible evidence linking the evidence there at Deally Plaza to any of these culprits. There sure HAVE been decades of 6-degrees-of separation style links, evidence of all these people with hate-ons for JFK, but that is not "evidence" per se of involvement.
For one who complains about not making sense, you have only thrown out innuendo, not evidence.
@1239jer: there was enough evidence to warrant a reopening of the investigation at the end of the HSCA, but they could only recommend this to the Justice Dept...which did nothing. Deep politics trumps the truth being told. Have you ever seen the film clip of Ruby being interviewed by Judge Warren? He implicates many, was not brought to the relative safety of the Capitol to give his evidence...and conveniently soon died of cancer in jail.
@regfsmith I'd say that it'd be more accurate to say that once the general public saw the Zapruder film in 1975 for the first time, the pressure to re-open became irresistible, especially given the revelations about the CIA during the Rockefeller Commission later that year. And that there were many avenues which the WC either didn't investigate adequately or simply did not investigate.
@regfsmith But to suggest they had gathered enough evidence to put someone - anyone - on trial, is nonsense. In fact, the HSCA managed to debunk just all of the conspiracy theories which had piled up over the past decade or so, despite the very real effort to find evidence of a conspiracy, in particular one involving the mafia or elements thereof.
This wasn't "deep politics," it was "the evidence simply isn't there."
@1239jer: Yes, Zapruder's film release (finally!) got the ball rolling (a bootleg copy no less). But 10+ years had passed by then; many witnesses dead (too often mysteriously). If you were honest, LHO himself would never have been convicted due to irregularities like broken chains of evidence (plenty other reasons too). No doubt Mafia were involved in some capacity (they were useful to the US gov in WW2 afterall). Naturally, no single author has all the answers; that surprises you?!
@regfsmith LHO never convicted with tainted evidence. That's not likely. There were about 50 pieces of evidence linking him to the assassination. The case wouldnt have rested on the chain of custody of a single piece of evidence like CE 399.
No author has the answers? None have addressed the case which answers the evidence implicating Oswald without resorting to implausible theories involving evidence alteration. The WC at the least concludes based on the evidence. Not so others.
@regfsmith As for Ruby, you seem confused. He famously said he could only talk in Washington, but immediately stated that there was no conspiracy, that he alone shot Oswald as was not aware of any conspiracy Oswald was involved in. And he didn't "conveniently" soon die of cancer - he lived several years after the trial.
@1239jer: Bullshit! There's another interview video you've not seen. Ruby was concerned re speaking wrt what he knew, apart from hints to Warren in Dallas. In the video, Ruby clearly implicated the highest levels of the 1964 gov! Once again, discernment of his demeanor, speaks to a desire to reveal things...were he taken into 'safer' custody. But, our debate goes on & on, 1239jer. Post your email & we'll continue this personally. Way too much email @work - not appropriate for all this!
@1239jer: If I were Ruby, I'd have chosen Wash DC as safer too; Dallas PD was well-known to be corrupt. Highest level of gov. in DC doesn't mean it'd be a snap for LBJ to shoot Oswald there!
Anyhow, if you have the courage of your convictions, then send me your email address like I've asked & we'll either continue off YouTube via personal email, or agree to meet in a coffee shop & discuss further. It's been a good debate, even if you're head's stuck in cement! ;op LOL
@regfsmith What's most interesting about the HSCA is that while concluding "conspiracy" on the basis of acoustic evidence, they nevertheless concluded that Oswald fired all the shots which struck the limo, based on the careful reconstruction of the trajectories and, most importantly, the examination of the autopsy records.
Those records were PROVEN to be authentic, and they show that JFK was struck once in the head, from the rear.
@1239jer Pls send the complete address at KenRahn.com. What I found there supports what I've been saying. I also cannot see where I replied wrt your question dealing with motive for JFK's assassination. So I might have to retype that. But for the moment, let me ask you: Did you think JFK made any powerful ememies and if yes, whom?
@regfsmith "Physics and the frontal hit that never was" is the title, kenrahn dot com slash jfk slash scientific_topics slash Physics_of_head_shot slash Physics_of_the_head_shot dot html
@regfsmith I'm not sure I posted the original comment about motivation. Sure, JFK made powerful enemies. The CIA was pissed after Bay of Pigs, Hoover hated the Kennedys, the mafia was furious RFK was cracking down, Castro was no doubt a mortal enemy, the John Birch Society, anti-Castro groups... the list goes on and on.
But this does not mean any one or any group of these people in fact killed him! Why? Because we have evidence for Oswald, we don't for, say Hoover.
@1239jer One final post re your reference to Ken Rahn: He has a BS in Chemistry & PhD in...Meteorology. He's no expert on head snap physics! As someone put it: Rahn's 'jet effect' explanation is like saying you could levitate if you farted a really big one! Rahn's not an unbiased researcher, he's a WC apologist! If you want to know the truth about the man and his 'objectivity', Google: Charles Drago (his comments); he knows him well. I pity the poor schmucks taking Rahn's course re JFK.
Have you 'geniuses' EVER viewed the Zapruder film!?? Did you not see JFK's head snap left & backwards from the impact of a bullet from the right front (ie the grassy knoll)? Simple physics; that shot did NOT come from behind JFK & up 6 storeys! None of you have read diddly about the assassination & yet you're f-ing experts. BTW, why was pitcher Sandy Koufax added to the knoll photo & why Castro on that halfwit tabloid? And finally, how'd you fools manage to get your heads so far up your asses?
@regfsmith Obviously, you don't know your "simple physics," because if you did, you'd know that a 200-gram bullet would only move a 15-pound head attached to a 180-pound body about TWO INCHES at most, yet we see a backward lurch of about a foot. If this was not so, why weren't they knocked out of their seats by the other shots?
If you want to claim others have their "heads up [their] asses" you should at least have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. You don't.
Why does everyone who argue that there was a conspiracy so illogical, angry and feel the need to interupt? It only hurts their cause. The conspiracy buffs should conspire to assassinate Rossley and install someone who sounds rational. McAdams lays out a clear case of Oswald as the lone gunman. He ate Rossley's lunch!
@abennett4 Yeah..right...right. But why are all anti-conspiracy theorists faggots who have the hots for JFK?
I'd appreciate any help you can give me on this. I am writing my university thesis on The JFK assassination.
The provisional title of my thesis is:- " How the Faggots Got JFK " - although I may change that to something less provocative such as "How The Homos Humped John Boy ". It's all pretty much up in the air at the moment.
Rossley argues there were Secret Service impersonators at Dealey Plaza. He is correct that there weren't SS outside the motorcade, but there WERE assigned agents from the precursor to the ATF there, and these men have been identified. There is no mystery as to who these guys on the Knoll were. The only question is whether they self-identified themselves as SS, showed a badge taken to be SS or were assumed by others to be SS.
McAdams nails it here. He makes a salient point most CTs choose to ignore. Yes, many said they heard a shot or shots from the knoll, and many said they heard a shot from the TSBD. But almost no one SAID BOTH directions. If there were shots fired from two directions, we'd expect most witnesses to say as much. Virtually none did. Since all but the most delusional acknowledge a shot or shots from the rear, the acoustical evidence for the knoll is misleading.
@LiquorWreckedEmGood "that "observation" proves absolutely nothing." Sure, but it suggests one of the pillars of the knoll assassin theory is bogus on its face, as we'd expect many witnesses to have reported gunfire from two directions (since multiple witnesses SAW shots being fired from the TSBD). Pillar #2 is the presence of SS agents, shown to be wrong. Pillar #3 is head snap. But a bullet impact would only push JFK back an inch or so, not a foot.
McAdams thinks the WC got it right the 1st time. He may be right. Debating both sides of the issue is healthy because it's the closest we'll ever get to a real trial on the charges & evidence. It does get mundane after awhile. Conspiracies are as weak as the number involved. The more involved the weaker it is. The Manson case was a conspiracy. 1 conspirator in jail exposed it. No one has exposed any hanky panky in the JFK case in 50 years. McAdams may be right.
@raynefallz1 I agreed debate is good. But all your conclusion proves is that Manson didn't have a hit squad to pick off potentially harmful witnesses. Furthermore, all conspiracy participants would know beforehand that their ratting out the operation would be fatal for them! Example: DeMohrenshildt, Oswald's handler, was ruled to have committed suicide with a 20-guage shotgun the very day before he was to give evidence; one of many curious & conveniently-timed deaths in the JFK assassination.
There are the facts, then there are the benefactors of the JFK assassination strike team that are continuing to plunder, mass murder and enslave this planet at this very moment.
There IS NO SHOT through those trees, into that spot on JFK's back where he was hit. The wound on his throat is a wound of ENTRY, not an exit. There is no way to drive JFK into a clearly visible kill zine with windows open, and then stop the vehicle for him to be hit in the head.
Is that man TEACHING in a classroom that Oswald was INVOLVED, leaving undecided only whether others were involved? How dare he deign to TEACH young minds! It has been reported convincingly and with documentation that Oswald was working for the FBI and that he believed he was onto those who were truly involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK and had reported it but that the report went unacknowledged. Compelling evidence indicated that Oswald was set up months prior to the event as the patsy!
Wait a minute you can't have it both ways. First Mcadams says the vast majority say the shots came from the TSBD then he says the echos were so bad you could tell where the shots came from.
It is funny how those opposed to conspiracy theories say oswald did it and there was no conspiracy because oswald wasn't the type to conspire. There is no conclusive evidence proving Oswald did it. You could not convict him in a court of law of this crime today. He was not one of the conspirators duh!
@cunnidvd The evidence against Oswald is ironclad and irrefutable. He would have been convicted back then and with the development of improved forensics and crime reconstruction techniques he would definitely be convicted today.
@LoneNutter1 I hope you experience a trial in which you are convicted on evidence as strong as you think Oswald had against him. The test proved NEGATIVE for Oswald having fired any weapons that day. The document has been released under the Freedom Of Information Act. a few years after the event. There is strong evidence that Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination but was an FBI agent trying to PREVENT IT. What is ironclad and irrefutable is your ignorance.
@olga2415 T. Paraffin tests were inaccurate and in many tests it showed someone had fired a weapon, when in fact they hadn't. They tested LHO's weapon 3 times and tested to person who fired it for nitrates. In each test it showed they had not fired a weapon. I am not aware of any credible evidence that indicates Oswald's innocence but there's a mountain of evidence that would convict him easily. The is no evidence that LHO was an agent of the FBI or CIA. Oswald was guilty beyond all doubt.
@LoneNutter1 The evidence against Oswald is hardly 'ironclad & irrefutable'! Pls. dont be intellectually lazy...read! Example: the famous Altgens photo shows Oswald, behind JFK's limo, standing in the Depository doorway! I used to accept i
This has been flagged as spam show
@All BEWARE!!!
LoneNutter1 is a TROLL!!!
virtuaI4desires 2 months ago
Why do we know that Milteer is "yapping"? Because while describing how to carry out a killing of JFK - from a tall building where you could disassemble a rifle etc - he ALSO says that a) JFK travels with "15" decoys so you'd never know if you got him and b) the security will check out tall buildings. So, far from going somewhere like Miami or Dallas, the place to do it is Washington. On the veranda of the White House. But that's not what happened, is it?
1239jer 2 months ago
What the past few posts underline the old addage of throw enough stuff against the wall, and some will stick, even if it contradicts. So... we have Bowers, whose testimony at face value doesn't resembles anything that Hoffman states. Indeed, it's hard to fathom how Bowers could NOT have seen what Hoffman said he saw.
THEN, we have Milteer who says NOTHING about multiple gunmen, instead talking of a SINGLE sniper from a building - like Oswald.
So what is it? None of this adds up!
1239jer 2 months ago
parking lot was filled with cars so the shooter could not have walked through the lot and toss the rifle to someone without climbing over dozens of cars. Hoffman is one of the many people who tried to insert themselves into history by making up stories. There are others in the Kennedy assassination and they've all wanted to make a buck.
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: Behind the picket fence were a lot of footprints in the mud and on a car bumper (cig butts too). Somebody was there. Reports didn't describe this lot like it was a wrecking yard one couldn't navigate thru. And what of the 3 tramps? Have you ever seen E Howard Hunt's video (I'm sure it's online) discussing JFK stuff? Lots of Dealey witness testimony was ignored, esp. if it pointed away from LHO. So much point to conspiracy...at least for skeptics with the eyes to see.
regfsmith 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@regfsmith "Behind the picket fence were a lot of footprints in the mud and on a car bumper (cig butts too)." Yes, smoking humans were present there before the assassination. But Bowers had an unobstructed view, the lot was closed so there were few cars there meaning more visibility and he said he saw NO ONE behind the fence at the critical moment. He watched the motorcade, saw it turn on to Elm, then go behind the fence. There is NO WAY he would have not seen a sniper.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer Sorry I missed this post. This is my last reply to you: How can the 'lot be closed' YET he saw those 3 vehicles enter & leave? BTW, the lot was very full. His view of the motorcade disappeared at the east side of the pergola, right after the motorcade turned onto Elm. From there, Bower's sightline ended. Likely the commotion he noted which DREW his attention to the fence were the arrival of the folks from Dealey plaza there to check where they were sure the shots emanated from.
regfsmith 1 month ago
@regfsmith Footprints in the mud and on a car bumper- It shows someone was there at some point but what were they doing? Shooting at the president? How do you come to that conclusion from footprints in mud and on a bumper?
The 3 tramps-What about the three tramps? Were they seen on the knoll? No. Were they carrying a weapon? No. Were they seen shooting at JFK? No. Was a weapon found near them? No. Was a weapon found with their fingerprints on it? No. Was a weapon found in the vicinity? No.
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: Holland found lots of footprints there. Point is: footprints present AFTER it stopped raining (approx hour before the murder) until they were discovered just after the event, so yeah, I can deduce someone was there @ the right time. You claim nobody was. Photos show 3 'tramps' marched under guard right through a fresh & busy crime scene w no record of their arrest on paper. It's suspicious to anyone but you! Are you sending me your email or not? If not, this ends soon.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith So what's the big deal about the three tramps? Nothing.
E. Howard Hunt...confessing to the crime. Wait a moment; Charles Harrelson and James Files confessed to the same crime. Ooops... One crime, too many confessors. Of all the hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza not a single person saw anyone shoot at JFK from the knoll. No one was seen running from the knoll with a weapon and there's ZERO medical, forensic, ballistic and physical evidence JFK was shot from the front or side.
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: Harrelson certainly did NOT confess to the crime. I've seen the video of him denying it. Re Files: who knows? A red herring, a fame-seeker? I dont know enough about him. And even if they'd confessed, you're permanently stuck in the one-shooter ONLY mode anyhow! The medical evidence is a f-ing joke for Pete's sake! Parkland drs saw wound of ENTRY @ JFK's throat & they'd seen lots before. To explain this to the press, Wade claimed JFK was turned right around facing TBD.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith You're free to believe whatever you want. But don't expect clear thinking people to go marching off with you down Conspiracy Lane.
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: Man, If you represent 'clear thinking people', I'm hoping you dont breed! I'm not 'marching off down Conspiracy Lane'...I'm walking in the direction that the signs I see along the way, point. Send me your email because I wont continue trying to convince someone as rigid as you are, in this forum, after today.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Here's a news Flash for you; Many years ago I was a firm believer there was conspiracy behind the assassination but not anymore. SIMPLE logic and a willingness to challenge my own beliefs and assumptions about the assassination took me out of the realm of foolishness and impossible plots, schemes and non-existant conspiracies. Show a little courage and challenge yourself and knock off the personal insults. Your credibility is self-eroding and you're not doing yourself any favors.
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: Yesterday was my last post, but checked for your email. Nada? That says your mind is indeed 'welded shut' as I said! BTW, when scolded for my insults (out of frustration), I chilled. Your insults continue: 'realm of foolishness etc'. You dont want to believe where the evidence pointsa - your choice! We who see the likelihood of unseen hands are NOT fools or 'conspiracy nuts'; we resent that insulting label. Vast #s of dissenters are very well-educated. Courage is not
regfsmith 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1 Courage is challenging the 'official' story manipulated by powerful forces; questioning so many 'coincidences' & lies on the 'official' side. Courage is recognising how 'National Security' hides corruption. Ex: Bush family: In WW2 Sen. Prescott Bush 'traded w enemy' (Nazis), & his son Bush Sr. was an exCIA dir. - a combo that should be illegal. And 'George Dubya's' illegal war in Iraq! Their 'New World Order' has turned JFKs much-loved USA into the most hated nation.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Typical comment of the conspiracy obsessed by dragging in a boatload of non-related issues and by some strange and unknown method of "logic"connect the dots that compare apples to torque wrenches.
You forgot some of the other conspiracies; The Bermuda Triangle, Amelia Earhart, the faked moon landing, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa and the exact whereabouts of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Let me know when you connect those dots.
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: 'Non-related' you say? I'm not surprised that you cant see the 'Big Picture' relevance; I've read your pap enough to know you wouldn't notice your ass if you glued your nose to your sphincter. There's been a scary shift in American politics to the far right (towards the 'Nazi' end of political spectrum, btw) since the 60s when 3 top Liberals were murdered. Pre JFK: Eisenhower's parting speech warned Americans re Military-Industrial Complex, yet all turned south in 63.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Your dismissive tome and gutter posting reveal more about you (or lack thereof) then you realize.
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: MY dismissive tone!? So, what about your 'Tooth Fairy & Santa' comments etc.? Reread your postings & tone setting. As I said, you choose to disbelieve the likelihood of a 'bigger picture'; you ignore how murdering 3 key Liberals in the 60s could shift the US towards the far right. Only a willful fool is dismissive about politics employing very dark designs to attain POWER. History is full of that! BTW: If LHO acted alone, as you so firmly believe, what was his motive?
regfsmith 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@regfsmith I dismiss the likelihood of your "bigger picture" that filled with conspiring images without a shred of evidence to connect them.
A far right shift to the right??? You don't know much about the 60's . The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was pushed for and signed by the architect of the assassination LBJ. significant number of Souther Democrats were opposed to the legislation and a majority of the Republicans were in favor.
LoneNutter1 1 month ago
@LoneNutter1: LBJ & esp. southern dems were considered hawkish and seen as the rightwing of their party (by far). LBJ carried forward JFKs unfinished business, Civil Rights, & signed it into law more for the glory than being esp. passionate about it. Then we saw Nixon, of all people, basking in the glory of Apollo 11's return from the moon in '69; a program JFK's vision set in motion. JFK was a rare leader with vision - the glory for which was ultimately usurped by his successors.
regfsmith 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@regfsmith Nobody knows LHO's motives and in a murder case motive isn't required to prove guilt. I reference LHO's letter to his brother Robert that was written while in the USSR. He says that he "would kill any American who put on the uniform in the defense of his country...any American". JFK was the commander in chief and reports of Castro accusing JFK of trying to have him killed made the papers. LHO could have read the story and since he admired Castro, struck a blow for him to gain favor.
LoneNutter1 1 month ago
@LoneNutter1 The whereabouts of the Tooth Fairy is not a conspiracy and never was. Jimmy Hoffa, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are not conspiracies and NEVER were!! Is this the level of your JFK assassination research?? LOL
virtuaI4desires 2 months ago
@virtuaI4desires Clearly, you can't recognize sarcasm.
LoneNutter1 2 months ago 4
@LoneNutter1 Sarcastic asshole. Less of your sarcasm and more of the JFK assassination facts!! We don't need your sick lame sarcasm. Asshole.
DAVlDMlCHEALROBlNSON 1 month ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DAVlDMlCHEALROBlNSON You want facts? OK. How many gunman have the pro-conspiracy people placed in Dealey Plaza from all of their "theories"?
Badge Man, Hard Hat Man, Black Dog Man, Coke Bottle Man, Waving at Maryann Mooremen Man, Behind the Picket Fence Man, Cowboy Hat Man, Behind the Pergola Man, Under The Grassy Knoll Man, Sewer Sniper Man, Jackie Man, Limo Driver Man, Gun Embedded In The Seat of The Limo Man, Shooter In The Trunk Of The Limo Man, Dal-Tex Man, Shooter Behind The TSBD Man,
LoneNutter1 1 month ago
@DAVlDMlCHEALROBlNSON Another Shooter In The TSBD Man, The Other Grassy Knoll Man, Umbrella Man and the list will continue to grow. I happen to believe there was one shooter in Dealey Plaza. Pro-conspiracy people believe there was at least 20 gunmen there. The can't identify the weapon, the order in which they fired, the type of bullets used,they can't agree on the motive, can't agree on the plotters, can't agree how any of the 20 gunmen escaped undetected, can't explain how none of the hundreds
LoneNutter1 1 month ago
@LoneNutter1: I know of no conspiracy that ever claimed there were more than 2 or 3 gunmen positioned to create a lethal crossfire. 20 is ridiculous - dont be daft! Most accept 2 or 3 shooters as a reasonable conclusion based on witness testimony. And really, the 'lone nut' concept is only believed, these days, by...lonenutters. I'm pro conspiracy and I believe 2 or 3 shooters at most were involved. Anything pointing away from the prefab LHO scenario scares the crap out of you.
regfsmith 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DAVlDMlCHEALROBlNSON of people in Dealey didn't see any of the pro-conspiracy shooters but some did see the person I believe shot JFK.
So David, you wanted facts I gave you some facts. It's to bad you had to use typical pro-conspiracy foul language. But, I've come to expect it from people who believe there were 20 world-class gunmen in Dealey Plaza blasting away at the presidential and none of them hit their intended target.
I got lots more facts and I'll be happy to share them :)
LoneNutter1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoneNutter1 YOU ARE A TROLL!!!
LoneNutter1 is a TROLL!!!
virtuaI4desires 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: Dont insult Hofmann with your jaded thinking! Yeah, some folk are 'heros' or profiteers, certainly not ALL; separate wheat from chaff! Check: Google video of Sam Holland describing shots from bldgs AND from knoll, a puff of smoke or steam, lots of footprints behind one car at the fence. Re 'Climbing over dozens of cars': C'mon! I'm sure few, IF ANY, car bumpers touched the fence! Normal would be for enough space to follow the fenceline. So Hofmann's story IS plausible.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Hoffman is not a credible source for the following reasons;
1.He told his story to the FBI nearly 4 years after the assassination. In his first version he said he was on the Stemmons Freeway and saw two men clutching something to their chest running from the rear of the TSBD. (You can't see the back of the TSBD from this position) Later the same day Hoffman returns to the FBI and says he could not have seen someone behind the building but it was possible he saw the two men on the
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@regfsmith fence "or something like that". Unbeknownst to Hoffman the fence he was talking about wasn't built until 2 years before the assassination. In July of 1967 Hoffman's father and brother both told the FBI that Ed was known for distorting facts observed by him. Ed had told his brother and father that he had seen people running after the president was shot.
2. Ten years later Ed Hoffman is back with a new and improved version of his story.He tell the FBI in 1977
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@regfsmith the two men he thought he saw behind the TSBD were now behind the picket fence. One of them had a rifle and the other a hand gun. Ed says that one of the men disassembled the rifle and put it in a suitcase and prior to that he saw "puffs of smoke".
3. A friend of Hoffman's who can understand sign language contacts the FBI and says Ed was concerned he had not made himself clear to the agents about what he saw. To clarify his statement Ed says he say two men standing behind the fence;
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@regfsmith one had a rifle and the other had a pistol .After the motorcade sped away the man with the rifle broke it down and put it in some kind of dark suitcase that the other man was holding. The two men ran north on the railroad tracks. Both men were white males and wore white suits and ties. The FBI had Hoffman take them to the spot where he mad these observations. It was estimated to have been 200 yards away from the fence when Ed saw the men in white suits and ties. Ed embellished the
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@regfsmith the story in the Documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". In that version Ed has one man firing a rifle (no mention of a pistol) and he's wearing a hat and a blue jacket (what happened to the white suit?) The man fired at the president turned and walked through the parking lot and tossed the rifle to the other man wearing the striped railroad worker shirt, turned and walked away. The man in the striped shirt walked over to the railway junction box, broke the rifle down, put it in a
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@regfsmith toolbox and calmly walked away.
Ed sees people running from the back of the TSBD.
Ed sees them by the fence "or something like that".
Ed says they're wearing white suits with ties.
Ed say one is wearing a blue jacket with a hat
Ed says one is wearing a striped railroad worker shirt
Ed says they ran off together heading north on the tracks
Ed says they walked away in different directions
And you think Ed Hoffman is a credible witness???
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
Ed Hoffman didn't come out with his story until years later. He was 300 yards away from the back of the fence and the parking lot was filled with cars, Yet Hoffman said one of the men shot at JFK and walked to the back of the parking lot and tossed the rifle to another man. This other man walks over near the triple underpass, disassembles the rifle, puts it in a toolbox and calmly walks away. Baloney! There were 8 people standing on the triple overpass and they didn't see any of this. The
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1 Hoffman. He first told his story in 1967. And that story kept changing, and his father and brother doubted he really saw anything of interest.
Bullshit baffles brains.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer AMEN!
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: Heard of Bertrand Russell? He wrote "16 Questions on the Assassination". Sadly, Americans are woefully insular wrt how the rest of the world thinks/functions. Yet, US military is deployed all over the damn planet. Indeed, when a wise man in the US emerges like Ron Paul (who I have no doubt you'll now attack/ridicule) most of you ignore him or a lone nut emerges to kill him.
Google: Bertrand Russel, sixteen questions
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith I'm not about to ridicule Ron Paul (again, you're wrong). I'm wondering how he managed to become part of the discussion about the Kennedy assassination. I pray none of our elected officials or candidates for office become targets of an assassination.
But what is so special about the 16 questions posed by Bertrand Russell? I think there are enough intelligent people who can think of their own questions without the assistance of Bertrand Russell.
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: Because everything Russell said in his piece brilliantly encapsulates & underscores the numerous assassination issues which put the whole investigation into question. You seem smart enough, so Lord knows why you still believe the WC BS. But, in the final analysis, it's your right to ignore anything & everything that points away from your rigid view that it was LHO only, and which threatens your certainty that everything's just hunky-dory. Wheee!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Could you answer this for me please? There have been thousands of books written about the assassination with most of them being "conspiratorial" in tone. There are scores of different and differing theories in these books. They have different motives, with different plotters, with different number of shooters, firing a different number of shots from different locations, firing different weapons with different bullets and escaping undetected by different means. Could you explain to me
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@regfsmith how all of the different theories with all their differences can be correct simultaneously?
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: Again logic fails you. The fact that there are numerous theories only points to dissatisfaction with the official WC conclusion. These theorists are typically educated people who did their own fact-checking wrt the evidence. Since JFK had made so many powerful enemies, it came down to putting together the puzzle pieces that fit the best, in their opinion. Personally, I accept the cabal concept of powerful people in politics and elsewhere, with rogue CIA involvement.
regfsmith 1 month ago
@regfsmith The numerous theories clearly point at people who were and still are pursuing the almighty dollar. Dozens of differing theories contradicting one another isn't logical whatsoever. You're free to believe whatever you wish but there's not a stitch of evidence to support rogue CIA involvement, powerful cabals, people in politics, etc.
Specifically, who are the powerful cabals and people who can be proven were involved in the assassination. I don't want opinion, I want credible evidence
LoneNutter1 1 month ago
@1239jer Re Bullshit: Yes, it does: I see BS has really pwned your brain! If you exercised any discernment, & viewed (NOT read) Hofmann's testimony (& not another's POV wrt it), then you might spot when someone's being honest. I dont doubt Mr. Hofmann for a moment. Clearly your 'discernment' operates by this rule of thumb: Anybody who points away from the Warren Commission has to be a conspiracy nut, and therefore delusional! Blinders on & full speed ahead to your unremitting ignorance!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith I'm not questioning Hoffman's sincerity. Just whether anything he says adds up. It doesn't, that's the problem. His testimony (besides coming years later) is completely at odds with what other witnesses say. And there would have been multiple witnesses to what he said he saw. Bowers was watching the entire time. Others on the overpass as well. Yet none say they saw anything remotely close to what Hoffman said.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Nobody else was positioned to overlook the parking lot apart from Hofmann (west of RR tracks). Bowers, just doing his job 14 ft up in the tower, noted a few details (3 cars). He had no reason to scan the lot more carefully before the event. The overpass folks couldn't see thru the trees into the lot to their left. Some on overpass saw a puff of smoke at the fence & several in the motorcade reported a gunpowder smell in that same vicinity as their part of the parade passed by.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Hoffman changed his story about three times. Which version are you talking about?
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@regfsmith Employ some "critical thinking." If there were guys running with rifles, and given there was a witness with an unobstructed view (Bowers) and others on the overpass by Hoffman, we'd expect them to have similar accounts, if slightly varying in detail (which is normal). But we don't have anyone else saying anything remotely close to what Hoffman says, which suggests he likely embellished a story. His sincerity is not a factor, as most believe what they embellish is "fact."
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer I answered most of this already re any others seeing what Hofmann did. Who knows what Bower's sightlines were wrt the commotion in the lot?! Were YOU in his tower? Any witness seeing unexpected events has, at best, minimal recall of details apart from general impressions. I'm inclined to believe Hofmann saw one man passing something to another who stashed it. You're not. Hofmann's impression certainly fits a scenario of real events to me. Disbelieve everyone - it's your choice.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: Mr. Hoffman promptly came forward to the authorities & got rebuffed; they weren't interested. Sadly, he's hardly unique wrt people who saw something but met with official disinterest. You have a transcript of Bowers, I own a video that incl. his testimony re the picket fence. Bowers saw curious activity in the parking lot preceding the event, incl. a man in an ordinary sedan circling the lot talking on in-car microphone.
BTW-ever hear the recording of Joseph Milteer?
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Mr Hoffman's testimony is at odds with everyone else there, his brother and father doubted it and, sorry, he only came forward in 1967. These claims emerged after 1977 after his story changed yet again. If what he claimed indeed happened, there would have been at least a half dozen others who would have seen the same thing.
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith Bowers: This is likely from the same "video" in the Mark Lane documentary. You are now doubting this? The transcript comes from the filmmaker, Lane deliberately omitted it from the doc. Don't you find it odd that he is NEVER asked "was anyone behind the fence at the moment of the assassination"? There is a very good reason for that. Because the answer to that question is "NO." Instead, we have vague talk of a "commotion," of others milling about at the sides.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer You can eat your f-ing transcripts! I'd rather trust the face being interviewed. Bowers essentially said that he's not sure what drew his attention to the fence, but that something did. Yes, he never mentioned spotting anyone there specifically, perhaps due to shadows from trees. But what does it matter! His function wasn't to paint a detailed picture of rail yard parking (he was working) & he had no idea what was about to happen. Geez you're such an unrelenting moron!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith I'm not talking about a "transcript," I;m talking about Bowers - who could discern a man talking to a radio in a car, who could identify license plates from his tower, somehow NOT noticing two guys tossing rifles and shooting behind the fence! Or... what about Sam Holland who immediately ran behind the fence with two others - and saw NOTHING! Additionally, some 10 to 12 were on the overpass - NONE saw what Hoffman saw. Time to employ some critical thinking here, reg.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Most of this I've answered; other witnesses w Hofmann's view = none. You want more 'critical thinking': Bowers could see details wrt to the cars that were much CLOSER to his tower. Wow what a critical stretch for you eh? Bower's only view of the motorcade from the tower was towards the intersection of Houston & Elm well to the left of the fence and pergola. That's where Bowers saw the limo. Elm is well downslope at the fence position and is @ ground level at the intersection!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith ANd Bowers again - he was at work. Yes, but he described in great detail the comings and goings in the yard AND he testified he watched the limousine with the president as it passed! So his attention was definitely focused on the fence at the time of the assassination. Shadows of a tree? The trees were on the other side of the fence. Not on the parking lot side, and the fence was light-coloured so anyone against them would be easily visible.
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith I notice that once I start pointing out the silliness of your position and how it defies common sense, how your own witnesses often contradict each other on fundamental points, you resort to insults like "unrelenting moron." Sorry if logic and common sense is a stranger to you reg, but you have been fed a lot of b.s. by these people and have swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Once I realized how ridiculous these claims were, I started to realize how gullible I was.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Wrong I know the taste of bullshit - and I dont find it palatable. You switched from being critical & skeptical to join the ranks of the gullible; you joined the dark side & subscribed to the anything-but-critical WC apologists. These are people who think they make sense, never noting just how poorly their simplistic 'sense' actually covers the likelihoods. I'm sorry that my pent up frustration boils over into perjoratives. I will try to chill that.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith "Bowers saw curious activity in the parking lot preceding the event, incl. a man in an ordinary sedan circling the lot talking on in-car microphone."
Interesting how specific he was on what he did see, eh? He describes a man in a van, he even describes licence plates, etc. What he DOESN'T describe - because he didn't see it - was a man standing there with a rifle. Indeed, if you embrace Hoffman, how could Bowers NOT have seen all that?!?
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith Milteer: Migod, you pull up every silly conspiracy buff allegation, don't you? First, who is Jack Brown? Second, when they talk about how JFK could be killed with all the agents around him, they state the obvious - from a building. Third, when they talk about taking apart a gun, they are talking about an assassination of JFK on the White House veranda. Clearly, this was a lot of yapping, and no action. Next.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: How about addressing my Milteer question (& the rest I've written you've ignored) instead of glossing over. Milteer's voice on Somersett's secret recording describes the assassination days ahead of Dallas (I've also seen a photo of a man closely resembling Milteer taken in Dealey Plaza on the day). JFK's elimination was targeted for Chicago, Miami and then finally accomplished in Dallas. I googled Jack Brown & gave up trying to find him in the link; what's his pertinence?
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Actually, I did address it. As I said, he was blowing smoke talking about one COULD get JFK if they wanted, and when they got specific he talked about the assassination happening at the veranda of the White House.
Besides, he doesn't "describe" the assassination in advance, he is asked by the informant how one would get past the bodyguards. Then he NAMES someone who would do it if there was someone to do it - Jack Brown. THEN, he says where it would be done - Washington.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: What the!!?
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith "I googled Jack Brown & gave up trying to find him in the link; what's his pertinence?" Jack Brown is the guy he said would likely take out JFK when he says "it's in the works," but it is clear that he wouldn't be surprised that someone would try to take him out. From what he says its obvious is not aware of a specific plan, just on how it might be done. And he says Washington.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: 'Yapping'? You dont see the timing's importance? Milteer had foreknowledge. No doubt you'll fob it off as coincidence or dismiss in some other way. And LBJ's curious selection to handle the JFK investigation: The former CIA dir., Dulles, whom JFK embarassed by firing. JJ McCloy: ties to Fed. Res.; those that JFK's monetary policy threatened. Congressman Ford (non-elected President post Nixon) former FBI man was FBI's WC informant (personally falsified bullet entry pt. on JFK).
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Uh, no. By that date, the trip to Dallas was known. What he described on November 9 would take place in Washington. AFTER the assassintion, he is chortling as, indeed, a shot was fired from a building.
But... just a second... HE is talking about A gunman... there is nothing about a team of assassins...
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Critical Thought: I didn't say the Dallas trip was unknown Nov. 9, I meant the details hardly filled the media almost 2 wks before the trip esp. in Miami. I've heard the tape & Milteer says nothing re shooting JFK on the White House balcony or Washington! Critical Thought: That Milteer talked about A gunman only makes sense; in his numerous foul associations with the extreme right, he heard talk of events to come and surmised A gunman, Milteer wasn't a freakin' planner of it!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@1239jer: '...state the obvious'!? 'Shooting from a bldg'!? You talk like details re Dallas were omnipresent. Not! Even day before, JFKs route changed. Csolgosz shot McKinley at streetlevel as did Archduke Ferdinand's assassin, & Hinckley's attempt on Reagan, RFK and so on! No attempted assassination in US EVER came from a tall bldg. The 'yappings' are yours esp wrt the mass of worthy questions concerning JFKs murder, & witness testimonies. Skepticism's healthy - you're rather sickly.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith JFK's route didn't "change" the day before, that line of b.s. was debunked by the WC itself. The route ALWAYS had the turn to Elm as you couldn't get onto the freeway via Main.
As for "snipers", JFK HIMSELF stated to Jackie that day that there was little to be done to prevent a sniper in a building. So, was JFK part of the conspiracy to kill JFK? Further, Forest Sorrell testified that he raised the issue with Dallas police.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Crap. The motorcade route as published in the Dallas papers showed no dogleg turn onto Houston. The route either changed or was just initially misrepresented in the news, but as far as the public were concerned, the map in the press indicated a route straight up Main through Dealey plaza. Look it up! And yes, JFK reportedly said that to Jackie, so there can be no doubt JFK was indeed part of the conspiracy to assassinate himself. Brilliant logic, 1239jer (where are my shades?)
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith "Skepticism's healthy - you're rather sickly"
Hmmm. For one who accepts every theory as the truth, that's a laugh.
You embrace Bowers and Hoffman - even though what they say CONTRADICTS each other.
Then, even while citing evidence for a Knoll assassin, you spout Milteer who talks about a LONE gunman firing from... NOT a hill, but from a building - where Oswald was! HE said nothing about multiple gunman, indeed, one guy would do it!
Don't you feel silly?
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: No I dont feel silly at all; I feel I've read enough to form an educated opinion. BTW, where do I claim that every theory is truth!? Theories attempt to explain an unknown. I'm just open to the possibilities, whereas your mind seems welded shut. I accept it's perfectly natural to find wide-ranging opinions/solutions offered to speak to such a mystery as JFK's murder. I accept witness testimony doesn't get everything correct nor everything wrong. None of us are bloody vid cams!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith "BTW, where do I claim that every theory is truth!? Theories attempt to explain an unknown. I'm just open to the possibilities, whereas your mind seems welded shut."
No, you are welded shut in concluding "conspiracy." You don;t seem to realize you've argued the veracity of three completely separate scenarios which can't all possibly be what really happened. I've shown you why these scenarios have fundamental problems. This stuff doesn't stick to the wall.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: The more we go back&forth the more it's clear you just wanna believe US political change couldn't possibly come from within & so brutally as in banana republics. Guess what? Conspiracy has been with us since mankind was tribal. Power has, & always will, corrupt. JFK MLK RFK...ALL in the 60s: 3 top Liberals eliminated in a 5-year span & always by lone nuts! Really? Nothing political just a bumper crop of lone nuts in the 60s eh! I pity your woeful gullibility, you lone nut you.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith "Conspiracy has been with us since mankind was tribal." Well, lone killers have been with us even longer. But that doesn't tell us what happened Nov 22 1963.
It seems to me that you WANT to believe there was a conspiracy. I sure thought that way, from about 1972 when I read "6 seconds," then saw "Executive Action" Nov 22 1973, through to the 90s.
I was as gullible as you, thinking I knew the "truth." I didn't and you don't.
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith As for MLK, THAT case sure smells like "conspiracy." I go by the places he hid in Toronto nearly every day. SO I don't reject "conspiracy," I just trust evidence over what people claim "realpolitik" suggests. If there was NO evidence against Oswald, there might be a case. But any scenario which suggests conspiracy MUST account for the evidence pointing at Oswald. Tossing out allegations which often contradict doesn't establish anything.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: OMG I'm surprised to find you're Canadian too! (Im in Guelph). Americans should be having this dialogue! ;o) As I said, pls. post your email so we can continue off this site. Cool? Re evidence pointing at LHO: A 'patsy' is someone being framed by others with planted 'evidence'. LHO may have been involved on either side. LHO got in & out of USSR too easily, suggesting perhaps assoc'd w US intelligence. Indeed, for a dropout, he spoke Russian so fluently Marina thot he was one.
regfsmith 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1239jer: OMG I'm surprised to find you're Canadian too! (Im in Guelph). Americans should be having this dialogue! ;o) As I said, pls. post your email so we can continue off this site. Cool? Re evidence pointing at LHO: A 'patsy' is someone being framed by others with planted 'evidence'. LHO may have been involved on either side. LHO got in & out of USSR too easily, suggesting perhaps assoc'd w US intelligence. Indeed, for a dropout, he spoke Russian so fluently Marina thot he was one.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@LoneNutter1: In the video I own, the distance looks closer to 100-150yds for Mr. Hoffman. Trees block this view for those on the overpass. BTW: Bill Newman, his wife & 2 kids are the ones seen in many photos on the grass when the shots were fired. Mr. Newman was ex-military. I have video of Bill's immediate testimony given on TV - he clearly said shots were fired over his right shoulder (the knoll area). How many indicators do you need to consider LHO likely didn't act alone!?
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Reg, we have maybe a hundred witnesses saying shots came from either the knoll or the TSBD. But virtually NONE say both. How is that possible? We have multiple witnesses who actually SAW someone shoot from the TSBD. But NONE from the knoll. And, since the Plaza is an echo chamber, the only reasonable conclusion is that since virtually all witnesses reported shots from a SINGLE direction, any who though "knoll" were fooled by echoes.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: I'm sure some witnesses claimed shots from both directions. Regardless, in the moment, EVERYBODY was caught off guard. Your 'reasonable conclusion' that a bldg shots echo would be heard near the knoll, applies in reverse too. That is, a shot from the knoll would reverberate off the building(s). Stunning reasoning! Furthermore, shots are FAR MORE LIKELY to rebound from a hard wall of brick bldgs than from the other end where it's mostly grass, fence and trees! Dont be a tool!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith You should read the Warren Commission testimony of Lee Bowers. He addresses to issue of sound and echos. He spent many years in the tower with the rail company and can attest to the echo effect in Dealey Plaza.
LoneNutter1 2 months ago
@regfsmith Shots from 2 directions. Very few said "2 directions." maybe 5 out of 100 and some of those were traveling in the motorcade. You miss the salient point. Sure, echoes could have come from a shot from the knoll. But we have multiple witnesses who actually SAW a man shooting from the TSBD or the rifle there. NONE saw a knoll sniper fire. So we know that source for sure. Since 95 per cent or so say "single direction" that suggests many were mistaken about the direction.
1239jer 2 months ago
Anyway, putting aside the physics class, there is a fundamental point in terms of a knoll shooter. The one man who was actually behind the fence in his tower, Lee Bowers, said there was no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting! So, not only are we talking about a phantom bullet hitting JFK, we are also talking about a phantom sniper.
Mark Lane interviewed Bowers and avoided asking the obvious question, so Bowers supplied the answer - which Lane omitted from his documentary. Typical.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Bowers noted lots of things including a commotion/flash or something by the picket fence. I've seen all the relevent interviews of these witnesses and they believe something was fishy. So believe in the tooth fairy if you'd like; I'm tired of dancing with an idiot. Go sit this out - indeed, IF the kill shot was fired out your a-hole from the picket fence, you'd still deny...deny...deny.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Bowers. Here is what he said and which Lane omitted. "Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."
He quite clearly stated, after describing several man near the pergola (likely Emmet Hudson and a younger man), but NO ONE behind the fence
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith Bowers. Prime example of needing EVIDENCE. Bowers? If you read those interviews, you'd know he was watching the parking lot, watching the motorcade. Yet he unequivocally stated that at the time the motorcade passed there was no one behind the fence.
So, was the knoll assassin the Invisible Man? Or maybe he was the tooth fairy?
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: What attention to detail! I didnt say I READ a Bowers interview, I saw & heard him say it - it was a video shot in the day. Same with Roger Craig, and you can tell the man is sincere not BS-ing. So many other eyewitnesses to the knoll shot location, including a recently-deceased deaf/mute gentleman named Ed Hoffman. But none of this will with you. Dang, I guess the conspiracy was smart enough to not put someone out in the middle of the road who was left alive to stand trial.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Reg, don't you think it odd that Bowers never said anything about a person watching the motorcade from behind the fence? And that he was never directly asked about this? The WC asked him who he saw, they never asked about the knoll. However, Mark Lane conspicuously avoided that question, so Bowers, in the quote supplied offered it. He OMITTED it from his documentary. We only have the transcript.
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith You just listed a pile of less than credible witnesses. Hoffman said NOTHING until years later. Craig claimed Oswald ran across the knoll 15 minutes later. But we have witnesses on the bus and the cab - and Oswald himself - saying he was elsewhere.
You really have to do your homework, you are falling for a lot of b.s., as I did for some 25 years.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: You besmirch Mr. Lane's sincerity; I respect him for his genuine efforts to bring facts to light...esp. in the face of the multitude of dim bulbs like you who maintain the WC bullshit is the final word. Read their books - they're not sensational, they're sincere efforts with good reasons to be skeptical. Re Bowers. Someone ought to take you, unsuspecting, outside to a busy place, have some surprising event occur and ask you to recall every detail. Bowers wasn't a f-ing vidcam!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Lane has repeatedly been caught lying. For example, with Helen Markham's testimony when he said she had been describing a man clearly not Oswald shooting Tippit. When the WC asked for the source, he refused to cooperate. Eventually it came out HE had fed her lines as he posed over the phone as Chief Curry. She said "no" to his descriptions and then claimed she had said it. He's done the same with many other witnesses who have called him on it.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Lane's a liar!? Everyone not in lockstep w WC must be liars, eh? What's Lane's motive for falsifying testimony? He was asked by LHO's mom to represent Oswald @WC; Lane asked WC & was refused. All Lane's books & others by serious researchers use footnotes leading to their sources for what they relate. Lane was involved w JFK's pres. campaign in NY & wanted truth not lies! Markhams video she says killer was 'short w ruddy complexion' - yeh, that's LHO! Marine records claim 5-11.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Lane is defintely NOT "sincere." You quote Ruby when he requested a move to Washington. But the very next words he said were "there was no conspiracy." There are a TON of instances where he misleads and fabricates when it comes to this case.
It;s one thing to simply ignore inconvenient evidence. It's quite another, as he does, to fabricate evidence and lie about what some are saying.
You obviously don't know much about this guy.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: And you're a Lane expert, for sure. LMAO! Once again, having seen Lane talk on video I didnt discern a liar, I saw a sincere man trying to cut through the BS to find the truth. Nobody on WC was acting on Oswald's behalf, tho Lane tried to - he was already untouchable as the assassin...without due process...a trail, you know, trivial things like that. They didn't even try to find connections to Ferry (proven) or Bannister (proven), Shaw or Ruby etc.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@1239jer: BS~Nowhere on the videos does Ruby say 'there was no conspiracy'; you must work for Fox News. In the video Ruby was asked whether the forces behind the assassination reached to the highest levels of government...he answered 'yes'. On his deathbed, E Howard Hunt (likely the oldest of the 3 tramps & his own son accepts it) implicated LBJ, Cord Meyers etc. Sounds like a man clearing his conscience before passing. No doubt you'll think he was after fame...for his last 3 weeks.
regfsmith 1 month ago
@regfsmith Bowers - expecting him to recall "every detail." It would seem to me that seeing someone fire a rifle at a passing motorcade would be a "detail" one might note. Or the same man tossing a rifle to another man. Indeed, when a traumatic event like that happens, people tend to have vivid recollections. Besides, Bowers didn't say "I dont recall," he says what he saw at the time of the killing and who was behind the fence after - like the motorcycle cop. Very specific.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Geez, seems to me a shooter firing AWAY from Bowers is very EASY to miss, esp. if that's NOT where he was looking. Dont be so daft! Seems, cars may have blocked at least half of whomever he might have spotted, WERE HE EVEN LOOKING steadfastly @ the fence! In the swirl of traumatic events some things are vivid, but OMG, Bowers wasn't part of it, he just saw some commotion, perhaps he spotted the first folks to arrive back there; he didn't know what had transpired instantly!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@1239jer: A '200 gram bullet', you say? Really!? Let's see, genius (can I call you that?), there are 454 grams/pound, so you're claiming JFK was struck by a slug weighing almost a half pound! Wow~what were they shooting JFK with...a freakin' bazooka!!? And I'm supposedly the clueless one? A typical .22-long slug weighs about 2.5 grams but it's velocity is roughly 1200 ft/second & imparts a force of about 116 foot pounds! Anyone's head would easily move sharply back & to the left by that impact.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Very good, reg. I meant GRAINS obviously. Yes, you are completely clueless if you believe a bullet, say 2.5 grams traveling at that speed would knock someone over more than 1 -1/2 inches. By "clueless" I mean you don't know your physics.
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that a bullet as you describe would supply the equivalent of 116 pounds - like a body-check from a kid - to Kennedy? And you call ME "clueless"?
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: That's 116 FOOT pounds...not the 'weight of a kid'! I'm tired of dancing with you. Ask your local highschool physics teacher to explain foot pounds for you. And YES a frangible round fired from the knoll (my guess re distance = approx.100 ft) would have sufficient force to blow JFK's head 'back and to the left'. It split open JFK's head & blew a large skull fragment onto the street! That took more force than just the puny tap you think would occur. Pls. go and ask an expert.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Wow - you are completely out of your depth here, reg. And blissfully unaware of that fact. Beyond clueless. But reading some of your other posts here, I can see that you don't let facts - or basic physics - get in the way. As I said, check out the link, but I doubt you will comprehend it.
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith Actually, before you thoroughly embarrass yourself on a subject you clearly know nothing abouut (there's a typo for you to mock), here is a pretty thorough discussion on this very subject. Go to "Physics and the frontal hit that never was" on kenrahn dot com.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: I cannot locate your reply that asks about the motivation to murder JFK. So I'm using this: JFK made many powerful enemies: He fired Dulles (the director) and 2 other top CIA after Bay of Pigs. JFK was starting a withdrawal of Vietnam; the Hawks (and profiteers) wanted that war. JFK was taking away the power & money from Federal Reserve Bank (owned by a few rich a-holes) - JFK had a batch of currency printed bypassing them. JFK was going to force Hoover to retire. See next...
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Motivation. Reg, I could come up with 1000 different reasons why someone or some group or agency or country or what have you would want JFK dead. But we don't convict people of "motivation," we convict on EVIDENCE. And the facts in this case is we have a mountain of evidence pointing to OSwald and no one else. Even if we had others saying "we want JFK dead," that only matters if there is evidence linking them to the murder. "Motivation" isn't evidence.
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith In other words, in terms of motivation, we don't need to know WHY someone killed someone else, if the evidence shows that the person carried out the crime. It is a fallacy to claim that those who would want him dead in fact killed that person. Too often, in the case of, say, a murdered wife, the focus is on an obvious suspect like the husband despite evidence pointing to someone else. Lacking evidence, it'd be the place to explore. But not with. Same applies here.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Do you seriously think any of JFK's direct enemies, like Dulles or Hoover would grab a rifle & shoot JFK in the head? OR is it more likely they'd arrange it so a patsy, many layers removed from them, would be in a position to take the fall? C'mon, you say a lot but still fail to make sense, its all 'your people said vs my people said', and nowhere do you even allow the thought that powerful people pulled off the coup. So stay there, cosy in your bed of 'plausible deniability'.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Migod, reg, of course I don't believe those guys, if they wanted JFK dead, would personally do it. The problem there is no credible evidence linking the evidence there at Deally Plaza to any of these culprits. There sure HAVE been decades of 6-degrees-of separation style links, evidence of all these people with hate-ons for JFK, but that is not "evidence" per se of involvement.
For one who complains about not making sense, you have only thrown out innuendo, not evidence.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: there was enough evidence to warrant a reopening of the investigation at the end of the HSCA, but they could only recommend this to the Justice Dept...which did nothing. Deep politics trumps the truth being told. Have you ever seen the film clip of Ruby being interviewed by Judge Warren? He implicates many, was not brought to the relative safety of the Capitol to give his evidence...and conveniently soon died of cancer in jail.
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith I'd say that it'd be more accurate to say that once the general public saw the Zapruder film in 1975 for the first time, the pressure to re-open became irresistible, especially given the revelations about the CIA during the Rockefeller Commission later that year. And that there were many avenues which the WC either didn't investigate adequately or simply did not investigate.
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith But to suggest they had gathered enough evidence to put someone - anyone - on trial, is nonsense. In fact, the HSCA managed to debunk just all of the conspiracy theories which had piled up over the past decade or so, despite the very real effort to find evidence of a conspiracy, in particular one involving the mafia or elements thereof.
This wasn't "deep politics," it was "the evidence simply isn't there."
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Yes, Zapruder's film release (finally!) got the ball rolling (a bootleg copy no less). But 10+ years had passed by then; many witnesses dead (too often mysteriously). If you were honest, LHO himself would never have been convicted due to irregularities like broken chains of evidence (plenty other reasons too). No doubt Mafia were involved in some capacity (they were useful to the US gov in WW2 afterall). Naturally, no single author has all the answers; that surprises you?!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith LHO never convicted with tainted evidence. That's not likely. There were about 50 pieces of evidence linking him to the assassination. The case wouldnt have rested on the chain of custody of a single piece of evidence like CE 399.
No author has the answers? None have addressed the case which answers the evidence implicating Oswald without resorting to implausible theories involving evidence alteration. The WC at the least concludes based on the evidence. Not so others.
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith As for Ruby, you seem confused. He famously said he could only talk in Washington, but immediately stated that there was no conspiracy, that he alone shot Oswald as was not aware of any conspiracy Oswald was involved in. And he didn't "conveniently" soon die of cancer - he lived several years after the trial.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: Bullshit! There's another interview video you've not seen. Ruby was concerned re speaking wrt what he knew, apart from hints to Warren in Dallas. In the video, Ruby clearly implicated the highest levels of the 1964 gov! Once again, discernment of his demeanor, speaks to a desire to reveal things...were he taken into 'safer' custody. But, our debate goes on & on, 1239jer. Post your email & we'll continue this personally. Way too much email @work - not appropriate for all this!
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith If Ruby was implicating the highest levels of govt, the LAST place he'd feel safe would be in Washington! Just saying.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer: If I were Ruby, I'd have chosen Wash DC as safer too; Dallas PD was well-known to be corrupt. Highest level of gov. in DC doesn't mean it'd be a snap for LBJ to shoot Oswald there!
Anyhow, if you have the courage of your convictions, then send me your email address like I've asked & we'll either continue off YouTube via personal email, or agree to meet in a coffee shop & discuss further. It's been a good debate, even if you're head's stuck in cement! ;op LOL
MY LAST POST
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith What's most interesting about the HSCA is that while concluding "conspiracy" on the basis of acoustic evidence, they nevertheless concluded that Oswald fired all the shots which struck the limo, based on the careful reconstruction of the trajectories and, most importantly, the examination of the autopsy records.
Those records were PROVEN to be authentic, and they show that JFK was struck once in the head, from the rear.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer Pls send the complete address at KenRahn.com. What I found there supports what I've been saying. I also cannot see where I replied wrt your question dealing with motive for JFK's assassination. So I might have to retype that. But for the moment, let me ask you: Did you think JFK made any powerful ememies and if yes, whom?
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith "Physics and the frontal hit that never was" is the title, kenrahn dot com slash jfk slash scientific_topics slash Physics_of_head_shot slash Physics_of_the_head_shot dot html
1239jer 2 months ago
@regfsmith I'm not sure I posted the original comment about motivation. Sure, JFK made powerful enemies. The CIA was pissed after Bay of Pigs, Hoover hated the Kennedys, the mafia was furious RFK was cracking down, Castro was no doubt a mortal enemy, the John Birch Society, anti-Castro groups... the list goes on and on.
But this does not mean any one or any group of these people in fact killed him! Why? Because we have evidence for Oswald, we don't for, say Hoover.
1239jer 2 months ago
@1239jer One final post re your reference to Ken Rahn: He has a BS in Chemistry & PhD in...Meteorology. He's no expert on head snap physics! As someone put it: Rahn's 'jet effect' explanation is like saying you could levitate if you farted a really big one! Rahn's not an unbiased researcher, he's a WC apologist! If you want to know the truth about the man and his 'objectivity', Google: Charles Drago (his comments); he knows him well. I pity the poor schmucks taking Rahn's course re JFK.
regfsmith 1 month ago
Have you 'geniuses' EVER viewed the Zapruder film!?? Did you not see JFK's head snap left & backwards from the impact of a bullet from the right front (ie the grassy knoll)? Simple physics; that shot did NOT come from behind JFK & up 6 storeys! None of you have read diddly about the assassination & yet you're f-ing experts. BTW, why was pitcher Sandy Koufax added to the knoll photo & why Castro on that halfwit tabloid? And finally, how'd you fools manage to get your heads so far up your asses?
regfsmith 2 months ago
@regfsmith Obviously, you don't know your "simple physics," because if you did, you'd know that a 200-gram bullet would only move a 15-pound head attached to a 180-pound body about TWO INCHES at most, yet we see a backward lurch of about a foot. If this was not so, why weren't they knocked out of their seats by the other shots?
If you want to claim others have their "heads up [their] asses" you should at least have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. You don't.
1239jer 2 months ago
I just got another email reply from Rossley:
"The Queerer the Cocksucker The bigger the coward "'
Totally unprovoked!
abennett4 7 months ago
I sent Rossley an email offering him constructive criticism about his performance on this debate and he responded, and I quote
"Does your family know that you got pregnant by your uncle?"
abennett4 7 months ago
Why does everyone who argue that there was a conspiracy so illogical, angry and feel the need to interupt? It only hurts their cause. The conspiracy buffs should conspire to assassinate Rossley and install someone who sounds rational. McAdams lays out a clear case of Oswald as the lone gunman. He ate Rossley's lunch!
abennett4 7 months ago
@abennett4 Yeah..right...right. But why are all anti-conspiracy theorists faggots who have the hots for JFK?
I'd appreciate any help you can give me on this. I am writing my university thesis on The JFK assassination.
The provisional title of my thesis is:- " How the Faggots Got JFK " - although I may change that to something less provocative such as "How The Homos Humped John Boy ". It's all pretty much up in the air at the moment.
DonaId6899 6 months ago
i vote for it was just oswald
movieman175 7 months ago
why does this video buffering all over the place?
abennett4 8 months ago
Rossley argues there were Secret Service impersonators at Dealey Plaza. He is correct that there weren't SS outside the motorcade, but there WERE assigned agents from the precursor to the ATF there, and these men have been identified. There is no mystery as to who these guys on the Knoll were. The only question is whether they self-identified themselves as SS, showed a badge taken to be SS or were assumed by others to be SS.
1239jer 8 months ago
McAdams nails it here. He makes a salient point most CTs choose to ignore. Yes, many said they heard a shot or shots from the knoll, and many said they heard a shot from the TSBD. But almost no one SAID BOTH directions. If there were shots fired from two directions, we'd expect most witnesses to say as much. Virtually none did. Since all but the most delusional acknowledge a shot or shots from the rear, the acoustical evidence for the knoll is misleading.
1239jer 8 months ago
@1239jer
that "observation" proves absolutely nothing.
LiquorWreckedEmGood 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LiquorWreckedEmGood "that "observation" proves absolutely nothing." Sure, but it suggests one of the pillars of the knoll assassin theory is bogus on its face, as we'd expect many witnesses to have reported gunfire from two directions (since multiple witnesses SAW shots being fired from the TSBD). Pillar #2 is the presence of SS agents, shown to be wrong. Pillar #3 is head snap. But a bullet impact would only push JFK back an inch or so, not a foot.
1239jer 2 months ago
McAdams thinks the WC got it right the 1st time. He may be right. Debating both sides of the issue is healthy because it's the closest we'll ever get to a real trial on the charges & evidence. It does get mundane after awhile. Conspiracies are as weak as the number involved. The more involved the weaker it is. The Manson case was a conspiracy. 1 conspirator in jail exposed it. No one has exposed any hanky panky in the JFK case in 50 years. McAdams may be right.
raynefallz1 10 months ago
@raynefallz1 I agreed debate is good. But all your conclusion proves is that Manson didn't have a hit squad to pick off potentially harmful witnesses. Furthermore, all conspiracy participants would know beforehand that their ratting out the operation would be fatal for them! Example: DeMohrenshildt, Oswald's handler, was ruled to have committed suicide with a 20-guage shotgun the very day before he was to give evidence; one of many curious & conveniently-timed deaths in the JFK assassination.
regfsmith 2 months ago
I recently uploaded a 5 part video that proves that the oswald backyard photo's were faked.
mortimer2100 10 months ago
McAdams owns Rossley. The only thing Rossley wins in the shout-a-meter.
shaboo2 11 months ago 2
How do you lose the vital evidence that was JFK's brain? That alone gives me cause to think something is very wrong.
CaptianJohnGlanton 11 months ago
There is no debate on this.
There are the facts, then there are the benefactors of the JFK assassination strike team that are continuing to plunder, mass murder and enslave this planet at this very moment.
There IS NO SHOT through those trees, into that spot on JFK's back where he was hit. The wound on his throat is a wound of ENTRY, not an exit. There is no way to drive JFK into a clearly visible kill zine with windows open, and then stop the vehicle for him to be hit in the head.
centurion180ad 11 months ago
Who is Mcadams, CIA disinformation asset, or just plain Crackpot?
Since Mcadams is known to use the alias "Paul Nolan" just how many other names has he used to deceive?
He claims to be many things. A jet-propulsion expert... or Crackpot?
nicenonya3 11 months ago
McAdams wouldn't know a fact if LHO shoved one up his azz sideways!
nicenonya3 11 months ago
heheheheehe,love the baseball pitcher on the grassy knoll!!
nicenonya3 11 months ago
I guess any idiot can be called PROFESSOR!!!
nicenonya3 11 months ago
Is that man TEACHING in a classroom that Oswald was INVOLVED, leaving undecided only whether others were involved? How dare he deign to TEACH young minds! It has been reported convincingly and with documentation that Oswald was working for the FBI and that he believed he was onto those who were truly involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK and had reported it but that the report went unacknowledged. Compelling evidence indicated that Oswald was set up months prior to the event as the patsy!
olga2415 11 months ago
Wait a minute you can't have it both ways. First Mcadams says the vast majority say the shots came from the TSBD then he says the echos were so bad you could tell where the shots came from.
cunnidvd 1 year ago
It is funny how those opposed to conspiracy theories say oswald did it and there was no conspiracy because oswald wasn't the type to conspire. There is no conclusive evidence proving Oswald did it. You could not convict him in a court of law of this crime today. He was not one of the conspirators duh!
cunnidvd 1 year ago
@cunnidvd The evidence against Oswald is ironclad and irrefutable. He would have been convicted back then and with the development of improved forensics and crime reconstruction techniques he would definitely be convicted today.
LoneNutter1 1 year ago
@LoneNutter1 I hope you experience a trial in which you are convicted on evidence as strong as you think Oswald had against him. The test proved NEGATIVE for Oswald having fired any weapons that day. The document has been released under the Freedom Of Information Act. a few years after the event. There is strong evidence that Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination but was an FBI agent trying to PREVENT IT. What is ironclad and irrefutable is your ignorance.
olga2415 11 months ago
@olga2415 T. Paraffin tests were inaccurate and in many tests it showed someone had fired a weapon, when in fact they hadn't. They tested LHO's weapon 3 times and tested to person who fired it for nitrates. In each test it showed they had not fired a weapon. I am not aware of any credible evidence that indicates Oswald's innocence but there's a mountain of evidence that would convict him easily. The is no evidence that LHO was an agent of the FBI or CIA. Oswald was guilty beyond all doubt.
LoneNutter1 11 months ago
@LoneNutter1 The evidence against Oswald is hardly 'ironclad & irrefutable'! Pls. dont be intellectually lazy...read! Example: the famous Altgens photo shows Oswald, behind JFK's limo, standing in the Depository doorway! I used to accept i