Musical Caskets Aboard Air Force One, In Broad Daylight, On 11/22/63! .... Can The JFK Conspiracy Theories GET Any Sillier Than This?
David VP
"BEST EVIDENCE":
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David S. Lifton's lengthy 1980 pro-conspiracy JFK book ("Best Evidence:
Disguise And Deception In The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy") spells
out a fantastically-absurd theory of casket-switching, body-snatching,
and head-altering surgery that was supposedly performed on the
badly-damaged cranium of President Kennedy by a group of unnamed
conspiratorial surgeons prior to JFK's official autopsy at Bethesda
Naval Medical Center.
A portion of this theory rests on a witness' supposed observation of a
second (pink-colored) casket being carried aboard Air Force One at
Dallas' Love Field on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, prior to the
plane travelling back to Washington.
Apparently, per this crazy theory, JFK's body was stolen from the
bronze casket that was put on board AF1 and was put into a pink casket.
This pink casket and the President's body were then taken someplace
(who knows where) so that "body-altering surgery" could be performed on
JFK (to hide the fact that the fatal shot to his head had actually come
from in front of JFK that day in Dealey Plaza).
Evidently these slick and amazing surgeons were able to totally
reconstruct JFK's head, to hide the obvious wounds of a frontal gunshot
blast, and this quick repair job was able to (incredibly) totally fool
all of the doctors who performed the official autopsy on the President
later that night at Bethesda.
This surgery (I assume) would include the ADDING IN of the small, neat
bullet wound of entrance near JFK's cowlick on the back of his head.
(Did these plotters actually fire a 6.5mm rifle bullet into the back of
Kennedy's head during this covert head-altering session? If not, how
did that small entry wound get there at the official autopsy?)
Of course, this nutty scenario is not even remotely possible -- unless
Jackie Kennedy herself was one of the main conspirators. Jackie never
left her husband's casket (except for the very brief LBJ swearing-in
ceremony). And other JFK aides were right there with the casket during
that short period when Jackie was away from it.
Just try to picture this scenario in your mind (if you can do so while
laughing hysterically at the same time):
Holding a constant vigil from Dallas to Washington, Mrs. Jacqueline
Bouvier Kennedy -- evidently totally oblivious to everything that is
occurring around her -- sits by her husband's casket while watching and
completely ignoring the fact that a second casket has been loaded
aboard aircraft #26000 as the Boeing 707 jetliner waits at Love Field
to transport the dead President and his widow back to the nation's
Capital.
A "small number of men" (per some conspiracy theorists' account of the
event) have hoisted a pinkish shipping casket onto the main passenger
level of the 707 aircraft. Shoving the grieving widow aside to get to
the ornamental casket housing John Kennedy's body, the conspirators get
down to business. As the heartless plotters open the sealed bronze
casket and remove JFK's body (in full view of Mrs. Kennedy and God
knows how many others aboard the aircraft), John F. Kennedy's journey
into conspiracy history begins.
JFK is now transferred to the pink casket so that he can be whisked
away by the plotters to an unknown location for conspiratorial surgical
purposes.
The band of conspirators now must load something that weighs 170 pounds
into the now-empty bronze casket, to simulate the weight of JFK. This
activity, too, goes completely unnoticed by the dozens of people aboard
(and guarding!) the Boeing 707.
I can only hope that the conspirators were at the very least somewhat
courteous toward the grieving widow as they removed her husband's body
from his casket right before her eyes. An "excuse me ma'am, we have to
steal your husband" would have been appropriate I think.
And evidently Mrs. Kennedy couldn't have cared less about all of this
mysterious activity taking place right before her (and gobs of others).
And nobody on board the aircraft says a SINGLE WORD ABOUT IT! Not one
person on board the plane saw ANY of this activity take place; and yet
it's actually accepted as being FACT by a number of conspiracy buffs.
Literally beyond belief!
There is ample proof (via the people in JFK's party who were on Air
Force One at Love Field) that Mr. Lifton's body-stealing theory never
could have possibly happened.
Here's a quote from JFK aide David Powers:
"The coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malarkey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of
it during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up
to go to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenny O'Donnell went
with her, but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of
it. In fact several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the
way to Bethesda Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that
fellow said. Not even thirty seconds. I never left it." -- Dave Powers;
June 1987
But some conspiracy theorists don't seem to like (or don't want to
believe) the above words that were spoken by Mr. Powers. So, certain
CTers will simply ignore the obvious flaws in their theories and
continue to put forth mindless conspiracy scenarios that never could
have occurred in a million years.
After all, why bother believing the above words of somebody who was
actually right THERE on the airplane on 11/22/63....when conspiracists
could just as easily believe David S. Lifton's sensational theory
instead?
It would seem that even author David Lifton has had second thoughts
about his initial theory re. the snatching of Kennedy's body. He has
apparently re-arranged his theory quite a bit since his large tome
"Best Evidence" was published in 1980.
Here's a direct quote from Lifton on that subject:
"About two years after 'Best Evidence' was published, I in fact
realized there was a much more significant moment in time for getting
the body out of the coffin, and that was the brief period when the
coffin was already aboard the plane, and the entire Kennedy party was
down on the tarmac. And today, that is when I think that event actually
occurred. How they got the body off the plane is another matter." --
David S. Lifton; November 15, 1997
So, in essence, if one theory is proven wrong -- then just move on to
the next best one and see if another cat will lick this one up. It's
nothing but baloney. Utter bunk.
In short -- Anybody who would accept as true the nonsensical theory of
JFK's body being stolen off of Air Force One by evil plotters should
check themselves into the nearest insane asylum and seek immediate
treatment for "Conspiracy Theory Overdose".
David Von Pein
March 2006
Peter Fokes
>a fantastically-absurd theory
Indeed. Lots of those around.
Both LN theories and CT theories.
Neither side has a monopoly on common sense.
PF
David VP
Bull. Plain and simple -- bull!
"Common sense" is on the side of LNism every time. Not even a close
call on this one.
Just a few general examples:
David Lifton's theory = JFK's body stolen right from under noses of XX
people on AF1 + impossibly-complicated and impossible-to-conceal hunk
of head-altering surgery to JFK = NO common sense.
Robert Groden's theory = 8 to 10 shots fired at JFK's car ... with ZERO
of these likely to have come from the SN window (despite Harold Norman
and others hearing shots from there, with Norman hearing three hulls
hitting the floor). And FIVE of Groden's TEN shots via that theory
completely MISS everything in Texas! = NO common sense at all.
Widely-believed "Oswald Was Just A Patsy" plot = XX number of assassins
firing XX number of bullets (from front and rear DP locales) at JFK + a
"plot" to pin whole thing on ONE "patsy" in TSBD + Not giving a damn
where resident patsy is located during actual shooting = NO common
sense and just plain lunacy/idiocy/craziness of the first order.
Compared to LN scenario, which =
1 killer + 3 shots likely fired (via huge % of earwitnesses) + 2 and
only 2 "hits" on car's victims + 1 missed shot (Tague) + Oswald's lack
of alibi + Oswald's really weird bahavior after shooting + CE399 from
Oswald's rifle + 2 large bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle found
INSIDE THE CAR OF DEATH + Oswald positively killed Officer Tippit +
"It's all over now!" + "They say it just takes a second to die" +
Oswald seen pulling trigger on JFK and Tippit + Oswald's gun on 6th
Floor + Oswald's shells in SN + Oswald's prints all over location from
where gunman fired within TSBD + a phony "curtain rod" story + paper
bag with LHO's prints in SN = 1 KILLER NAMED OSWALD and a whole lot of
common sense utilized to reach this sensible conclusion.
~Mark VII~
Peter Fokes
>>> "Neither side has a monopoly on common sense."
>
>Bull. Plain and simple -- bull!
I can type bull too!
>"Common sense" is on the side of LNism every time.
... it's an idealogy now, and "ism"?
So the LN theory that JFK was kept alive on a Greek Island is based on
common sense??
> Not even a close
>call on this one.
Your trouble is plain to see. You overgeneralize and treat unique
ideas incorrectly as lump sums. Makes a complicated subject simple for
you.
Some LN theories are simply wacky. So too are some CT theories.
For example, there is no agreement among LNs over the nature of the
head wounds. Despite your assertion BOTH sides are basing their
conclusion on common sense, one side is wrong.
PF
David VP
That's an "LN Theory"? Never heard of it actually.
But the "LN SCENARIO WHICH HAS JFK ENDING UP DEAD" line of thinking is
filled with CS&L. Whereas, CTers are all over the proverbial map with
their theories....and I've never ONCE heard a logical, and believable,
CT alternative to the SBT...mainly because none exists...which stresses
(again) the likelihood of the SBT being correct.
An "over-simplification", right? Well, IMO, the CTers have "overly
complicated" this case to the Nth degree, so that the assassination is
now so filled with "Impossibles", and "Nope, Ozzie Couldn't Have Done
That, Not In A Million Years!", and "Everything Must Have Been Faked To
Make This LN Stuff Work!".
And that kind of talk is just plain CT wishful-thinking, and always
was.
The basic theory is SIMPLE...always was....but so what? One disgruntled
Communist goes to work with rifle one day, gets lucky to find himself
alone on an upper floor of his workplace, and pops the President with
his own M-C rifle in 8 seconds. Done.
ALL of the physical evidence in the case (bullets, shells, prints,
fibers, and gun) says that that conclusion is an accurate one.
CTers that have to muddy the very-clear Oswald's-Guilty waters are
doing so without stepping back from their CT pits and asking the
common-sense questions -- e.g., WHY did the plotters do it this stupid
way? Or -- How did all this stuff get immediately put back on Oswald's
plate if three or four killers were performed the shooting?
EVERY conspiracy theory falls completely apart when evaluating them
from such a POV as above. (Esp. the most widely-believed one -- The
"One-Patsy, Multi-Gun" nuttiness. That's worthy of scorn just by
looking at those words -- "ONE PATSY, MULTIPLE SHOOTERS". That's
hilarious right there!)
As my main dude, Vince Bugliosi (the King Of CS&L if you ask me...I
know, you didn't ask...but I'm telling you anyhow ~wink~) has also
said.....
"Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; April 6, 1997
No truer words were ever spoken. (That is, until "Final Verdict" gets
released....then a LOT more true words will be spoken; that's for
certain.)
>>"For example, there is no agreement among LNs over the nature of the head wounds."
>From my experience with most "LNers" there certainly is (with a few
exceptions, granted). .... One bullet enters back of head at area of
cowlick and exits at the right-front side...just as anyone can SEE
happening in the Z-Film. The Z-Film is rock-solid PROOF of one shot
hitting JFK in the head from the rear.
How on Earth do CTers continue to BS their way past the undeniable
FORWARD movement of the head between Z312 and Z313? This is the
"INITIAL IMPACT/TRANSFER OF MOMENTUM" moment, without doubt! And it's
telling everybody that JFK has just had his head MOVED by something
hitting his head FROM BEHIND, forcing the head to initially move
forward.
Plus, the "head spray" provides additional proof, IMO, of a Rear-Only
head shot. Just look via the outstanding clip (linked below), which
melds 312 seamlessly into 313...a great gif job here...and proof, IMO,
that the head shot is coming from BEHIND Kennedy......
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
Try "over-complicating" the above Z-Film clip into a logical CT
explanation. I always enjoy a good sitcom anyway.
CTer logic must be the following (after looking at the above
MOMENT-OF-IMPACT Z-Film clip)......
"Hmmmm......JFK's head goes FORWARD....All head spray/debris to the
FRONT just after impact....No head spray at all to the REAR of his
head....No signs of damage to the rear of the head either....
This MUST, therefore, mean.....
Yeah...I've got it.....JFK was shot from the Grassy Knoll and what
we're seeing in the Z-Film is REALLY a "mirror reversal image" of the
true event."
~~CTer, with dollar signs in eyes, rushes to phone to inform Fetzer, et
al~~
WhiskyJoe
> Greek Island is based on common sense??
This is one LN theory I have never heard of.
Does one LN in ten, one in hundred, one in thousand,
or one in one million, believe this theory?
If one LN in the world can be found who believes
this theory, does that really justify the statement
that LN theories are just as crazy as CT theories?
The "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory is an
unusually wacky theory. It would mean that the
conspirators foresaw that shooting from various
angles would cause wounds that couldn't not have
been fired from one direction. Rather, than deal
with this problem in a rational way, have all
shooters fire from the same direction, from behind,
they adopted a different solution. They have some
"Gene Wilder" and "Marty Feldman" characters
sneak the body off Air Force One, do some quick
surgery and swap back the body before the autopsy
a few hours later in Washington.
This crazy scenario is justified by a "Need for
Crossfire". But there is no need for crossfire.
So long as the president doesn't duck down, he can be
shot at from above and behind. If it ducks down,
he can hardly be shot at from any where.
The only position the President can take where he can
be hit from the Grassy Knoll but not hit from the sixth
floor is if he:
* ducks down, but opens his door wide so he can get
some fresh air
* hangs from in front of the front grill of the limousine
(like Indiana Jones)
* hangs on to the bottom of the limousine
(like Indiana Jones)
* leaps from the limousine and takes cover behind the
Grassy Knoll fence
There is no need for frontal shooters combined with
body snatching, fake autopsies, fake films, eliminated
witnesses. All this nonsense could have been avoided
by having all shooters firing from above and behind.
If one can get one shooter to a floor, one can get five.
Seriously, is there a commonly held LN theory that is
as wacky as the body and coffin switching theory?
David Wimp
It's been a long time since I read "Best Evidence", but I think David
Lifont's principle reason for thinking there was body alteration to change
the direction of the shots was that the HSCA report stated that the
Bethesda witnesses' accounts were consistently different from the Parkland
account. However, when the actual interviews conducted by the HSCA were
released, they showed the report was in error. Last I heard, nobody had
ever owned up to writing that part of the report. So the biggest point of
support for body alteration Lifton style went out the window. I think a
more likely scenario was that bullet fragments were removed from the body
and that process altered the body. Perhaps the nature of the wounds were
intentionally obscured. We do have first hand accounts of people who were
there who said the body arrived in a shipping casket. There is also a
document that I have seen and presume to be genuine that shows the body
arriving in a shipping casket. Then there is the audio from Air Force one
where a ramp is requested "for the First Lady" though she did no go down
the ramp nor did she seemingly need one. Finally there is the interview
of Richard Lipsey who was in charge of moving the body from Andrews to
Bethesda who said a decoy ambulance and casket were used for crowd
control. Maybe you and Powers just didn't quite cover all the bases.
David VP
Speaking of James ---
Mr. Fetzer's little talk (via the link provided below) is fascinating (if
you like to hear a pro-CT kook talk for 58 minutes, that is). ....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C06dg7xjAMk
Just a few minutes into that CT talk, Mr. Fetzer shows his built-in
pro-conspiracy bias point-blank....
"{Oswald was} apprehended in a local theater about an hour after the
assassination occurred. I always thought that was pretty fast work." -- J.
Fetzer
Now, to anyone who has even GLANCED at the overall evidence in the JFK
case, that statement by Fetzer (where he is obviously hinting to anybody
who will listen that something hinky and conspiratorial was afoot with
regard to Oswald's arrest in the Texas Theater) is totally ridiculous and
unfounded.
Jim doesn't tell his audience there about the fact that a policeman was
killed just blocks from the theater...and the fact that a
suspicious-acting man had just entered that theater...and the fact that
this same man (Oswald) who was pointed out by Johnny Brewer in the theater
had pulled a gun and tried to kill some more people within the movie
house.
All of this stuff, evidently, is supposed to be ignored by Mr. Fetzer and
his ilk. Therefore, per the kooks, there was something conspiratorial
about Oswald's "quick arrest" within the Texas Theater.
BTW -- Oswald's arrest occurred at approx. 1:50 PM local Dallas time...not
"an hour" after the assassination. Yes, I know Fetzer technically said
"about an hour"...and I suppose he could be considered accurate in that
statement. But Mr. Fetzer knows this case inside-out; he knows the
timelines, et al; thusly, he knew darn well that Oswald was picked up 80
minutes after JFK's shooting, not closer to "an hour".
It's just another way to paint in something "suspicious" into Oswald's
arrest, by shortening the timeline....just exactly like what the "Free
Oswald Brigade" does with respect to the other "timelines" in the JFK case
-- e.g., the shooting "feat" itself (3 shots in 5.6 seconds? Come now!
When it was almost certainly closer to 8 total seconds); plus the timeline
of Oswald's 90-second trip to the 2nd Floor after JFK's shooting; and
Oswald's 13-minute trip (approx.) from Beckley to 10th St. for the
'meeting' with J.D. Tippit. Both of which have been proven via multiple
re-constructions to be quite possible, without a doubt. But CTers just
don't like that kind of re-creation "evidence"; they'd prefer to muddy the
clear waters by ignoring those re-creations.
Pathetic.
David VP
of that.
James K. Olmstead
to be doing a film processing job for Col Finck. He was at our photo lab
in Frankfurt, Germany and the photo of JFK, sitting in a wheel chair on
the island, was being discussed over coffee in a BS session in the
hallway. This was the first time I met the Col. and I had the opportunity
to do one more processing assignment for him. His comment was this:
"The last time I saw him (JFK) he was dead"....
The photo was on the front page of a tabloid...National Enquirer, which
tells anyone alot about the story.
The Col was stationed at 97th General Hospital and they could not process
his slides that he needed.....I had the opportunity to do the work at V
Corps Hq. I used the incident in the development of a film script
combined with the bombing (later) of the I.G. Farben Blg. (Officer's
club)....at the time I had very little interest in the JFK case.
jko
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:1144617582....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Makres
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144614243....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>"So the LN theory that JFK was kept alive on a Greek Island is based on
>>>common sense??"
>
> That's an "LN Theory"? Never heard of it actually.
I have heard of this one, quite a few years ago. However, when I was
hearing it, the story was'nt being attributed to LN'ers, or CT'ers
specifically, for that matter. It was just a kooky story that was floating
about. As I recall, there were some trimmings with the story that
suggested that the USG and/or the Kennedy family didn't want the country
seeing the President in this dilapidated condition, so he was whisked away
to an Island. I think some tabloid (s) also concocted a picture of JFK in
a wheelchair in a setting like he was on a yacht or something to support
the crazy story.
IMO, the very nature of the story, that the truth was not told, that JFK
was not actually dead but was whisked away to a Greek Island and was a
cripple, sounds more like the CT'er way of thinking, to keep the thinking
going that the truth was kept from the American people.
But, it could very well have been just a tabloid item concocted to sell
the kooky periodicals.
Peter M.
David Wimp
> Dave W. ... Why is your whole post above attributed to me? I wrote none
> of that.
>
Looks like I just didn't delete that line. Sorry.
Peter Fokes
>>>"So the LN theory that JFK was kept alive on a Greek Island is based on common sense??"
>
>That's an "LN Theory"? Never heard of it actually.
Go on... really?
>But the "LN SCENARIO WHICH HAS JFK ENDING UP DEAD" line of thinking is
>filled with CS&L.
As Einstein says: Common sense is the collection of prejudices
acquired by the age of 18."
> Whereas, CTers are all over the proverbial map with
>their theories....
LNs are all over the proverbial skull of JFK with their theories. No
unity at all. Can all such views be based on commons sense, or are you
saying common sense can be wrong sometimes?
>and I've never ONCE heard a logical, and believable,
>CT alternative to the SBT...mainly because none exists...which stresses
>(again) the likelihood of the SBT being correct.
The absence of an alternative to explain something does not make
another theory correct.
>An "over-simplification", right?
I think so.
> Well, IMO, the CTers have "overly
>complicated" this case to the Nth degree,
Which CTers..... here you go with your lump sumitis again.
> so that the assassination is
>now so filled with "Impossibles",
No, the assassination in not full of impossibles. The assassination
occurred. What "is" impossible are some theories.
> and "Nope, Ozzie Couldn't Have Done
>That, Not In A Million Years!",
Some CTs believe this ..
>and "Everything Must Have Been Faked To
>Make This LN Stuff Work!".
Some CTs believe this ... folks like Jack White who is not given much
credibility for such theories
>And that kind of talk is just plain CT wishful-thinking, and always
>was.
Some CTs as well as LNs engage in wishful thinking. One of the curious
thoughts of LNs is the fanciful idea that an analysis of bullet
composition can prove there was no conspiracy.
>The basic theory is SIMPLE...always was....but so what?
The assassination is not a theory. It was an act. How it occurred has
been debated vigorously since Nov 22, 1963.
> One disgruntled
>Communist goes to work with rifle one day, gets lucky to find himself
>alone on an upper floor of his workplace, and pops the President with
>his own M-C rifle in 8 seconds. Done.
And someone else can say an EX-Marine with a penchant for spy novels
and I Led Three Lives was doing what came normal to him, and
pretending to be a Commie.
>ALL of the physical evidence in the case (bullets, shells, prints,
>fibers, and gun) says that that conclusion is an accurate one.
Lol! Did Oswald write "I am a commie" on a bullet or a shell? Or
perhaps he slipped a hastily written note in the barrel of the smoking
gun saying "A Commie did it!"
>CTers that have to muddy the very-clear Oswald's-Guilty waters are
>doing so without stepping back from their CT pits and asking the
>common-sense questions
"Pits?" lol
I'm sitting in a nice comfy chair. No pit. No muddy water.
Now tell me again how the bullet evidence proves Oswald was a
disgruntled Commie?
> -- e.g., WHY did the plotters do it this stupid
>way?
It worked.
>Or -- How did all this stuff get immediately put back on Oswald's
>plate if three or four killers were performed the shooting?
Who said three of four killers performed the shooting?
>EVERY conspiracy theory falls completely apart when evaluating them
>from such a POV as above.
IT appears your LN theory falls apart too unless you can explain how a
bullet fragment or fingerprint proves Oswald was a Commie!
Maybe he was, but you have intrigued me with this new science of
"Bullet Analysis Proves Oswald A Commie" theory.
> (Esp. the most widely-believed one -- The
>"One-Patsy, Multi-Gun" nuttiness. That's worthy of scorn just by
>looking at those words -- "ONE PATSY, MULTIPLE SHOOTERS". That's
>hilarious right there!)
I don't share your urge to scorn anyone. I have no need to scorn you,
for example, even though I disagree with certain speculations you
offer.
>As my main dude, Vince Bugliosi
Dude? lol ... ok, hero worship ok with me as long as you are not
him, then it would be boasting!
> (the King Of CS&L if you ask me...I
>know, you didn't ask...but I'm telling you anyhow ~wink~) has also
>said.....
Please I'm no dude...
>"Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
>palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
>sense." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; April 6, 1997
Looking forward to his book..... before I die I hope!
>No truer words were ever spoken. (That is, until "Final Verdict" gets
>released....then a LOT more true words will be spoken; that's for
>certain.)
One thing's for sure .... it will not be the last book, and the
historians are just warming up now.
I am looking forward to Robert Caro's final tome on LBJ. Great
historian... although he ruffled Valenti and Lady Bird's feathers.
>>>"For example, there is no agreement among LNs over the nature of the head wounds."
>
>>From my experience with most "LNers" there certainly is (with a few
>exceptions, granted). ....
You wish .... do Paul and John agree... simple yes or no.
> One bullet enters back of head at area of
>cowlick and exits at the right-front side...just as anyone can SEE
>happening in the Z-Film. The Z-Film is rock-solid PROOF of one shot
>hitting JFK in the head from the rear.
Not all LNs believe this, sorry.
>How on Earth do CTers continue to BS their way past the undeniable
>FORWARD movement of the head between Z312 and Z313?
Lumpitis again. Not all CTs reject the notion of motion ...
> This is the
>"INITIAL IMPACT/TRANSFER OF MOMENTUM" moment, without doubt! And it's
>telling everybody that JFK has just had his head MOVED by something
>hitting his head FROM BEHIND, forcing the head to initially move
>forward.
Yup.
>Plus, the "head spray" provides additional proof, IMO, of a Rear-Only
>head shot. Just look via the outstanding clip (linked below), which
>melds 312 seamlessly into 313...a great gif job here...and proof, IMO,
>that the head shot is coming from BEHIND Kennedy......
>
>http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
Viewed it many times.
>
>Try "over-complicating" the above Z-Film clip into a logical CT
>explanation. I always enjoy a good sitcom anyway.
No thanks.
>CTer logic must be the following (after looking at the above
>MOMENT-OF-IMPACT Z-Film clip)...
Which Ct? Mighty bizarre LN theories out there too ... indeed one
faction of the nature of the head wound advocates are WRONG.
>"Hmmmm......JFK's head goes FORWARD....All head spray/debris to the
>FRONT just after impact....No head spray at all to the REAR of his
>head....No signs of damage to the rear of the head either....
>
>This MUST, therefore, mean.....
>
>Yeah...I've got it.....JFK was shot from the Grassy Knoll and what
>we're seeing in the Z-Film is REALLY a "mirror reversal image" of the
>true event."
>
>~~CTer, with dollar signs in eyes, rushes to phone to inform Fetzer, et
>al~~
Gerald Ford wrote a book too.... long before it was popular to do so.
He was an LN.... at least he let on he was anyway.
PF
>
Peter Fokes
>> So the LN theory that JFK was kept alive on a
>> Greek Island is based on common sense??
>
>This is one LN theory I have never heard of.
>Does one LN in ten, one in hundred, one in thousand,
>or one in one million, believe this theory?
>
>If one LN in the world can be found who believes
>this theory, does that really justify the statement
>that LN theories are just as crazy as CT theories?
Well, it's simply a fact. Some LN theories are just as crazy as CT
theories.
>The "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory is an
>unusually wacky theory.
You should check out the debate on how JFK's brain was removed from
his skull? Wacky!
> It would mean that the
>conspirators foresaw that shooting from various
>angles would cause wounds that couldn't not have
>been fired from one direction.
Not necessarily but that's another debate ...
>Rather, than deal
>with this problem in a rational way,
Are you accusing Lifton of not being rational? He's one CT.
>have all
>shooters fire from the same direction, from behind,
>they adopted a different solution. They have some
>"Gene Wilder" and "Marty Feldman" characters
>sneak the body off Air Force One, do some quick
>surgery and swap back the body before the autopsy
>a few hours later in Washington.
Dammit. They should have let Dr. Rose take the body to begin with.
>This crazy scenario is justified by a "Need for
>Crossfire". But there is no need for crossfire.
>So long as the president doesn't duck down, he can be
>shot at from above and behind. If it ducks down,
>he can hardly be shot at from any where.
>
>The only position the President can take where he can
>be hit from the Grassy Knoll but not hit from the sixth
>floor is if he:
>
>* ducks down, but opens his door wide so he can get
> some fresh air
>
>* hangs from in front of the front grill of the limousine
> (like Indiana Jones)
>
>* hangs on to the bottom of the limousine
> (like Indiana Jones)
>
>* leaps from the limousine and takes cover behind the
> Grassy Knoll fence
Probably why many CTs think the shots came from the rear.
>There is no need for frontal shooters combined with
>body snatching, fake autopsies, fake films, eliminated
>witnesses. All this nonsense could have been avoided
>by having all shooters firing from above and behind.
>If one can get one shooter to a floor, one can get five.
Get five what?
>
>Seriously, is there a commonly held LN theory that is
>as wacky as the body and coffin switching theory?
Yup. Plenty of them.
Ask John McAdams about Paul Seaton's boh theory!
One of them has got to be wrong!
PF
>
Peter Fokes
>>>"CTer, with dollar signs in eyes, rushes to phone to inform Fetzer, et al"
>
>Speaking of James ---
<snip>
> per the kooks,
Ooops, you pluralized Fetzer.
There is only one Fetzer.
Or is this the double Fetzer theory?
PF
David VP
Yeah, that's kinda what I figured. No prob. ;)
Martin Shackelford
point? Even Lifton finally presented an interview with a helicopter
pilot that the copter DIDN'T carry JFK's body away.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
sure they're right--what else is new?
Martin
Martin Shackelford
folk with a bit more credibility? And no "there aren't any" cheap shots.
Martin
David VP
Every single person who disbelieves the SBT -- that's who.
Because every single person who thinks the SBT is Specter's Pipe Dream
is an automatic believer in at least a "3-Gunmen" shooting scenario.
Can't be less than three, sans the SBT. No way. Can't be done.
But I'd love to see you try and reconcile a non-SBT shooting with just
2 shooters. Fantasy is always a fun genre to engage in, whether it be a
2-Shooter or a 3-Shooter fantasy film.
Peter Fokes
>>>"Who said three of four killers performed the shooting?"
>
>Every single person who disbelieves the SBT -- that's who.
FALSE.
Some folks believe there was one shooter but no sbt.
Some folks believe there were 2 shooters and no sbt.
>Because every single person who thinks the SBT is Specter's Pipe Dream
>is an automatic believer in at least a "3-Gunmen" shooting scenario.
>Can't be less than three, sans the SBT. No way. Can't be done.
In your opinion, which is demonstrably FALSE.
Talk to Andrew Mason, for example.
>But I'd love to see you try and reconcile a non-SBT shooting with just
>2 shooters.
Some have gone one step better and reconciled it with ONE shooter.
> Fantasy is always a fun genre to engage in, whether it be a
>2-Shooter or a 3-Shooter fantasy film.
I wondered what you were doing. Now I know. Playing a "fun genre".
PF
>
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Who said three of four killers performed the shooting?"
>
> Every single person who disbelieves the SBT -- that's who.
>
> Because every single person who thinks the SBT is Specter's Pipe Dream
> is an automatic believer in at least a "3-Gunmen" shooting scenario.
> Can't be less than three, sans the SBT. No way. Can't be done.
>
I've already explained to you a dozen times that the damage could be
theoretically done with two shots, three are not mandatory.
> But I'd love to see you try and reconcile a non-SBT shooting with just
> 2 shooters. Fantasy is always a fun genre to engage in, whether it be a
> 2-Shooter or a 3-Shooter fantasy film.
>
And it does not have to be two shooters. Even one shooting each man
separately as the FBI and WC originally concluded.
>
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
David VP
separately as the FBI and WC originally concluded."
Not possible (given the too-tight-a-timeline via the Z-Film). How can
you even possibly purport such nonsense?
You think that one single shooter could have fired into JFK's and JBC's
backs with separate shots from the same rifle in a space of very few
Z-Frames?? (Actually, of course, it's closer to zero Z-frames between
strikes.....but I'll give you a little leeway since -- technically --
JFK WAS, indeed, first struck while behind the sign and out of
Zapruder's view. But, still, not nearly enough time for a single gunman
to do this deed.)
Yes, I know that's exactly what the 12/09/1963 FBI Report does state (3
shots/3 hits)....but that was obviously wronged....and provably wrong
via the Z-Film.
gary...@yahoo.com
James K. Olmstead wrote:
> I actually had the opportunity back in the 70's when this story came out
> to be doing a film processing job for Col Finck. He was at our photo lab
> in Frankfurt, Germany and the photo of JFK, sitting in a wheel chair on
> the island, was being discussed over coffee in a BS session in the
> hallway. This was the first time I met the Col. and I had the opportunity
> to do one more processing assignment for him. His comment was this:
>
> "The last time I saw him (JFK) he was dead"....
>
> The photo was on the front page of a tabloid...National Enquirer, which
> tells anyone alot about the story.
Great story. It wasn't the Enquirer though. Probably Midnight although
the picture was also later in the National Tattler.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "And it does not have to be two shooters. Even one shooting each man
> separately as the FBI and WC originally concluded."
>
>
> Not possible (given the too-tight-a-timeline via the Z-Film). How can
> you even possibly purport such nonsense?
>
Three shots can be fired that close together by two shooters. Shooter 1
shoots A, shooter 2 shoots B, shooter 1 shoots C.
> You think that one single shooter could have fired into JFK's and JBC's
> backs with separate shots from the same rifle in a space of very few
> Z-Frames?? (Actually, of course, it's closer to zero Z-frames between
How few? Make the best strawman argument you can.
Most peooke rejected two shots separated by 1.66 seconds until people
proved that it can be done.
Could also be shooter 1 shoots shot A, shooter 1 shoots shot B, shooter
2 shoots shot C.
> strikes.....but I'll give you a little leeway since -- technically --
> JFK WAS, indeed, first struck while behind the sign and out of
> Zapruder's view. But, still, not nearly enough time for a single gunman
> to do this deed.)
>
Well, we happen to agree that JFK was not shot until Z-210, but remember
that the HSCA was stuck with claiming that JFK was hit at Z-190 because
of their interpretation of the acoustical evidence and he just took a
couple of seconds to realize it.
> Yes, I know that's exactly what the 12/09/1963 FBI Report does state (3
> shots/3 hits)....but that was obviously wronged....and provably wrong
> via the Z-Film.
Could be. Please tell me the frame numbers for their hits.
David VP
>>shoots A, shooter 2 shoots B, shooter 1 shoots C."
Sure. But that's not what you said in a prior post.
You, instead, said this....
"And it does not have to be two shooters. Even one shooting each man
separately as the FBI and WC originally concluded."
You don't know which ambulance to chase it would appear.
James K. Olmstead
<gary...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1144878282....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> I actually had the opportunity back in the 70's when this story came out
>> to be doing a film processing job for Col Finck. He was at our photo lab
>> in Frankfurt, Germany and the photo of JFK, sitting in a wheel chair on
>> the island, was being discussed over coffee in a BS session in the
>> hallway. This was the first time I met the Col. and I had the opportunity
>> to do one more processing assignment for him. His comment was this:
>>
>> "The last time I saw him (JFK) he was dead"....
>>
>> The photo was on the front page of a tabloid...National Enquirer, which
>> tells anyone alot about the story.
>
> Great story. It wasn't the Enquirer though. Probably Midnight although
> the picture was also later in the National Tattler.
>
I thought the PX in the I.G. Farben building only carried the National Enquirer, whatever
tabloid, it was purchased by a guy in the office next to ours...Air Force guys. We all
shared the end of the hall window ledge for BS and coffee...since both our offices
were small. BTW the guy and I can't remember his name....was related to the family
that owned Royal Crown Cola....his boss flew model airplanes. At that time the big
discussion was religious in nature and I was working on a filmscript called
"Four Minutes to Morning" based on Gen....I wish I had been working on Kennedy
and was able to take advantage of meeting and talking to Col Finck.
Years later when I did start working on JFK....I added the consideration that one
of our staff members was related Deloach....I still believe that is a possible
consideration.
jko