If there really was a "grassy knoll gunman..."
Caeruleo
other side of Elm Street show anything even remotely like an obvious
reaction to the *sound* of such gunfire from far less than 30 meters
away from them?
It is absurdly plain in the Muchmore & Nix films that there is a man in
a bright red shirt or sweater on the steps leading down to the street
who throws up his hands almost immediately after the head shot, in quite
obvious horror (he has quite obviously just seen JFK's head explode into
a bloody morass, also clearly to be seen in the Zapruder film), & then
turns & runs UP the steps, supposedly *right* *toward* the "supposed
gunman," yet as all humans with even average eyesight can plainly see in
the films, even while running up the steps he does not *even* *once*
glance toward the "grassy knoll," but instead quite clearly his face is,
for the entire remainder of the time that both films show him,
*continuously* turning his head toward the limo.
Not one human I have ever spoken with in real life has denied in the
slightest that if he/she had heard ***ANY*** sudden & unexpected LOUD
sound (I seem to recall something or other about gunfire being "loud"),
that he/she would have *involuntarily* turned to look for the source of
such a sound, unless there was an *obvious* reason to not do so.
Yet, not only does the man in the bright red shirt/sweater clearly not
do anything even remotely like this common human reaction to such a
sound, neither do the OTHER TWO men on those VERY SAME STEPS RIGHT
BESIDE HIM show anything even *close* to such a reaction.
Not one of the three, not one, is seen in either of these films, not
even in a single frame, to look in any direction other than toward Elm
Street.
To my knowledge, only one of these men was ever conclusively identified
as being on those steps at that time, Emmet Hudson, & no matter which of
the two men who is *not* wearing red he is in the two films, it is
absurdly plain that *both* of these men do not, not even in a single
frame of either film, look in any direction other than at the motorcade.
A gunman has just fired from less than 30 meters away, & yet not one of
these 3 men turns suddenly (or even at all) toward this sudden, abrupt
sound?
It has been suggested (by some) that this gunman used a silencer. If
so, the dictabelt is all out, as it is almost impossible for it to have
"recorded" four gunshots if even one of those shots was far softer than
all the others, & furthermore for the echo patterns to have identified
any location. A silencer would have precluded such an identification of
such a location on such a noisy, unclear recording.
And Marilyn Sitzman was adamant that there was no sudden, loud sound
directly from her right, other than a Coke bottle being dropped, which
she claimed to have seen in the process of breaking.
I myself have stood on those very steps, many times, & on that same
pedestal, & I know for a fact that there's no possible way, in either
location, that I would have heard such a sudden, loud sound, & not
immediately turned to look for the source.
And any "gunman" would have been helplessly visible from that pedestal,
as all humans with even average eyesight can plainly see when standing
on it, since one's eyes are much higher than the top of the picket fence.
Not one of the closest witnesses to all proposed locations for a "grassy
knoll" gunman, not one, *contemporaneously* claimed, not even once, not
at any time, in any venue, to any person, in any solidly-documented
statement, within the first four years after the assassination, to have
heard any sound that was even remotely consistent with gunfire
originating from less than 30 meters away.
In addition, more than 90% of all witnesses who at any time, in any
venue, to any person, are documented as making any claim whatsoever
about the perceived direction of the sounds of gunfire, said that all
sounds of gunfire came from only one direction, no matter what direction
that seemed to be for each individual witness.
If a witness claimed that the sounds came from the "grassy knoll" (or
from anywhere even remotely close to it) the witness almost invariably
claimed that *all* gunfire sounded as if it came from that one
direction, no matter how many or how few shots that person claimed to
have recalled.
If a witness claimed that the sounds came from the "triple underpass"
(or from anywhere even remotely close to it) the witness almost
invariably claimed that *all* gunfire sounded as if it came from that
one direction, no matter how many or how few shots that person claimed
to have recalled.
If a witness claimed that the sounds came from more or less the
intersection of Elm & Houston (or from anywhere even remotely close to
it) the witness almost invariably claimed that *all* gunfire sounded as
if it came from that one direction, no matter how many or how few shots
that person claimed to have recalled.
Less than 10% of all known witnesses who were conclusively determined to
have really been within earshot of the gunfire *individually* named
multiple directions.
Almost all of them specifically said that *all* of the shots came from a
single direction, no matter what direction that seemed to be for each
individual witness.
Oh yes, there was nothing even remotely close to a consensus on *which*
direction the sounds of gunfire seemed to come from.
But there is a superb consensus, almost never known in any murder case
in all of U.S. history, in which this large a percentage of this large a
number of witnesses absolutely agreed with each other that all gunfire
in Dealey Plaza that day came from only one direction, whatever that
direction was.
Oh, & why do I almost never post here anymore? Simple. Both LNs & CTs
have falsely accused me of posting statements I've never posted (&
utterly failed, even after being directly challenged by me) to produce
even one verbatim quote of me saying what they claimed I said.
One LN claimed (falsely) that I had reversed my position on whether or
not John Conally was influenced in his statements by viewing, or not
viewing, the Zapruder film, & continued to make these false claims even
after I had cited the very Google Groups URLS, & quotations, of me *not*
saying any such thing, then made the absurd claim months later that the
burden of proof was on me to prove that I hadn't said this, ignoring
that I had already proven beyond all possible doubt that I hadn't (in
the very articles he was referencing) while saying openly to me in this
newsgroup that he absolutely *refused* to even *try* to locate even
*one* article in which I had "said" what he claimed I had said
originally.
Likewise one CT (just to name one example) claimed, falsely, that I
"knew perfectly well" (or some such words) that a book had been
published which had identified the cameraman who caught Oswald
distributing leaflets in New Orleans (a person who has recently posted
here) as a CIA agent or FBI informant or some such hogwash. Yet
although this same poster had replied to me many times before, suddenly,
when I challenged this poster, over & over & over, in multiple articles,
to produce *proof* that I even knew the *title* of this supposed "book,"
much less knew anything at all about its contents, the poster suddenly,
for the first time ever, stopped replying to me, & additionally refused
to tell me the title of this "book," even though I asked many times in
many articles for him to do so. To this day I still have no idea
whatsoever what this "book" is that I supposedly "knew perfectly well"
had "identified" this cameraman as being anything other than a cameraman.
Finally, the reason I almost never post here anymore is because my last
post before today was rejected by the moderators because I had used a
term which implied that another poster was making an intentionally false
statement, yet only 3 days later I saw one of the moderators use exactly
the same term in exactly the same context & the article was allowed
through.
bigdog
All excellent arguments but they will fall on deaf ears. CTs worship the
false idol of the GK gunman with a religous ferver. No amount of reason,
logic, or evidence is going to convince them otherwise. Even 44 years of
futility of producing even one shred of physical evidence of a GK shooter
has disuaded them. Most of them will go to their graves firmly believing
in this myth. Sad but true.
Gerry Simone (O)
Did anybody question those witnesses on the knoll near the steps at the
end of the motorcade?
A GK would not have been in plain sight if he were 20 feet west of the
corner of the picket fence and hiding behind in fence in the shade and
foliage.
There was brush between him and Zapruder (Z pans over to the extreme right
near the end - it looks like there's plenty of foliage as cover).
Before and after photos of the spot at the picket fence shows a blob
missing just seconds apart at the time of the shooting (see exhibit in
SSID).
"Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo1-15363...@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Why, O why, does not one, not one, of the actual films taken from the
> other side of Elm Street show anything even remotely like an obvious
> reaction to the *sound* of such gunfire from far less than 30 meters
> away from them?
>
The three men on the steps react that way. In fact I believe that they
react too quickly for them to be hearing the last shot from the TSBD. So
quickly that they heard the shot from behind the fence.
> It is absurdly plain in the Muchmore & Nix films that there is a man in
> a bright red shirt or sweater on the steps leading down to the street
> who throws up his hands almost immediately after the head shot, in quite
And "almost immediately" indicates the shot came from behind the fence,
not from the TSBD.
> obvious horror (he has quite obviously just seen JFK's head explode into
> a bloody morass, also clearly to be seen in the Zapruder film), & then
> turns & runs UP the steps, supposedly *right* *toward* the "supposed
> gunman," yet as all humans with even average eyesight can plainly see in
> the films, even while running up the steps he does not *even* *once*
> glance toward the "grassy knoll," but instead quite clearly his face is,
> for the entire remainder of the time that both films show him,
> *continuously* turning his head toward the limo.
>
> Not one human I have ever spoken with in real life has denied in the
> slightest that if he/she had heard ***ANY*** sudden & unexpected LOUD
> sound (I seem to recall something or other about gunfire being "loud"),
> that he/she would have *involuntarily* turned to look for the source of
> such a sound, unless there was an *obvious* reason to not do so.
>
Huh? Can you translate this for us? You are talking about what you think
people do? But you haven't read the Army tests where people react to
test shots? And you've talked to how many people who were present at a
shooting? This is called anecdotal evidence.
> Yet, not only does the man in the bright red shirt/sweater clearly not
> do anything even remotely like this common human reaction to such a
> sound, neither do the OTHER TWO men on those VERY SAME STEPS RIGHT
> BESIDE HIM show anything even *close* to such a reaction.
>
They all react almost immediately to the sound of a shot from behind them.
> Not one of the three, not one, is seen in either of these films, not
> even in a single frame, to look in any direction other than toward Elm
> Street.
>
They were all there to look at the limo. The limo was on Elm Street. Why
do you think they would have been looking up at the TSBD instead of
watching the President?
> To my knowledge, only one of these men was ever conclusively identified
> as being on those steps at that time, Emmet Hudson, & no matter which of
> the two men who is *not* wearing red he is in the two films, it is
> absurdly plain that *both* of these men do not, not even in a single
> frame of either film, look in any direction other than at the motorcade.
>
Why should they. Do you think they were psychic and should have
anticipated shots from the TSBD?
> A gunman has just fired from less than 30 meters away, & yet not one of
> these 3 men turns suddenly (or even at all) toward this sudden, abrupt
> sound?
>
They all did.
> It has been suggested (by some) that this gunman used a silencer. If
> so, the dictabelt is all out, as it is almost impossible for it to have
> "recorded" four gunshots if even one of those shots was far softer than
> all the others, & furthermore for the echo patterns to have identified
> any location. A silencer would have precluded such an identification of
> such a location on such a noisy, unclear recording.
>
The dictabelt indicates the grassy knoll muzzle blast and shock wave
were over 120 decibels so that rules out a silencer.
> And Marilyn Sitzman was adamant that there was no sudden, loud sound
> directly from her right, other than a Coke bottle being dropped, which
> she claimed to have seen in the process of breaking.
>
Except that you overlooked the fact that she said that happened when the
limo went under the overpass, not at the time of the shots.
> I myself have stood on those very steps, many times, & on that same
> pedestal, & I know for a fact that there's no possible way, in either
> location, that I would have heard such a sudden, loud sound, & not
> immediately turned to look for the source.
>
> And any "gunman" would have been helplessly visible from that pedestal,
> as all humans with even average eyesight can plainly see when standing
> on it, since one's eyes are much higher than the top of the picket fence.
>
And yet neither Zapruder not Sitzman reported seeing The Black Dog Man
only a few feet in front of them. Here is an experiment you can try next
time. Stand on the pedestal and ask a black couple to lean against the
retaining wall at the corner of the L. Then tell us if you can see them
from that far away.
> Not one of the closest witnesses to all proposed locations for a "grassy
> knoll" gunman, not one, *contemporaneously* claimed, not even once, not
> at any time, in any venue, to any person, in any solidly-documented
> statement, within the first four years after the assassination, to have
> heard any sound that was even remotely consistent with gunfire
> originating from less than 30 meters away.
>
> In addition, more than 90% of all witnesses who at any time, in any
> venue, to any person, are documented as making any claim whatsoever
> about the perceived direction of the sounds of gunfire, said that all
> sounds of gunfire came from only one direction, no matter what direction
> that seemed to be for each individual witness.
>
> If a witness claimed that the sounds came from the "grassy knoll" (or
> from anywhere even remotely close to it) the witness almost invariably
> claimed that *all* gunfire sounded as if it came from that one
> direction, no matter how many or how few shots that person claimed to
> have recalled.
>
Is that what Holland said?
> If a witness claimed that the sounds came from the "triple underpass"
> (or from anywhere even remotely close to it) the witness almost
> invariably claimed that *all* gunfire sounded as if it came from that
> one direction, no matter how many or how few shots that person claimed
> to have recalled.
>
> If a witness claimed that the sounds came from more or less the
> intersection of Elm & Houston (or from anywhere even remotely close to
> it) the witness almost invariably claimed that *all* gunfire sounded as
> if it came from that one direction, no matter how many or how few shots
> that person claimed to have recalled.
>
> Less than 10% of all known witnesses who were conclusively determined to
> have really been within earshot of the gunfire *individually* named
> multiple directions.
>
> Almost all of them specifically said that *all* of the shots came from a
> single direction, no matter what direction that seemed to be for each
> individual witness.
>
> Oh yes, there was nothing even remotely close to a consensus on *which*
> direction the sounds of gunfire seemed to come from.
>
> But there is a superb consensus, almost never known in any murder case
> in all of U.S. history, in which this large a percentage of this large a
> number of witnesses absolutely agreed with each other that all gunfire
> in Dealey Plaza that day came from only one direction, whatever that
> direction was.
>
Well, remarkable when you put together the witnesses who said the shots
came from the TSBD and those who said the shots came from the grassy
knoll you arrive at the correct solution that shot came from both places.
> Oh, & why do I almost never post here anymore? Simple. Both LNs & CTs
> have falsely accused me of posting statements I've never posted (&
> utterly failed, even after being directly challenged by me) to produce
> even one verbatim quote of me saying what they claimed I said.
>
If you can't stand the heat . . .
Jeez, if you complain about the rules people will think you are a
conspiracy believer.
Andrew Mason
Caeruleo,
Welcome back! I for one am glad to see your return, however short-lived it
may be. (My own contributions have been rather sporadic lately). Your
independant thinking and you willingness to look at the evidence and to
analyse it objectively is always welcome.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> Many witnesses thought that a shot came from the direction of the GK.
>
> Did anybody question those witnesses on the knoll near the steps at the
> end of the motorcade?
>
Just Hudson. We don't know who the other two men were.
> A GK would not have been in plain sight if he were 20 feet west of the
> corner of the picket fence and hiding behind in fence in the shade and
> foliage.
>
Not 20 feet west. 9 feet west. And even you can not see him in the
Moorman photo.
> There was brush between him and Zapruder (Z pans over to the extreme right
> near the end - it looks like there's plenty of foliage as cover).
>
The brush was not in the way and he is visible in the Zapruder film.
> Before and after photos of the spot at the picket fence shows a blob
> missing just seconds apart at the time of the shooting (see exhibit in
> SSID).
>
Blob? Which moves? Are you saying The Blob killed the President? You've
been watching too many science fiction movies.
Gerry Simone (O)
Just 9 feet west? Does this correlate to Tink's book? I never said one
could see a person there.
Visible in the Z film? I know someone else (Charles something) posts about
that but it's not conclusive, but can you point that image out?
Tony, you know what I mean about the 'blob' - the dark image that's there
one minute, then gone the next, above the picket fence, as demonstrated by
Tink. It's not inanimate but too far to identify as a person.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:S42dnZT28u_Glt3a...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> I've got to read Hudson's testimony.
>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age
about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to
park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place
over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and
said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat
there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston
onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left
side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, of
course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at
that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had
done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good
look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when
that bullet hit him - the second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that
correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a
little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
Hudson heard only two shots before the head shot and the second one was
the head shot. Much like Zapruder and many other witnesses who did not
hear the first shot at all.
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting
there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says,
"lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay
down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already
laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the
ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung
out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was
coming from above and kind of behind.
Mr. LIEBELER - How could you tell that?
Mr. HUDSON - Well, just the sound of it.
Hear. Earwitness. Behind. Not the TSBD.
See also his affidavit.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson1.htm
The shots that I heard definately [sic] came from behind and above me.
Behind is not the TSBD.
He explained what behind was.
He was sitting on my left and we were both facing the street with our
backs to the railroad yards and the brick building.
> Just 9 feet west? Does this correlate to Tink's book? I never said one
> could see a person there.
>
Yes, it does. The 9 plus or minus one foot comes from the acoustical
evidence. Amazing coincidence, eh? And they had never known that someone
theorized a shooter in that exact location.
> Visible in the Z film? I know someone else (Charles something) posts about
> that but it's not conclusive, but can you point that image out?
>
Someone else combined several Zapruder frames to highlight the head. The
fence was 5 feet high.
> Tony, you know what I mean about the 'blob' - the dark image that's there
> one minute, then gone the next, above the picket fence, as demonstrated by
> Tink. It's not inanimate but too far to identify as a person.
>
Well, if it is not inamimate and it is only a blob, then it must be THE
BLOB from the movie, not just some generic blob.
I would suggest that BLOB is the wrong word to use.
What do you mean by "too far"? How far? Farther away than Zapruder? You
can see that Zapruder is a person, can't you?
yeuhd
Mr. LIEBELER. But you are quite sure in your own mind that the shots
came from the rear of the President's car and above it; is that
correct?
Mr. HUDSON. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any idea that they might have come from the
Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. HUDSON. Well, it sounded like it was high, you know, from above
and kind of behind like -- in other words, to the left.
Mr. LIEBELER. And that would have fit in with the Texas School Book
Depository, wouldn't it?
Mr. HUDSON. Yes.
The grassy knoll was *not* to the rear of the president's car. Nor was
it to Hudson's left.
Hudson reiterated to HSCA investigators that he did not believe any
shots came from behind the fence.
Anthony Marsh
Have you ever heard of leading the witness?
This is a perfect example. Liebeler told him that it was the TSBD.
claviger
The major problem the GKS theory is lack of corroborating evidence.
Here is why:
1. Minority earwitnesses testimony.
2. Disputed acoustic evidence.
3. No eyewitness.
4. No tangible evidence.
5. No medical evidence.
6. No photographic evidence.
7. No suspect.
8. One doubtful confession.
Anthony Marsh
> The major problem the GKS theory is lack of corroborating evidence.
> Here is why:
>
The major problem is that you misstate the evidence.
> 1. Minority earwitnesses testimony.
>
The plurality of earwitnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
> 2. Disputed acoustic evidence.
>
And not overturned.
> 3. No eyewitness.
>
There does not need to be an eyewitness.
> 4. No tangible evidence.
>
Tangible? Why does the shooter have to leave behind any evidence?
> 5. No medical evidence.
>
The entrance wound in the frontal bone.
> 6. No photographic evidence.
>
Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left.
> 7. No suspect.
>
Confronted and then let go.
> 8. One doubtful confession.
>
>
You guys used to beg for ANY deathbed confession.
>
jas
I agree. The head shot wound is consistent with a shot from behind.
All GKS believers do is move the wound further to the rear of the head
to accommodate a shot from the front. This is absolutely *not* what
the medical or photographic evidence shows. The right side and top of
the head is what's blasted out, and you can plainly see brain matter
being blasted out in a frontward direction in Zapruder frame 313.
jas
> claviger wrote:
> > The major problem the GKS theory is lack of corroborating evidence.
> > Here is why:
>
> The major problem is that you misstate the evidence.
>
> > 1. Minority earwitnesses testimony.
>
> The plurality of earwitnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
east window 6th floor TSBD sniper's nest.
>
> > 2. Disputed acoustic evidence.
>
> And not overturned.
> -------------------The dictabelt? Alleged locations of motorcycles have
been proven wrong.
> > 3. No eyewitness.
>
> There does not need to be an eyewitness.
-----------------------Typical CT answer when unable to find an
answer. Zapruder and his secretary, standing practically on top of the
GK, did not hear or see any shooter.
>
> > 4. No tangible evidence.
>
> Tangible? Why does the shooter have to leave behind any evidence?
> ---------------------Again, typical CT answer. Isn't it funny that there
are so many shooters? Lucien Sarte, Hardhat Man, James Files? BTW where
did that shell casing go with his bite marks? Hint: it doesn't exist.
> > 5. No medical evidence.
>
> The entrance wound in the frontal bone.
> ---------------------Wound is consistent with a shot from behind, right
side of head is blasted out as seen in Z-313.
> > 6. No photographic evidence.
>
> Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left.
> ---------------------Zapruder film proves a shot from behind with brain
matter being shot forward and the flap of skull bone hanging.
> > 7. No suspect.
>
> Confronted and then let go.
> ---------------------Caught and then killed by Jack Ruby.
> > 8. One doubtful confession.
>
> You guys used to beg for ANY deathbed confession.
> ----------------------Saint John, the wannabe son of E. H. Hunt in an
obvious attempt at some sort of 15 minutes of fame.
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
claviger
> claviger wrote:
> > The major problem the GKS theory is lack of corroborating evidence.
> > Here is why:
> The major problem is that you misstate the evidence.
>
> > 1. Minority earwitnesses testimony.
>
> The plurality of earwitnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
If by plurality you mean majority, your statement is demonstrably
false. See the McAdams thorough examination of witness testimony.
> > 2. Disputed acoustic evidence.
>
> And not overturned.
It has been thoroughly discredited by careful research.
> > 3. No eyewitness.
>
> There does not need to be an eyewitness.
No, but it would certainly help to give credence to the possibility of
a GKS if just one of many witnesses on, across from, adjacent to, and
behind the Grassy Knoll would have seen someone suspicious. Not one
bystander saw anyone trying to leave the area with a weapon or trying
to hide something. Much later two people tried to insert themselves as
witnesses but their made-up stories were seriously flawed. After
giving an initial statement where she flatly denied seeing any sniper
on the GK, Jean Hill succumbed to the temptation of continued
celebrity status by claiming she did see a shooter after all, now that
she had time to think about it.
> > 4. No tangible evidence.
> Tangible? Why does the shooter have to leave behind any evidence?
You once claimed muddy footprints and cigarette butts were evidence of
the GKS. If the alleged "fake SS Agent" was the GKS then what did he
do with his weapon? It must be somewhere close by. LHO left behind
some very incriminating evidence.
> > 5. No medical evidence.
>
> The entrance wound in the frontal bone.
The HSCA went to great pains to re-examine the medical evidence and
concluded there was a GKS sniper who missed the entire limousine and
its occupants, which means all wounds suffered by the passengers were
from behind the Limousine. That leaves LHO as the only sniper who hit
the President.
> > 6. No photographic evidence.
>
> Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left.
The HSCA confirmed the GKS shout missed, further proof the "back and
to the left" reaction was caused by a shot fired from behind the
Limousine.
> > 7. No suspect.
> Confronted and then let go.
Possibly, or maybe not. One researcher turned up interesting
information about a SS Agent left behind in Dealey Plaza who had to
ask for help getting to Parkland Hospital. This could very well be the
mysterious SS Agent on the Knoll.
> > 8. One doubtful confession.
> You guys used to beg for ANY deathbed confession.
The James Files story is not a deathbed confession. However, since you
bring it up, I'm sure everyone interested in this historical mystery
would like to have a deathbed confession. The closest thing yet is E
Howard Hunt gave a dying confession that he was not involved in the
assassination, but was only a "benchwarmer". Without actually naming
who did conspire to kill the President, he only had suspicians about
two people he never liked.
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d4337b3-72eb-4f33...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
claviger's posts prove he's High on Theories/Low on evidence/testimony.
He refuses to address these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
ALL from the official records which he's never read.
claviger
If there really was a Grassy Knoll Sniper here is what I would like to ask
him:
1. Who hired you to kill the President?
2. Why did you use bullets that made a cloud of smoke which gave away your
position?
3. How did you disappear so quickly after firing the shot?
4. If the HSCA is right, how did you manage to miss such a close shot (35
yards)?
5. If your shot did hit the President in the forehead, what kind of
ammunition did you use that explodes backwards?
6. Why did you pick the Grassy Knoll where so many witnesses from
different directions might see you?
7. If you posed as a Secrete Service agent what did you intend to do if a
real SS agent walked up and pointed you out as a fake?
8. Where did you hide your weapon after the shot?
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 21, 10:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> claviger wrote:
>>> The major problem the GKS theory is lack of corroborating evidence.
>>> Here is why:
>
>
>> The major problem is that you misstate the evidence.
>>
>>> 1. Minority earwitnesses testimony.
>> The plurality of earwitnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
>
> If by plurality you mean majority, your statement is demonstrably
> false. See the McAdams thorough examination of witness testimony.
>
English please. I said plurality, not majority. For example in most
elections the President wins by a plurality not a majority.
>
>
>>> 2. Disputed acoustic evidence.
>> And not overturned.
>
> It has been thoroughly discredited by careful research.
>
>
>>> 3. No eyewitness.
>> There does not need to be an eyewitness.
>
> No, but it would certainly help to give credence to the possibility of
> a GKS if just one of many witnesses on, across from, adjacent to, and
> behind the Grassy Knoll would have seen someone suspicious. Not one
> bystander saw anyone trying to leave the area with a weapon or trying
> to hide something. Much later two people tried to insert themselves as
> witnesses but their made-up stories were seriously flawed. After
> giving an initial statement where she flatly denied seeing any sniper
> on the GK, Jean Hill succumbed to the temptation of continued
> celebrity status by claiming she did see a shooter after all, now that
> she had time to think about it.
>
>
>>> 4. No tangible evidence.
>
>> Tangible? Why does the shooter have to leave behind any evidence?
>
> You once claimed muddy footprints and cigarette butts were evidence of
> the GKS. If the alleged "fake SS Agent" was the GKS then what did he
> do with his weapon? It must be somewhere close by. LHO left behind
> some very incriminating evidence.
>
The shooter could have hidden it in a car trunk.
Or passed it off to an accomplice.
>
>>> 5. No medical evidence.
>> The entrance wound in the frontal bone.
>
> The HSCA went to great pains to re-examine the medical evidence and
> concluded there was a GKS sniper who missed the entire limousine and
> its occupants, which means all wounds suffered by the passengers were
> from behind the Limousine. That leaves LHO as the only sniper who hit
> the President.
>
They were not aware of some facts which later came out.
>
>>> 6. No photographic evidence.
>> Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left.
>
> The HSCA confirmed the GKS shout missed, further proof the "back and
> to the left" reaction was caused by a shot fired from behind the
> Limousine.
>
Wrong. The acoustical scientists think the bullet hit.
>
>>> 7. No suspect.
>
>> Confronted and then let go.
>
> Possibly, or maybe not. One researcher turned up interesting
> information about a SS Agent left behind in Dealey Plaza who had to
> ask for help getting to Parkland Hospital. This could very well be the
> mysterious SS Agent on the Knoll.
>
No, there is no evidence of that. One SS agent caught a ride with a
camera car.
>
>>> 8. One doubtful confession.
>
>> You guys used to beg for ANY deathbed confession.
>
> The James Files story is not a deathbed confession. However, since you
> bring it up, I'm sure everyone interested in this historical mystery
> would like to have a deathbed confession. The closest thing yet is E
> Howard Hunt gave a dying confession that he was not involved in the
> assassination, but was only a "benchwarmer". Without actually naming
> who did conspire to kill the President, he only had suspicians about
> two people he never liked.
>
He named the CIA officers who told him about the conspiracy.
Russ Burr
Good points. It'll be interesting what the CT's have to say if they say
anything at all;-)
Russ
Anthony Marsh
> If there really was a Grassy Knoll Sniper here is what I would like to ask
> him:
>
>
> 1. Who hired you to kill the President?
>
The CIA.
> 2. Why did you use bullets that made a cloud of smoke which gave away your
> position?
>
He didn't. He was smoking cigarettes.
> 3. How did you disappear so quickly after firing the shot?
>
He didn't. Smith caught him.
> 4. If the HSCA is right, how did you manage to miss such a close shot (35
> yards)?
>
He didn't miss.
> 5. If your shot did hit the President in the forehead, what kind of
> ammunition did you use that explodes backwards?
>
Explosive bullet.
> 6. Why did you pick the Grassy Knoll where so many witnesses from
> different directions might see you?
>
No one did.
> 7. If you posed as a Secrete Service agent what did you intend to do if a
> real SS agent walked up and pointed you out as a fake?
>
There were no real SS agents on the ground.
> 8. Where did you hide your weapon after the shot?
In the trunk of a car.
claviger
> English please. I said plurality, not majority. For example in most
> elections the President wins by a plurality not a majority.
The witnesses who thought they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll were
neither a majority nor a plurality. They do not represent the largest
group of witnesses.
> The shooter could have hidden it in a car trunk.
> Or passed it off to an accomplice.
Bowers saw no person with a rifle open a car trunk, and he would have
seen an accomplice just the same as he saw anyone else moving behind
the wooden fence.
> > The HSCA went to great pains to re-examine the medical evidence
and
> > concluded there was a GKS sniper who missed the entire limousine and
> > its occupants, which means all wounds suffered by the passengers were
> > from behind the Limousine. That leaves LHO as the only sniper who hit
> > the President.
> They were not aware of some facts which later came out.
Such as?
> Wrong. The acoustical scientists think the bullet hit.
What acoustic scientists?
> No, there is no evidence of that. One SS agent caught a ride with a
> camera car.
So you confirm there was a SS Agent on foot in Dealey Plaza and a DPD
officer confronted a man with SS credentials. Sounds like a distinct
possibility it was the same guy.
> He (E Howard Hunt) named the CIA officers who told him about the conspiracy.
Hunt's "confession" goes something like this: "OK, I confess! I'm innocent
and had nothing to do with the assassination!! I don't know for sure who
had it done, but if I were to guess I'd have to say Cord Meyer and LBJ
because they both had a grudge against JFK. I never liked those two guys
anyhow, so they probably did it."
Anthony Marsh
All straw man arguments. Read my reply.
> Russ
>
Spiffy_one
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
claviger wrote:
> If there really was a Grassy Knoll Sniper here is what I would like to ask
> him:
> 1. Who hired you to kill the President?
The CIA.
> 2. Why did you use bullets that made a cloud of smoke which gave away your
> position?
He didn't. He was smoking cigarettes.
> 3. How did you disappear so quickly after firing the shot?
He didn't. Smith caught him.
> 4. If the HSCA is right, how did you manage to miss such a close shot (35
> yards)?
He didn't miss.
> 5. If your shot did hit the President in the forehead, what kind of
> ammunition did you use that explodes backwards?
Explosive bullet.
> 6. Why did you pick the Grassy Knoll where so many witnesses from
> different directions might see you?
No one did.
> 7. If you posed as a Secrete Service agent what did you intend to do if a
> real SS agent walked up and pointed you out as a fake?
There were no real SS agents on the ground.
> 8. Where did you hide your weapon after the shot?
In the trunk of a car.
Spoken like a true CT...all conjecture, NO evidence lol
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>> English please. I said plurality, not majority. For example in most
>> elections the President wins by a plurality not a majority.
>
> The witnesses who thought they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll were
> neither a majority nor a plurality. They do not represent the largest
> group of witnesses.
>
They were a plurality of those who gave an opinion. Just as in an
election, not everyone votes.
>> The shooter could have hidden it in a car trunk.
>> Or passed it off to an accomplice.
>
> Bowers saw no person with a rifle open a car trunk, and he would have
> seen an accomplice just the same as he saw anyone else moving behind
> the wooden fence.
>
Bowers could not clearly see every spot.
> > > The HSCA went to great pains to re-examine the medical evidence
> and
>>> concluded there was a GKS sniper who missed the entire limousine and
>>> its occupants, which means all wounds suffered by the passengers were
>>> from behind the Limousine. That leaves LHO as the only sniper who hit
>>> the President.
>
>> They were not aware of some facts which later came out.
>
> Such as?
>
That an entrance wound can have external beveling on the skull.
>> Wrong. The acoustical scientists think the bullet hit.
>
> What acoustic scientists?
>
Weiss and Aschkenasy.
>> No, there is no evidence of that. One SS agent caught a ride with a
>> camera car.
>
> So you confirm there was a SS Agent on foot in Dealey Plaza and a DPD
> officer confronted a man with SS credentials. Sounds like a distinct
> possibility it was the same guy.
>
No, I said impossible. That SS agent was in a car in the motorcade,
leapt out and a minute later hitched a ride to Parkland Hospital. He
never went near the grassy knoll.
>
>> He (E Howard Hunt) named the CIA officers who told him about the conspiracy.
>
> Hunt's "confession" goes something like this: "OK, I confess! I'm innocent
> and had nothing to do with the assassination!! I don't know for sure who
> had it done, but if I were to guess I'd have to say Cord Meyer and LBJ
> because they both had a grudge against JFK. I never liked those two guys
> anyhow, so they probably did it."
No, listen to the tape. Read the article. Hunt names the CIA officer who
approached him to join the conspiracy.
yeuhd
>
> The plurality of earwitnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
>
John McAdams writes:
"As can be seen, 35 witnesses believed that the shots came from the Grassy
Knoll (or at least the direction of the Knoll), and 56 thought the shots
came from the Depository (or at least, in that direction). Eight witnesses
thought the shots came from a location entirely distinct from the Knoll
and the Depository (including two who thought the shots came from inside
the car!), and five witnesses thought they heard shots from two
locations."
Not a plurality. The HSCA, which concluded that a shot came from the
grassy knoll, had even a lower count: only 20 earwitnesses believed they
heard the shots from the vicinity of the knoll, while 46 thought the shots
came from the direction of the Depository.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 21, 11:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The plurality of earwitnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
>>
>
> John McAdams writes:
>
> "As can be seen, 35 witnesses believed that the shots came from the Grassy
> Knoll (or at least the direction of the Knoll), and 56 thought the shots
> came from the Depository (or at least, in that direction). Eight witnesses
> thought the shots came from a location entirely distinct from the Knoll
> and the Depository (including two who thought the shots came from inside
> the car!), and five witnesses thought they heard shots from two
> locations."
>
No, pay attention. I have told you repeatedly that McAdams has skewed
the results to fit his beliefs.
> Not a plurality. The HSCA, which concluded that a shot came from the
> grassy knoll, had even a lower count: only 20 earwitnesses believed they
> heard the shots from the vicinity of the knoll, while 46 thought the shots
> came from the direction of the Depository.
>
And you can't notice the difference between McAdams's 35 and the HSCA's
20? You don't even suspect that SOMEONE is fudging the numbers? I have
also complained about the HSCA's fudging.
My data comes from Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas. I said
plurality and it is a plurality.
yeuhd
> My data comes from Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas. I said
> plurality and it is a plurality.
Some of Josiah Thompson's classification errors:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
tomnln
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:772b1466-8fb7-4084...@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Some of McAdams haracter Flaws:
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Anthony Marsh
As I said before McAdams changed classifications inaccurately.
yeuhd
>
> As I said before McAdams changed classifications inaccurately.
Since you say you rely on Josiah Thompson's classifications, could you
address the errors that McAdams finds in Thompson's classifications? You
don't seem to apply the same level of scrutiny to Thompson's count as you
do to McAdams'.
Anthony Marsh
Duh! I already have.
claviger
Anthony,
> No, listen to the tape. Read the article. Hunt names the CIA officer who
> approached him to join the conspiracy.
The whole confession is one last Hunt work of fiction. He mentions
Frank Sturgis but not who he's working for. Coulda been the CIA or
someone else. Hunt then speculates it might be Cord Meyer because JFK
had an affair with his wife. He further suggests LBJ knew about the
plot but did nothing to stop it. This is self incriminating because
according to his own story Hunt had knowledge too, but did nothing to
stop it. He just sat on the bench and watched the game.
Caeruleo
Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> Caeruleo,
>
> Welcome back! I for one am glad to see your return, however short-lived it
> may be. (My own contributions have been rather sporadic lately). Your
> independant thinking and you willingness to look at the evidence and to
> analyse it objectively is always welcome.
Thank you. But I will indeed only post here, or in any other newsgroup,
rarely. I'd rather sever various appendages from my body than get more
than minimally involved in Usenet ever again.
Caeruleo
"Gerry Simone \(O\)" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Many witnesses thought that a shot came from the direction of the GK.
That is misleading. The correct way of saying it is:
"Many witnesses thought that ALL the shots came from the direction of the
GK, & extremely few thought that one or more shots came from the GK & that
one or more other shots came from elsewhere."
Additionally:
"Many witnesses thought that ALL the shots came from the direction of the
TSBD, & extremely few thought that one or more shots came from the TSBD &
that one or more other shots came from elsewhere."
> Did anybody question those witnesses on the knoll near the steps at the
> end of the motorcade?
One of them, Emmett Hudson, who was *on* those very steps (he's plainly
visible in the Muchmore & Nix films). He was absurdly clear that not one
shot that he heard sounded any louder or closer than the other shots that
he heard, nor did he give the impression that any one shot sounded to him
as if it came from an even slightly different direction from all the other
shots he recalled. And Marilyn Sitzman was less than 20 feet from the
steps, & she said the same thing. I've also stood any number of feet
west, north, northwest, etc., from that very corner of that very fence
> A GK would not have been in plain sight if he were 20 feet west of the
> corner of the picket fence and hiding behind in fence in the shade and
> foliage.
Nonsense, I've been right there, many times. I've stood right where
Sitzman & Zapruder stood, & my eyes were considerably *higher* than the
top of the fence, & any gunman a mere 20 feet west of the corner of the
fence would be helplessly visible, no matter what the state of the
foliage, if not *while* firing, at the instant of moving in practically
any direction from that spot. Sitzman was adamant that no sudden loud
sound came from anywhere near that close to her right (or that close to
her in *any* direction) except the sound of a soda bottle breaking, which
she *saw* breaking. I've also, on many different dates in several
different years (it's an advantage to live less than 3 hours away) stood
any number of feet west, north, northwest, etc., from that very corner of
that very fence, & in every spot I could plainly see people on the steps,
on the sidewalk at the top of the steps, standing by the street, etc., &
rather obviously, if I can see them, they can see me.
I think it's called "line of sight" or something like that.
The picket fence, in 1963, & today, was nowhere near opaque. It's
absurdly easy to see anyone through the gaps in the pickets. It's also a
much smaller area than it seems in the photographs, as I found out to my
surprise the first time I went there in 1990-something. At that time I
believed firmly in a GK gunman, but I found it hard to reconcile that with
what I was seeing; I was thinking, "Wow, it's *that* close to the street??
It didn't look nearly that close in the photos I've seen or in 'JFK.'"
And eventually I came to marvel at how on earth anyone who has actually
set foot there would seriously believe that a gunman could fire from there
& not be absurdly visible to dozens of witnesses.
> There was brush between him and Zapruder (Z pans over to the extreme right
> near the end - it looks like there's plenty of foliage as cover).
Because the pan doesn't reach that part of the fence. Try standing on the
same pedestal he was standing on, & look at the fence, & try to still
believe that Sitzman, who wasn't holding a camera, could possibly hear a
sudden BANG from her right, not turn & look to her right (she did anyway,
& she saw the soda bottle as it was shattering) & not see the gunman plain
as day running away (no matter what direction) from a spot that is a mere
20 feet west of the fence corner.
Free clue: she was less than 20 feet EAST of that same corner. Plants, of
any size, are not entirely opaque either; then & now there were numerous
gaps in the foliage.
Additionally, it isn't only the man wearing red, as I said in my original
article, who is plainly seen in both films to NEVER look in the supposed
direction of this alleged gunshot; neither of the other 2 men on the steps
beside him did so either.
Strange: people are surprised by a very loud BANG from less than 30 meters
away, yet not one of them suddenly looks toward the source of the sound,
even though most of us agree we'd do that very thing. Is it because all 3
of these men happened to be very unusual? Or is it because there simply
*wasn't* such a sound?
Because no gun was fired from anywhere near there?
Oops, one person looked.
And she saw the very object that was making the sound:
A soda bottle.
> Before and after photos of the spot at the picket fence shows a blob
> missing just seconds apart at the time of the shooting (see exhibit in
> SSID).
Could be. And it is an absurdly common phenomenon in film, especially a
film that would not have been anywhere close to state-of-the-art in 1939,
much less 1963, for all sorts of things to appear in various frames that
are not at all what they seem to be. Zapruder was an amateur cameraman,
with many frames blurred by his motion. Practically every frame of "Gone
With the Wind" & "The Wizard of Oz" (both filmed in 1939) is clearer than
*any* frame in the Z-film (filmed 24 years later), & many people still
today swear up & down that what is actually a bird stretching its wings
(plain as day when ya watch the thing closely on dvd) in the Tinman's
first scene is a Munchkin hanging himself. But the bird is plainly
visible in several prior shots. Zapruder, however, was making a
continuous pan to the right (for an obvious reason), & did no multiple
shots once the limo appeared; his film is tremendously more blurry,
especially in certain frames, due to camera movement far less controlled
than in those 1939 films.
doug.w...@gmail.com
> In article <473f5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Good observation on the actual scale of the structures & distances
within DP. Much like visiting the Alamo, it's simply not as big as
one would think.
Caeruleo
wrote:
> claviger's posts prove he's High on Theories/Low on evidence/testimony.
>
> He refuses to address these>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
Yes, exactly the same as you, who refused to address my challenge to
your claim that I knew "very well" that there was a book which
identified the cameraman in New Orleans who documented Oswald
distributing leaflets, & who was posting here, as an FBI informant. Yet
strangely, for almost the first time ever, although you had almost never
failed to reply to me before, you suddenly stopped posting any replies
to me starting on the day that I challenged you to prove that I even
knew THE NAME OF THIS SUPPOSED BOOK.
I still don't know the name of the book.
I furthermore asked you, over & over & over, in numerous articles, to
tell me the name of this book, & although you had almost never failed to
reply to me before, strangely, you suddenly stopped replying to me, for
the first time ever in the entire time I've posted to this newsgroup, &
appeared to be deliberately refusing to tell me the name of this book
that, according to you (& no other poster) I had already "known" when I
had posted the original article in which I had challenged you about this
cameraman.
Let's see: it has now been a year at least, & I'm still waiting &
waiting & waiting for you to prove this statement of yours, that you
addressed to me personally, to be true:
"As a Learned man you know very well it isn't MY claim that jwrush was
an FBI Informant. You know darned well that the claim came from a book."
Could it be that (gasp!) the reason you refused, in article after
article after article to tell me the NAME of this book (as in the
"title" of the book) is that no such book actually exists?
More to the point: why don't you ever admit that you have no possible
way of knowing that at that time, or now, you had the slightest idea
whether or not I even knew of the *existence* *of* *this* *book* (if it
does exist; strange that the name [title] of the book has not yet been
quoted)? Why don't you ever admit that you have no possible way of
knowing whether or not I have ever, to this day, read the book, or even
known of its existence?
You are one of the primary reasons I almost never post to this newsgroup
anymore. You make absolutely unprovable claims about me personally,
then ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back up your claims with even the most meager
shred of evidence.
When a poster ignores/refuses/fails/whatever to back up a claim, any
claim, when directly challenged to do so, over & over & over, should
anyone take any claim that poster makes seriously, whether it's about
the JFK assassination or any other subject??
I call everyone who reads this newsgroup, even if they never post here,
to note that this person has never, not even once, even *tried* to back
up his claim that I knew "darned well" that the claim that jwrush was an
FBI informant came from any book that has ever been published in any
book, in any country, in any language, on this planet. I furthermore
call everyone to note that this same poster has not once in my
experience even *tried* to *name* the TITLE of this book, or its
*author*, or its *publisher*, or its ISBN, or any other information
other than the 100% uncorroborated claim (as far as I know, & as far as
any reply this person has ever made to me) that any such "book" was ever
"published," in any language, on Earth, even in very limited printings
by an extremely obscure publisher. This poster has, as far as I know,
merely claimed that there was some book or other that supposedly named
jwrush as such, but this same poster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to NAME WHICH
BOOK THIS IS, EVEN WHEN ASKED OVER & OVER & OVER TO NAME IT.
Gasp! O Heavens Above! Surely...it can't be...that no such book
ACTUALLY EXISTS!
(Most reasonable people would almost immediately assume that if there's
the slightest delay in naming the book, even after being challenged day
after day after day to name it, that the book more likely than not was
never published, anywhere, in any country, in any language, by any
publisher. Most people, upon claiming that such a book exists, would
almost immediately utter its title when so challenged.)
You are just as bad as the LN, Joe Zircon. He accused me, falsely, of
saying something I never said, then openly stated that he absolutely
refused to locate even one article that I ever posted in which I "said"
what he claimed I said, & continued to refuse to quote such an article
verbatim after I challenged him in multiple articles, on multiple dates,
to do so.
Tacit refusal is just as bad as stated refusal. If you were anywhere
close to as periodic a poster to this newsgroup as me that would be one
thing, but you were a *regular* poster during the *entire* *time* that I
challenged you to back up what you claimed about me, & though you
continued to post numerous articles in numerous threads here, you
suddenly, for the first time ever, stopped replying to me starting on
the very day that I challenged you to either back up this assertion, or
admit you didn't know for sure whether or not your claim about me was
correct. You did neither, even though I myself have many, many times
freely admitted my own errors in this same newsgroup.
Which one of us will most reasonable people assume to have the greater
credibility, you or me?
Anthony Marsh
Well, in fact his late frames show the gunman, but he did not see him.
Sitzman could not see THROUGH Zapruder to her right to see the gunman.
> sound came from anywhere near that close to her right (or that close to
> her in *any* direction) except the sound of a soda bottle breaking, which
> she *saw* breaking. I've also, on many different dates in several
She did not SEE any bottle breaking. Stop it.
> different years (it's an advantage to live less than 3 hours away) stood
> any number of feet west, north, northwest, etc., from that very corner of
> that very fence, & in every spot I could plainly see people on the steps,
> on the sidewalk at the top of the steps, standing by the street, etc., &
> rather obviously, if I can see them, they can see me.
>
She did not see the Black Dog Man who was only a few feet in front of her.
> I think it's called "line of sight" or something like that.
>
> The picket fence, in 1963, & today, was nowhere near opaque. It's
Not picket. Stockade.
> absurdly easy to see anyone through the gaps in the pickets. It's also a
The gaps are only at the top where you'd see someone above the top
anyway. Are you really sure you looked at the fence as it was in 1963?
Or do you deal in anachronisms? Do you think Zapruder was using a CamCorder?
> much smaller area than it seems in the photographs, as I found out to my
> surprise the first time I went there in 1990-something. At that time I
> believed firmly in a GK gunman, but I found it hard to reconcile that with
> what I was seeing; I was thinking, "Wow, it's *that* close to the street??
> It didn't look nearly that close in the photos I've seen or in 'JFK.'"
> And eventually I came to marvel at how on earth anyone who has actually
> set foot there would seriously believe that a gunman could fire from there
> & not be absurdly visible to dozens of witnesses.
>
Yeah, like the Black Dog Man whom no witness reported seeing.
>> There was brush between him and Zapruder (Z pans over to the extreme right
>> near the end - it looks like there's plenty of foliage as cover).
>
> Because the pan doesn't reach that part of the fence. Try standing on the
> same pedestal he was standing on, & look at the fence, & try to still
> believe that Sitzman, who wasn't holding a camera, could possibly hear a
> sudden BANG from her right, not turn & look to her right (she did anyway,
> & she saw the soda bottle as it was shattering) & not see the gunman plain
> as day running away (no matter what direction) from a spot that is a mere
> 20 feet west of the fence corner.
>
Your chronology is off. She heard the loud noise AFTER the shots, when
the limo was going into the underpass.
> Free clue: she was less than 20 feet EAST of that same corner. Plants, of
> any size, are not entirely opaque either; then & now there were numerous
> gaps in the foliage.
>
20 feet east of what? You mean the corner of the fence? You apparently
don't own a map of Dealey Plaza.
> Additionally, it isn't only the man wearing red, as I said in my original
> article, who is plainly seen in both films to NEVER look in the supposed
> direction of this alleged gunshot; neither of the other 2 men on the steps
> beside him did so either.
>
> Strange: people are surprised by a very loud BANG from less than 30 meters
> away, yet not one of them suddenly looks toward the source of the sound,
> even though most of us agree we'd do that very thing. Is it because all 3
> of these men happened to be very unusual? Or is it because there simply
> *wasn't* such a sound?
>
The loud bang was the rifle behind the fence, not a bottle breaking.
> Because no gun was fired from anywhere near there?
>
> Oops, one person looked.
>
> And she saw the very object that was making the sound:
>
No, she did not SEE a bottle.
> A soda bottle.
>
>> Before and after photos of the spot at the picket fence shows a blob
>> missing just seconds apart at the time of the shooting (see exhibit in
>> SSID).
>
> Could be. And it is an absurdly common phenomenon in film, especially a
> film that would not have been anywhere close to state-of-the-art in 1939,
> much less 1963, for all sorts of things to appear in various frames that
> are not at all what they seem to be. Zapruder was an amateur cameraman,
> with many frames blurred by his motion. Practically every frame of "Gone
And some of the blurs are associated with gun shots.
yeuhd
>
> > different years (it's an advantage to live less than 3 hours away) stood
> > any number of feet west, north, northwest, etc., from that very corner of
> > that very fence, & in every spot I could plainly see people on the steps,
> > on the sidewalk at the top of the steps, standing by the street, etc., &
> > rather obviously, if I can see them, they can see me.
>
> She did not see the Black Dog Man who was only a few feet in front of her.
Marilyn Sitzman did see a young black couple sitting on the bench in that
alcove. There is every reason to believe that the so-called "Black Dog
Man" was one or both of those people, standing at the wall as the
motorcade went by. And no, the HSCA does NOT give the gender of the
figure, or say that the figure is wearing a suit and hat, as you claimed
the last time we discussed this.
tomnln
"Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo1-A9AC3...@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 30, 12:18 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> different years (it's an advantage to live less than 3 hours away) stood
>>> any number of feet west, north, northwest, etc., from that very corner of
>>> that very fence, & in every spot I could plainly see people on the steps,
>>> on the sidewalk at the top of the steps, standing by the street, etc., &
>>> rather obviously, if I can see them, they can see me.
>> She did not see the Black Dog Man who was only a few feet in front of her.
>
> Marilyn Sitzman did see a young black couple sitting on the bench in that
> alcove. There is every reason to believe that the so-called "Black Dog
> Man" was one or both of those people, standing at the wall as the
> motorcade went by. And no, the HSCA does NOT give the gender of the
There is no reason to think that the black couple moved over to the
corner of the retaining wall.
> figure, or say that the figure is wearing a suit and hat, as you claimed
> the last time we discussed this.
>
Please do not misstate what the HSCA said.
FIGURE IV-7.-Willis No. 5 photograph (unenhanced).
(294) The Willis photograph was scanned for possible input. into
a computer. Since it is in color, the scan had to be a full-color scan.
Then the knoll area from the scan was presented on a full-color computer
video display. The display and manipulation were performed at the
University of Southern California. (100)
(295) The retaining wall at the top of the knoll was subsequently
enlarged by a computer operation similar to enlargement by photooptical
and photo-chemical techniques. This computer display made visible an
object. whose size. and shape were consistent with a human being,
positioned just inside the retaining wall. (See fig. IV-S, JFK exhibit
F-160.) The object possessed colors with a distinct resemblance to flesh
tones, as revealed on the color display. The Panel perceived the object.
to be that of a badly blurred image of a person, dressed in dark clothing,
standing or leaning just inside the retaining wall.
123
FIGURE IV-8. Willis No. 5. Will Image Enhancement.
(296) Since the image was badly blurred, an attempt was made to
use the computer to remove the blur. Blur removal can be accomplished if
its extent is not too great. (101) Unfortunately, the image was severely
degraded in the region of the retaining wall that deblurring efforts were
not. successful. (297) The, next computer processing step was to make
measurements of the color values of the object, behind the retaining wall
in order to compare the perceived flesh tones with those of a person at
another location in the Willis photograph. The photograph was scanned in
color: Separate measurements were made of the three primary colors, red,
green and blue, from which other colors can be made.
(298) After scanning, an image analyst at the Aerospace Corp.
viewed the image on a color video image display and positioned a
computer-generated dot at those points where colors were to be measured.
The computer then recorded the red, green, and blue values in the image at
the dot's positions. A similar analysis was carried out at the University
of Southern California.
(299) Regions measured at the Aerospace Corp. included the flesh
tones of the object near the retaining wall and of Marilyn the secretary
to Abraham Zapruder, who is visible in the Willis photograph. Sitzman's
flesh tones were measured both in shadow and sunlight. At the University
of Southern California flesh tones were used for the object at the
retaining wall and for several people: A policeman, a bystander, and a
child. In addition, measurements were made of Mrs. Kennedy's hat, which
was pink in color and had a flesh tone appearance on the video display.
(102)
124
(300) The Aerospace Corp. measurements showed the flesh cones of
the object near the retaining wall to be comparable to the known flesh
tones of Zapruder's secretary. USC's measurements also showed similarity
between the flesh tones of the object and those of known persons; however,
the similarities were not as strong as those found Aerospace. The
measurements of Mrs. Kennedy's hat were found to be distinguishable from
the measurements of known flesh. Nevertheless, the differences of Mrs.
Kennedy's hat from known flesh ments were only marginally greater than
differences of flesh tone measurements from each other.
(301) Based on these measurements, as well as visual analysis,
Panel concludes that the object was most probably an adult standing behind
the wall. First, the general shape and structure the object, including the
location of the flesh tones, appear to be human.
The height of the object in relation to the known height of the
consistent with that, of an adult of average height (5'6" to 6' tall).
Third, the measured values of the flesh tones of the object are comparable
with those of people in the photograph. Fourth, an additional Willis
photograph, No. 6, taken after the Presidential limosine had exited Dealey
Plaza but showing approximately the view as No. 5, no longer shows the
object. near the retaining wall, or anywhere else; it has disappeared.
(See fig. IV-9.) mobility of the object greatly increases the likelihood
of its being a person.
Caeruleo
<cc77d52f-027b-4afe...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
yeuhd <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote:
EXCUSE ME??? ***I*** "claimed"???
I challenge you, in front of everyone who even *reads* this newsgroup
(even if they never *post* to it) to produce even one, just one, bonafide
Google URL and/or Message-ID which proves, using Message-ID AND IP
address, and with a VERBATIM QUOTE (that means without getting even one
word wrong or out of order) that I myself, rather than a forger falsely
purporting to be me, ever, even once, posted anything remotely similar to
what you claim.
I do not recall, ever, in my entire posting history on Usenet, in many
different newsgroups (hardly just this one), a history which extends back
to 1998, even once uttering the claim (even if I later retracted it or
not) that ***ANY*** "figure" even ***REMOTELY*** close to the "Black Dog
Man" was of ***EITHER*** ***GENDER***.
In addition, produce just one article, just one, in which anyone at all
(even if it wasn't me) who went by the pseudonym "Caeruleo," in this
newsgroup, or any other newsgroup, ever, even once, replied to anyone
using the pseudonym "yeuhd" OR the address "wal...@mailbag.com."
In fact, searches I just now did on groups.google.com yield not one match,
not one, on either the keywords "caeruleo yeuhd" or "caeruleo
wal...@mailbag.com".
Fascinating.
Not even once have I used any other identity than "Caeruleo" in this
newsgroup. But no matter what identity you used on the ***IMAGINARY***
occasion in which I supposedly "said" what you falsely claim I "said,"
Google reveals NOT ONE POSTER GOING BY "Caeruleo," even in a *different*
newsgroup than this one, even if it was a PROVABLE FORGERY & NOT ME,
making ANY STATEMENT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO SAYING THAT "the figure is
wearing a suit and hat."
Please produce this imaginary article in which I myself "said" any such
thing, in reply to you or any other poster in any newsgroup, or be even
half as honest as I ***ALWAYS*** am, & unequivocally admit, in the very
next article you post in reply to me, that you do not actually know for
certain that I ever, even once, posted such an article as you falsely
claim I did.
Remember, that unless you can produce 3 elements of solid documentation:
1. The Google URL
2. The Message-ID
3. The unabridged/unedited verbatim quote of me "saying" what you claim I
"said"
Without all 3 of these, no reasonable human will believe your absurd
claim about me for a moment.
In short, it is blindingly obvious that you are confusing me with some
other poster.
I've proven many times, in this newsgroup & many others, that I don't
hesitate in the slightest to admit my own errors.
You'll admit your own error just as fast, correct?
Caeruleo
<f9bac8a0-43b3-4450...@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
doug.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Not even remotely close. Many, many, many "historical" observations (even
many written within living memory) in *print* *only* or even in
*photograph* *only* have been extensively documented as giving extremely
misleading impressions to the vast majority of readers/viewers regarding
the true scale of the events.
Compared to the vast majority of documented battles in WWII (just to name
one war) the battle surrounding the Alamo was trivial in its scale.
(Oh yeah, I've been to the Alamo many, many, many times in my life; such
is life when one lives one's entire life to date in the same state that
both the Alamo & the JFK assassination site are located.)
Caeruleo
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> It's ALL HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Oh, it's you.
Yep, you're the one who ***FALSELY*** claimed to me that:
"As a Learned man you know very well it isn't MY claim that jwrush was an
FBI Informant. You know darned well that the claim came from a book."
Several years later, I'm still waiting, & waiting, & waiting, for you to
to even TRY to prove, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, that at the time you posted
that absurd statement in direct reply to me, or EVEN NOW, that I "know,"
damned well or otherwise, that such a book EVEN EXISTS, LET ALONE ITS
TITLE!!!
I call everyone who reads this newsgroup to note carefully that
groups.google.com archives numerous instances of "Caeruleo" (that's me)
asking this person over & over & over to produce the ***TITLE*** of this
supposed "book," & that over & over & over no reply by this poster, or any
other, going by any name whatsoever, produced to this day, in direct reply
to me, the exact ***NAME*** of this "book," much less its author or
publisher.
Still waiting & waiting & waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me, for the
first time ever, on the Internet or off of it, which "book," exactly,
"outs" jwrush as an "FBI informant."
curtjester1
> Why, O why, does not one, not one, of the actual films taken from the
> other side of Elm Street show anything even remotely like an obvious
> reaction to the *sound* of such gunfire from far less than 30 meters
> away from them?
>
It's a fair question, but anyone could say the same thing for the TSBD or
the Dal-Tex or whatever. For one thing I think it was fairly loud there
with the buildings and even the GK itself making it sort of an arena where
with motorcyles and people screaming at the motorcade to what knows else,
would make it potentially somewhat unclear as for shots. Most people said
they didn't know what was happening at first, obviously associating the
beginning of the shooting as something else, at least something that
didn't register. Then there is what the people were doing there on the
steps and how they did react to even categorize them as purely just
impartial spectators. One would even have to think why they were even
there and not right down on the street? Of course Hudson worked there,
but what of the others. I think in Groden's book, there was right at the
time of the shooting or just after, a very tall man past the steps and
back toward the fence. And what about BlackDog Man? He was seen at the
cement railing at the top of the stairs behind Zapruder.
> It is absurdly plain in the Muchmore & Nix films that there is a man in
> a bright red shirt or sweater on the steps leading down to the street
> who throws up his hands almost immediately after the head shot, in quite
> obvious horror (he has quite obviously just seen JFK's head explode into
> a bloody morass, also clearly to be seen in the Zapruder film), & then
> turns & runs UP the steps, supposedly *right* *toward* the "supposed
> gunman," yet as all humans with even average eyesight can plainly see in
> the films, even while running up the steps he does not *even* *once*
> glance toward the "grassy knoll," but instead quite clearly his face is,
> for the entire remainder of the time that both films show him,
> *continuously* turning his head toward the limo.
>
Hmm. I think focusing on the President and the result of a shot would be
aforemost on his mind instintively. Where is he supposed to look? There
is a quite a panorama of width there. Yet, there is no real immediate
ascension to the GK top and beyond for what has been estimated by around
70 seconds. You even have a filmer Beverly Oliver, still running the
camera, and she adamantly states to anybody that would even attempt to
change her mind, that that was the place where the final shots came from.
And of course Jean Hill is adamant in what she heard as she was pointed
right where potential gunmen might be. Cheryl McKinnon who was nearby the
Newman's who was there for reporting and was there to take it all in said
she distinctly heard two shots come from right behind her. And most
people even if they did hear gunshots and recognized it, wouldn't be ready
to go after an armed gunman would they?
> Not one human I have ever spoken with in real life has denied in the
> slightest that if he/she had heard ***ANY*** sudden & unexpected LOUD
> sound (I seem to recall something or other about gunfire being "loud"),
> that he/she would have *involuntarily* turned to look for the source of
> such a sound, unless there was an *obvious* reason to not do so.
>
Oliver kept filming. Zapruder kept filming. The Newman's sprawled on the
lawn and covered their children. Wouldn't the normal reaction to be to
take in what was happening to the President first, with what was happening
visually than to react to sounds that they weren't even prepared for?
> Yet, not only does the man in the bright red shirt/sweater clearly not
> do anything even remotely like this common human reaction to such a
> sound, neither do the OTHER TWO men on those VERY SAME STEPS RIGHT
> BESIDE HIM show anything even *close* to such a reaction.
>
Again it's a fair point, but hardly profound. Look at the people in front
of the TSBD. In the Altgens photo, one can plainly see James Worrell
looking straight up to the SN, and he said he heard the first few shots
there and even saw a barrel, and then ran. The people just down below,
which would be 60 feet and a short angled hypotenuse didn't look up, did
they?
> Not one of the three, not one, is seen in either of these films, not
> even in a single frame, to look in any direction other than toward Elm
> Street.
>
> To my knowledge, only one of these men was ever conclusively identified
> as being on those steps at that time, Emmet Hudson, & no matter which of
> the two men who is *not* wearing red he is in the two films, it is
> absurdly plain that *both* of these men do not, not even in a single
> frame of either film, look in any direction other than at the motorcade.
>
I think it's a 'red herring' so to speak, that these men never came
forward, don't you?
> A gunman has just fired from less than 30 meters away, & yet not one of
> these 3 men turns suddenly (or even at all) toward this sudden, abrupt
> sound?
>
> It has been suggested (by some) that this gunman used a silencer. If
> so, the dictabelt is all out, as it is almost impossible for it to have
> "recorded" four gunshots if even one of those shots was far softer than
> all the others, & furthermore for the echo patterns to have identified
> any location. A silencer would have precluded such an identification of
> such a location on such a noisy, unclear recording.
>
And yet there have been tests done (which Groden has documented in his
book) that have 4 distinct louder sounds and 2 lesser that are concluded
as gunshots, and one more that's what they would call a toss up.
> And Marilyn Sitzman was adamant that there was no sudden, loud sound
> directly from her right, other than a Coke bottle being dropped, which
> she claimed to have seen in the process of breaking.
>
Some people I might suggest and I have other suggestions might not be too
privy in being exact in what they might have heard. Most of these people
didn't offer their opinions until they were called to do so, or were asked
by a reporter. I have been always suspect of Mr. Zapruder as being a
potential conspirator which might take a thread to explain, but have you
ever noticed his testimony? Shot(s) came from behind, yet he is still
waffling and hazy. If you look in the thread in the conspiracy group
under 'On Zapruder's Pedestal', I looked at the film they were trying to
duplicate and when I saw where the SE corner of the TSBD was in relation
to his pedestal, I wondered, how in the sane world could one confuse a
shot from the TSBD at that spot to any spot behind him? The answer is you
can't, because the SE corner of the TSBD is actually in front of him,
mostly to the side, but yet in front of him. Then, well come the echo
apologists.
> I myself have stood on those very steps, many times, & on that same
> pedestal, & I know for a fact that there's no possible way, in either
> location, that I would have heard such a sudden, loud sound, & not
> immediately turned to look for the source.
>
Besides those men on the steps though, the people toward the curb even on
the North side, the side of the GK, would be probably a good 75-100 feet
away, and they all would be intently focused on the President and the
motorcade, (with all the noise). Maybe if you stood down there during a
rush hour, you might have a different perspective.
> And any "gunman" would have been helplessly visible from that pedestal,
> as all humans with even average eyesight can plainly see when standing
> on it, since one's eyes are much higher than the top of the picket fence.
>
Zapruder didn't turn around. He kept filming, right into the fence area.
It takes 20 seconds to dismantle a rifle, and well that was observed, and
all they would have to do is duck down from the top of the fence, which
would make sense.
> Not one of the closest witnesses to all proposed locations for a "grassy
> knoll" gunman, not one, *contemporaneously* claimed, not even once, not
> at any time, in any venue, to any person, in any solidly-documented
> statement, within the first four years after the assassination, to have
> heard any sound that was even remotely consistent with gunfire
> originating from less than 30 meters away.
>
James Millican and Sandy Speaker, both on the same crew as Howard Brennan
were specialized in gunfire while in the armed forces, and they distinctly
said there were many more shots than most people testified to, and both
were much farther away (closer to the TSBD but between -- Millican was,
Speaker coming walking up to the crowd from the north side), and they
heard a definite volley towards the Knoll. Look at Billy Lovelady. He was
standing next to James Worrell right under the SN where Worrell heard
shots come from. He said the shots came from the thing over there on the
Knoll. Go figure.
> In addition, more than 90% of all witnesses who at any time, in any
> venue, to any person, are documented as making any claim whatsoever
> about the perceived direction of the sounds of gunfire, said that all
> sounds of gunfire came from only one direction, no matter what direction
> that seemed to be for each individual witness.
>
I think that is too high and possibly misleading. Some didn't know where
a shot came from and then said where one or more came from. Some said say
neither especially the TSBD, nor specifically the GK but WEST of the TSBD.
Of course besides gunfire, there are other witnesses to gun action and
that primarily came if not exclusively came from the GK area, and that was
after the shooting. They are called Nose Witnesses. They smelled
gunpowder. Then there was those on the Triple Underpass who saw smoke,
and those on the southside of Elm on the middle grass. The ones on the
Triple Underpass are the most convincing since they saw the smoke, and
confined the gunfire to the GK. Also GK witnesses came from all areas of
the arena too. Some close to Houston and Main, and some by the buildings
on the other side of Dealey Plaza heard shots from the GK, and didn't from
say the TSBD.
> If a witness claimed that the sounds came from the "grassy knoll" (or
> from anywhere even remotely close to it) the witness almost invariably
> claimed that *all* gunfire sounded as if it came from that one
> direction, no matter how many or how few shots that person claimed to
> have recalled.
>
Again, I don't think they were prepared to take it all in, like they would
be say if they knew there was a shooting. Then too, we have the ones that
stated that they heard from the GK, and the FBI said no you didn't, and
they DID change their testimony to what was suggested!
> If a witness claimed that the sounds came from the "triple underpass"
> (or from anywhere even remotely close to it) the witness almost
> invariably claimed that *all* gunfire sounded as if it came from that
> one direction, no matter how many or how few shots that person claimed
> to have recalled.
>
Which would almost make sense since they were in the area of the last
of the attack.
> If a witness claimed that the sounds came from more or less the
> intersection of Elm & Houston (or from anywhere even remotely close to
> it) the witness almost invariably claimed that *all* gunfire sounded as
> if it came from that one direction, no matter how many or how few shots
> that person claimed to have recalled.
>
Not necessarily so, as I have pointed out.
> Less than 10% of all known witnesses who were conclusively determined to
> have really been within earshot of the gunfire *individually* named
> multiple directions.
>
> Almost all of them specifically said that *all* of the shots came from a
> single direction, no matter what direction that seemed to be for each
> individual witness.
>
> Oh yes, there was nothing even remotely close to a consensus on *which*
> direction the sounds of gunfire seemed to come from.
>
I do believe the WEST and the GK were decisive winners over say the
TSBD.
> But there is a superb consensus, almost never known in any murder case
> in all of U.S. history, in which this large a percentage of this large a
> number of witnesses absolutely agreed with each other that all gunfire
> in Dealey Plaza that day came from only one direction, whatever that
> direction was.
>
And do we know of any famous murder case where so much damage went to
two men with one bullet with so little damage?
> Oh, & why do I almost never post here anymore? Simple. Both LNs & CTs
> have falsely accused me of posting statements I've never posted (&
> utterly failed, even after being directly challenged by me) to produce
> even one verbatim quote of me saying what they claimed I said.
>
That's protocol here. You need to have what they say a thick skin. People
argue alot from a preconceived side. That's why I 'see' statements that I
know can't be in the realm of logic, but they are people that make many
logical decisions in their 'normal' life. Just view the forums as a
blackboard. Only discuss what you want to. And don't think your
arguments have to be so persuasive as to change people's minds. It's just
not going to happen, no matter what side you are on.
> One LN claimed (falsely) that I had reversed my position on whether or
> not John Conally was influenced in his statements by viewing, or not
> viewing, the Zapruder film, & continued to make these false claims even
> after I had cited the very Google Groups URLS, & quotations, of me *not*
> saying any such thing, then made the absurd claim months later that the
> burden of proof was on me to prove that I hadn't said this, ignoring
> that I had already proven beyond all possible doubt that I hadn't (in
> the very articles he was referencing) while saying openly to me in this
> newsgroup that he absolutely *refused* to even *try* to locate even
> *one* article in which I had "said" what he claimed I had said
> originally.
>
> Likewise one CT (just to name one example) claimed, falsely, that I
> "knew perfectly well" (or some such words) that a book had been
> published which had identified the cameraman who caught Oswald
> distributing leaflets in New Orleans (a person who has recently posted
> here) as a CIA agent or FBI informant or some such hogwash. Yet
> although this same poster had replied to me many times before, suddenly,
> when I challenged this poster, over & over & over, in multiple articles,
> to produce *proof* that I even knew the *title* of this supposed "book,"
> much less knew anything at all about its contents, the poster suddenly,
> for the first time ever, stopped replying to me, & additionally refused
> to tell me the title of this "book," even though I asked many times in
> many articles for him to do so. To this day I still have no idea
> whatsoever what this "book" is that I supposedly "knew perfectly well"
> had "identified" this cameraman as being anything other than a cameraman.
>
People here may have ulterior motives, politically, or status-wise, or
they may just get the pleasure they can have by just getting under
one's skin. Don't killifile them, just avoid them.
> Finally, the reason I almost never post here anymore is because my last
> post before today was rejected by the moderators because I had used a
> term which implied that another poster was making an intentionally false
> statement, yet only 3 days later I saw one of the moderators use exactly
> the same term in exactly the same context & the article was allowed
> through.
If you have enough thick skin you can post in the conspiracy group at
least allows instant posting, with no moderators potential prejudice.
I post in both groups and sometimes in both at the same time. Just
gotta get a feel.
CJ
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
There wasn't.
tomnln
AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo1-D40B6...@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
curtjester1
> AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
> AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
> AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
> AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
> AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
> AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
>
> news:caeruleo1-D40B6...@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
>
>
>
> > In article <T014j.6062$6r6.1...@newsfe23.lga>,
> > "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's ALL HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> > Oh, it's you.
>
> > Yep, you're the one who ***FALSELY*** claimed to me that:
>
> > "As a Learned man you know very well it isn't MY claim that jwrush was an
> > FBI Informant. You know darned well that the claim came from a book."
>
> > Several years later, I'm still waiting, & waiting, & waiting, for you to
> > to even TRY to prove, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, that at the time you posted
> > that absurd statement in direct reply to me, or EVEN NOW, that I "know,"
> > damned well or otherwise, that such a book EVEN EXISTS, LET ALONE ITS
> > TITLE!!!
>
> > I call everyone who reads this newsgroup to note carefully that
> > groups.google.com archives numerous instances of "Caeruleo" (that's me)
> > asking this person over & over & over to produce the ***TITLE*** of this
> > supposed "book," & that over & over & over no reply by this poster, or any
> > other, going by any name whatsoever, produced to this day, in direct reply
> > to me, the exact ***NAME*** of this "book," much less its author or
> > publisher.
>
> > Still waiting & waiting & waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me, for the
> > first time ever, on the Internet or off of it, which "book," exactly,
> > "outs" jwrush as an "FBI informant."
>
> >>news:caeruleo1-A9AC3...@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> >> > In article <0_j1j.855$iw1....@newsfe22.lga>, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey that picture of Connally's coat sure dispels the 'lapel flip'
theory by a long shot! Good job, Tom.
CJ
curtjester1
I would think not because they would have likely been going off together
as a couple. Mike Brownlow, who was curbside during the assassination and
who gives talks on the GK, says he interviewed a couple ducking between
the cars in the parking lot behind the GK. I don't have their names
anymore, but Mike has a video of the Witnesses.
CJ
Caeruleo
Who on earth is "Claviger"? I have never gone by that name, yet this
webpage seems to attribute a text posted by me to this name.
And I still don't see anything at all there about jwrush being an FBI
informant. Much more helpful would be the posting of the exact URL & page
number on which this is stated. I just looked through a whole lot of
pages & I do not see Mr. Rush's name anywhere.
But more to the point: even if his name IS there & I'm just missing it, &
even if it DOES specifically identify him as an FBI informant, you cannot
prove that I KNEW that on the day you FIRST made this claim about me.
Day after day after day, week after week after week, month after month
after month, & year after year after year, you utterly fail to demonstrate
this. This particular article of yours comes nowhere close.
In article <JXn6j.268$1C4...@newsfe10.phx>, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net>
wrote:
tomnln
Now, address THESE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo1-D40B6...@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...