Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
No bank stamped the back of the money order for the rifle
227 views
Skip to first unread message
John Reagor King
Sep 20, 2012, 10:16:27 PM9/20/12
to
The front and back of the money order for the Carcano rifle can be seen
in CE 788:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0
352a.htm
The back of the money order, shown in the bottom image, displays this
stamp:
Pay to the order of
The First National Bank of Chicago
50 91144
Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc
Before the eyes of the Commissioners in his WC testimony, William Waldman
stamped a piece of paper, labeled Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9, and
what he stamped on that paper looks identical in every way with the stamp
on the back of the money order:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0
365a.htm
But my understanding is that it was an absolute requirement for there to
be an additional stamp on the back of the money order, that of the bank
itself, and that this stamp had furthermore to be dated, to ensure that
more than one bank didn't pay the money order, or that no bank paid it
more than once.
I see nothing even remotely resembling such a stamp on the back of this
money order.
Additionally, I find this passage from Waldman's WC testimony to be
quite curious:
**********
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No.
788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order
of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named
A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No.
2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and
underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the
reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine
it, please.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of
the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50
space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods,
Inc."
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement
on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.
Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition
Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that
shown on the money order in question.
Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9
with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money order
was deposited by your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was
deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order
for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. You're reading from Waldman---
Mr. WALDMAN. From a Mr. A. Hidell of Post Office Box No. 2915, from
Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And you are now reading from Waldman Deposition Exhibit No.
7?
Mr. WALDMAN. As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7. Now, we
cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our
deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on
the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--as Waldman
Deposition Exhibit No. 10.
Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading
from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of
Chicago by your company; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
**********
At first Mr. Belin said that the stamp on the back of the money order
"appears to be an endorsement of a bank." Mr. Waldman then clarified
that this was a Klein's stamp, and as we can see, just as I said above,
he stamped another piece of paper, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9,
with an absolutely identical stamp, with Belin confirming that he had
just seen Waldman do this: "You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition
Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?" To which Waldman answered,
"Correct."
But although Belin initially described it as looking like the
endorsement stamp of a bank, and even though Waldman both said and
showed that it wasn't, we can plainly see that there was no followup as
to why there was *not* an endorsement of a bank, any bank, on the back
of the money order. In fact, the passage I quoted above contains the
only three occurrences of the word "bank" in the entire testimony.
For those of you who might be inclined to post a reply, especially if
you're an LN, I ask you in advance to please not tell me that Waldman
nevertheless produced a document showing that the money order was
deposited in the bank.
I obviously already knew that, as I quoted it above.
And please don't tell me that the writing on the front side of the money
order, and the writing on the order form for the rifle, were determined
by handwriting experts to be that of Oswald.
I already knew that too, thank you.
And please don't tell me that Carl Day lifted Oswald's palmprint from
the rifle that Klein's sent as a result of this money order.
I already knew that too, thank you.
And please don't remind me that the preponderance of evidence points to
Oswald as being guilty of the assassination.
I already knew that too, thank you.
And please don't remind me that CE 399 was ballistically matched to the
same rifle.
I already knew that too, thank you.
And please don't remind me that Connally and Kennedy were hit only by
shots fired from the rear.
I already knew that too, thank you.
You can all post whatever replies you please, of course, but I am simply
asking that you only address this one specific issue:
There was no dated bank stamp on the back of this one particular money
order, even though that was an absolute requirement for the bank to pay
it.
Wasn't it?
Thank you.
in CE 788:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0
352a.htm
The back of the money order, shown in the bottom image, displays this
stamp:
Pay to the order of
The First National Bank of Chicago
50 91144
Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc
Before the eyes of the Commissioners in his WC testimony, William Waldman
stamped a piece of paper, labeled Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9, and
what he stamped on that paper looks identical in every way with the stamp
on the back of the money order:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0
365a.htm
But my understanding is that it was an absolute requirement for there to
be an additional stamp on the back of the money order, that of the bank
itself, and that this stamp had furthermore to be dated, to ensure that
more than one bank didn't pay the money order, or that no bank paid it
more than once.
I see nothing even remotely resembling such a stamp on the back of this
money order.
Additionally, I find this passage from Waldman's WC testimony to be
quite curious:
**********
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No.
788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order
of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named
A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No.
2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and
underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the
reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine
it, please.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of
the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50
space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods,
Inc."
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement
on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.
Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition
Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that
shown on the money order in question.
Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9
with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money order
was deposited by your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was
deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order
for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. You're reading from Waldman---
Mr. WALDMAN. From a Mr. A. Hidell of Post Office Box No. 2915, from
Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And you are now reading from Waldman Deposition Exhibit No.
7?
Mr. WALDMAN. As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7. Now, we
cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our
deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on
the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--as Waldman
Deposition Exhibit No. 10.
Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading
from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of
Chicago by your company; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
**********
At first Mr. Belin said that the stamp on the back of the money order
"appears to be an endorsement of a bank." Mr. Waldman then clarified
that this was a Klein's stamp, and as we can see, just as I said above,
he stamped another piece of paper, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9,
with an absolutely identical stamp, with Belin confirming that he had
just seen Waldman do this: "You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition
Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?" To which Waldman answered,
"Correct."
But although Belin initially described it as looking like the
endorsement stamp of a bank, and even though Waldman both said and
showed that it wasn't, we can plainly see that there was no followup as
to why there was *not* an endorsement of a bank, any bank, on the back
of the money order. In fact, the passage I quoted above contains the
only three occurrences of the word "bank" in the entire testimony.
For those of you who might be inclined to post a reply, especially if
you're an LN, I ask you in advance to please not tell me that Waldman
nevertheless produced a document showing that the money order was
deposited in the bank.
I obviously already knew that, as I quoted it above.
And please don't tell me that the writing on the front side of the money
order, and the writing on the order form for the rifle, were determined
by handwriting experts to be that of Oswald.
I already knew that too, thank you.
And please don't tell me that Carl Day lifted Oswald's palmprint from
the rifle that Klein's sent as a result of this money order.
I already knew that too, thank you.
And please don't remind me that the preponderance of evidence points to
Oswald as being guilty of the assassination.
I already knew that too, thank you.
And please don't remind me that CE 399 was ballistically matched to the
same rifle.
I already knew that too, thank you.
And please don't remind me that Connally and Kennedy were hit only by
shots fired from the rear.
I already knew that too, thank you.
You can all post whatever replies you please, of course, but I am simply
asking that you only address this one specific issue:
There was no dated bank stamp on the back of this one particular money
order, even though that was an absolute requirement for the bank to pay
it.
Wasn't it?
Thank you.
Saintly Oswald
Sep 21, 2012, 6:16:09 PM9/21/12
to
But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
claviger
Sep 21, 2012, 6:21:32 PM9/21/12
to
On Sep 20, 9:16 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The front and back of the money order for the Carcano rifle can be seen
> in CE 788:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
> The front and back of the money order for the Carcano rifle can be seen
> in CE 788:
>
> 352a.htm
>
> The back of the money order, shown in the bottom image, displays this
> stamp:
>
> Pay to the order of
> The First National Bank of Chicago
> 50 91144
> Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc
>
> Before the eyes of the Commissioners in his WC testimony, William Waldman
> stamped a piece of paper, labeled Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9, and
> what he stamped on that paper looks identical in every way with the stamp
> on the back of the money order:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol...
>
> The back of the money order, shown in the bottom image, displays this
> stamp:
>
> Pay to the order of
> The First National Bank of Chicago
> 50 91144
> Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc
>
> Before the eyes of the Commissioners in his WC testimony, William Waldman
> stamped a piece of paper, labeled Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9, and
> what he stamped on that paper looks identical in every way with the stamp
> on the back of the money order:
>
All transactions In a bank must be processed through the Proof
Department on a proof machine operated by a Proof Operator. Mistakes
happen when checks piggyback through the machine. The PO is supposed
to rerun if they realize there was a problem. Proof must be in
balance at the end of the day, but sometimes a mistake is hard to find
and the bank must look for it to surface in another part of the
process. Experienced proof operators are quite good but a temporary
replacement might not operate at the same level of expertise.
In this case the important issue is did the bank credit this item to
Klein's account? If so, the transaction was successfully completed
even though there is no stamp on the back. In a piggyback situation
one check will have a stamp but was not credited and the other check
was credited but not stamped. So it is possible the money order in
question did pay and was credited to Klein's without a stamp on the
back. If Klein's reconciled their bank accounts on a regular basis
they should know whether they were given credit on this item or not
within 30 days.
Ace Kefford
Sep 21, 2012, 6:26:53 PM9/21/12
to
1. If you have ever read a deposition or oral testimony, you would know
that there are almost always some puzzling and hard to understand
portions. It's the nature of the beast.
2. What is the basis of this "understanding" of an "absolute requirement"?
This is striking me as running along the well-worn track of "but surely"
arguments. "But surely" X would have done this, "but surely" X act had to
be performed, etc.
3. In addition, often even when a layperson takes the trouble to find the
"rules and regulations" that apply to an activity, if they do not actually
work or operate in that field, they often do not realize how practice
varies from the rules and regulations and requirements. As one example,
think of how a real estate closing (home purchase) works in practice and
what the technical laws and regulations of the state provide. Customary
ways of handling things develop and become accepted. And, of course,
there are also times when people (real life people) do not follow the
perfect procedures. Again, that's the real world.
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:16:28 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
that there are almost always some puzzling and hard to understand
portions. It's the nature of the beast.
2. What is the basis of this "understanding" of an "absolute requirement"?
This is striking me as running along the well-worn track of "but surely"
arguments. "But surely" X would have done this, "but surely" X act had to
be performed, etc.
3. In addition, often even when a layperson takes the trouble to find the
"rules and regulations" that apply to an activity, if they do not actually
work or operate in that field, they often do not realize how practice
varies from the rules and regulations and requirements. As one example,
think of how a real estate closing (home purchase) works in practice and
what the technical laws and regulations of the state provide. Customary
ways of handling things develop and become accepted. And, of course,
there are also times when people (real life people) do not follow the
perfect procedures. Again, that's the real world.
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:16:28 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
curtjester1
Sep 21, 2012, 8:45:43 PM9/21/12
to
On Sep 20, 10:16 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The front and back of the money order for the Carcano rifle can be seen
> in CE 788:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
> The front and back of the money order for the Carcano rifle can be seen
> in CE 788:
>
> 352a.htm
>
> The back of the money order, shown in the bottom image, displays this
> stamp:
>
> Pay to the order of
> The First National Bank of Chicago
> 50 91144
> Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc
>
> Before the eyes of the Commissioners in his WC testimony, William Waldman
> stamped a piece of paper, labeled Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9, and
> what he stamped on that paper looks identical in every way with the stamp
> on the back of the money order:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol...
>
> The back of the money order, shown in the bottom image, displays this
> stamp:
>
> Pay to the order of
> The First National Bank of Chicago
> 50 91144
> Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc
>
> Before the eyes of the Commissioners in his WC testimony, William Waldman
> stamped a piece of paper, labeled Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9, and
> what he stamped on that paper looks identical in every way with the stamp
> on the back of the money order:
>
CJ
David Von Pein
Sep 21, 2012, 8:48:57 PM9/21/12
to
From a discussion I had in 2011:
---------------------------
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17428&st=60&p=220846&#entry220846
LEE FARLEY SAID:
DVP's reality gets weirder and weirder. Now he's suggesting that there
has never been an occasion where somebody has ever had their signature
forged.
==================================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I never suggested any such thing. And why you say I am suggesting such
a silly thing is beyond me.
But in THIS (Kennedy) case, I'm saying that there was positively no
"forgery" of the Oswald documents, because of the testimony of the
experts in the field of identifying writing on questioned documents
(e.g., Alwyn Cole and Joseph McNally).
Naturally, though, expert testimony means zilch to people like Lee
Farley (esp. if it means having to admit the obvious--i.e., Farley's
favorite patsy actually ordered rifle C2766).
==================================================
LEE FARLEY SAID (SCREAMED):
WHERE ARE THE BANK STAMPS? WHERE ARE THE BANK STAMPS? WHERE?
==================================================
DVP REPLIED:
WHY DIDN'T THE PLOTTERS WHO FAKED THE MONEY ORDER THINK TO PUT THE
PROPER STAMPS ON IT?
WHY DIDN'T THE PLOTTERS WHO FAKED THE MONEY ORDER THINK TO PUT THE
PROPER STAMPS ON IT?
WHY WERE YOUR PATSY FRAMERS SO INCREDIBLY SLOPPY AND RETARDED? WHY?
==================================================
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
The whole business about the BANK stamps is actually a situation where
CTers are attempting to close the barn door after the horse has
already escaped.
I.E.,
Since we know Oswald definitely signed the 3/12/63 money order
(verified by multiple handwriting analysts for the WC and the
HSCA)....and since we know that that money order was definitely
RECEIVED and STAMPED FOR DEPOSIT by Klein's Sporting Goods (verified
by the stamp on the money order and by Klein's V.P. William Waldman,
who CTers must certainly think is either a huge liar or as dumb as a
stump about his own company's procedures and operations)....and since
we positively know that Klein's DID ship Rifle C2766 to Oswald/Hidell
on 3/20/63.....
It, therefore, doesn't make any difference what happened to the money
order after First National Bank in Chicago received it from Klein's.
Whether the bank stamped it or not is immaterial for the purpose of
determining whether Klein's handled that money order and whether
Klein's shipped the rifle to Oswald.
The main point is: We know Klein's received that money order in the
mail from Oswald. And as a result of receiving payment (in full) for
the ordered rifle, Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to LHO (as confirmed
for all time by Waldman Exhibit #7, which is a document that CTers
must ALSO believe is a total forgery).
Do you see the sheer outlandish NUMBER of hoops and contortions a CTer
must go through in order to take that rifle out of the hands of Lee
Harvey Oswald? I sure do, whether any CTer sees them or not.
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/WaldmanExhibitNo7.jpg
==================================================
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17428&st=60&p=220887&#entry220887
DVP THEN SAID:
With respect to the BANK STAMPS that conspiracy theorists insist
should be on the back of Oswald's money order (CE788), I'll offer up
the following thoughts and observations:
This question suddenly popped into my head today:
I wonder if my bank puts stamps or other markings on the back of
every one of my checks that I have deposited into my personal bank
account?
This question became very easy to answer (at least as far as my last
several deposits are concerned), since I can check my recent deposits
online and I can even see (and enlarge) the front and back of every
cancelled/processed check that has been a part of a recent deposit.
I found that only SOME of my cancelled checks have ANY bank markings
on them at all, while some others are COMPLETELY VOID of any and all
bank stamps.
This discovery suggests to me that it's quite possible that this same
"hit and miss" type of activity regarding the stamping of cancelled
checks (and money orders) could have been the reason we find no
official bank markings on the back of CE788.
For proof of this, I offer up the following two images of the front
and back of one of my own cancelled checks from November 2010. This
check was deposited (by mail) into my account at a major U.S. bank.
And please note the back side of the check, which doesn't have any
bank markings on it whatsoever (nor does the front). It merely has my
own signed endorsement (much like what we see in CE788, which has just
the Klein's rubber stamp marking and account number on it).
And, btw, in case anyone wants to accuse me of "faking" or "whiting
out" some of the markings on this cancelled check--I have not altered
this image in any way (other than to remove my account number under
the words "Deposit Only" on the back side of the check):
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s0N37CoAIl0/TXTXWwRx8NI/AAAAAAAARAY/H61zrJQJd4g/s1600/Check%2BSample%2BFront.png
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SK4DtQfuTUI/TXTXXPgyAsI/AAAAAAAARAg/Qs4UPZCmT3s/s1600/Check%2BSample%2BBack.png
It's my feeling, too, that in many cases where a large, bulk deposit
is made which includes many checks and money orders (which would
certainly have been the case with the $13,000+ deposit made by Klein's
Sporting Goods on March 13, 1963) that it's quite possible that only
the DEPOSIT TICKET for the entire bulk amount gets stamped by the bank
after it is received.
That last part about "bulk deposits" with a lot of checks and money
orders shouldn't be too hard to verify at some point in the future.
(Are there any bank employees posting at this forum?)
==================================================
LEE FARLEY SAID:
So, this is a "cancelled" cheque? Not a "processed" cheque? What do
the back of your "processed" cheques look like? I just find it strange
that you chose a "cancelled" cheque. At what point in the transaction
did you cancel it?
Or are we at cross-purposes as to what terminology you are using here?
Plus I think it best if we stick to the evidence from the time period,
Dave.
==================================================
DVP SAID:
Lee,
You misunderstood my terms. When I said "cancelled" check, I didn't
mean that I had literally CANCELLED it. I meant "processed". It's a
check from late last year that I deposited, and it was positively
PROCESSED and added to my personal account by a major U.S. bank via a
Bank By Mail deposit ticket.
And that's not the only example I have either. I can dig up at least
one or two more "processed" checks that went into my bank account that
don't have a single marking or stamp on them from the bank where it
was deposited.
But, as I also said, SOME of the checks DO have a stamp on them from
my bank, but not all of them.
It's possible (I suppose) that the check in question was stamped by my
bank only AFTER they had taken a digital image of it to put online for
me to see. I'll admit that's possible. But all I can go by is what the
digital image shows right now--and there's no bank stamp on it
anywhere.
==================================================
BERNICE MOORE SAID:
I did work in a bank back then, but here in Canada. .... I do not know
if the process was the same, in the states, 'but here every cheque,
money order, [or] whatever, in a deposit was stamped, as it was also
with the stamp of the bank where it was first presented, on the back.
fwtw.
==================================================
DVP SAID:
Thank you, Bernice. I appreciate the info on that.
==================================================
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Here is what Davey is ignoring and it's crucial:
The FBI never found the money order in that 13,000 [dollar] deposit.
So in addition to never being stamped, it was never found, period.
This is what I mean by taking things in isolation.
==================================================
DVP SAID:
Then what is this a picture of, Jimbo? A figment of my
imagination?.....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0352a.jpg
In short:
DiEugenio doesn't have the PROOF that Oswald's $21.45 money order
[CE788] is a fraud. In fact, the BEST EVIDENCE tells us just the
opposite -- OSWALD'S WRITING IS ON THE DAMN THING.
Naturally, this BEST EVIDENCE means zilch to conspiracy mongers like
DiEugenio. He WANTS Oswald to be innocent (for some reason), so he'll
jump through every impossible hoop and turn himself (and the evidence)
into an unidentifiable pretzel in order to achieve that silly goal.
Another great example of DiEugenio's Mister Salty pretzel twists comes
in the form of what he's done to totally misrepresent and mangle the
"paper bag" evidence.
There's way, way more evidence to tell us that Oswald WAS carrying
that paper bag on the morning of November 22 than there is to suggest
a reasonable doubt that he didn't. But DiEugenio WANTS that paper bag
to vanish off the planet--so, by God, he'll do and say anything to
make that happen. Even to the point of accusing TWO COMPLETELY
INNOCENT PEOPLE (Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old kid Buell Wesley
Frazier) of just MAKING UP the bag from whole cloth.
This, you see, is the fantasy world DiEugenio lives in every day
regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. And he relishes it.
He basks in it daily. Well, he can have it. I like EVIDENCE instead of
silly speculation about people like Buell and Linnie Mae.
==================================================
LEE FARLEY SAID:
Okay. I thought I may have mistook your terminology. As I added to my
previous post - I think it best if we stick to evidence and procedures
from 1963 here unless you can identify and list the procedures
followed in the 1960's and the difference and similarities of those
that exist in 2011. What with computers, logistics, timescales and
all...
Not quite apples and oranges but still...
Why not just give in? There are soooooo many problems with the order
and the delivery that it's getting a bit embarrassing for you to have
to defend it all.
==================================================
DVP SAID:
Because Oswald's handwriting is on the money order.
Why that extremely powerful fact isn't good enough for you is a
mystery. But it IS good enough for me (and probably for most other
reasonable people).
Plus--there's the FACT that Klein's positively had that money order IN
ITS POSSESSION in March 1963. We know that to be the case, because if
they didn't, they would have never processed the sales order for Rifle
C2766 to "A. Hidell", as seen in Waldman #7. (Oh, yes, Waldman 7 is
yet another fake document, isn't it, Lee?)
And Klein's STAMPED the money order with their own company stamp, for
Pete sake.
Why do you think EVERYTHING is a fake--even that Klein's stamp on the
back of the Oswald money order?
Nothing is EVER what it seems to be, is it Lee (and Jimbo)?
==================================================
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I mean when you have to flash forward a half century to 2010 and
online banking, I mean that takes the cake.
==================================================
DVP SAID:
Sorry I had to use 2010 stuff to illustrate my point, Jimbo (my simple
point being: not all PROCESSED checks that are deposited by bank
customers have bank markings on them), but all of my 1963 cancelled
checks are currently locked up at CIA HQ in Langley until 2039.
(Hoover ordered it; I didn't.)
==================================================
JOHN ARMSTRONG SAID [VIA A POST MADE BY JACK WHITE]:
The Money Order was not the only item that was void of bank s[t]amps.
Look at the Bank Deposit slip dated Feb 15 (not the tally of the
various deposits, but the Bank Deposit slip). It has no Bank Stamp.
Have you ever deposited money, check, MO, etc to a bank without the
bank teller stamping the date on the deposit slip??
==================================================
DVP SAID:
That is very likely because that was merely an "extra copy" of the
deposit ticket, and my guess would be that that extra copy never made
it to First National Bank at all. Or, if it did go the bank, perhaps
the bank only stamped the FIRST copy, and not the "extra copy". But if
it never went to the bank in the first place, of course it wouldn't
have any "First National Bank" markings on it.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0365b.jpg
==================================================
JOHN ARMSTRONG SAID:
Finally, after the microfilm was taken from Klein's at about 5:00 am
on 11/23/63, it was in FBI custody. Now, without showing the microfilm
to Klein's or getting any additional help from Klein's on Nov 23, how
did the FBI determine that payment to Klein's had been made with a
postal money order??
==================================================
DVP SAID:
First off, how does Armstrong know that Klein's provided no
"additional help" at all regarding the money order?
But even if Armstrong is correct here, it could have merely been an
educated, logical guess on the FBI's behalf. By that time on early
Saturday morning, the FBI likely knew a whole lot about Oswald's
financial state, and they likely knew he had no personal checking
account at all. And they certainly knew that the rifle was ordered via
MAIL ORDER. That left only CASH and a MONEY ORDER for the most likely
methods by which Oswald would have paid for the rifle. (And we know he
paid for it, because Klein's wouldn't have had a record of the SALE
[Waldman 7] if the rifle had not been paid in full by the purchaser.)
So, to the Post Office the FBI went.
Pretty simple tracking method, IMO, given what the FBI likely knew
about Oswald and his finances as of early on Nov. 23, 1963.
But I'd like to also know where Armstrong got the info about Klein's
providing the FBI no help at all re the money order on 11/23/63 AM.
Can that be documented somewhere in the record?
DVP
March 2011
claviger
Sep 22, 2012, 9:54:46 AM9/22/12
to
On Sep 21, 5:16 pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
Please explain the trajectory of this bullet from the front. Where
> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
was the sniper positioned to fire this shot?
claviger
Sep 22, 2012, 9:56:50 AM9/22/12
to
would deposit those checks everyday and wait till the money order
cleared before shipping the merchandise. If the money order bounces
the bank will deduct from the Klein's account with a notification to
the customer. If that never happened then the check was good and
Klein's has a completed transaction.
Ace Kefford
Sep 22, 2012, 11:55:20 AM9/22/12
to
David,
You hit the key point: why did the forgers go to all this trouble of faking the document trail but not include that stamp? That correct way to think about the real world (rather than just nit-picking to no point) eliminates most of these "discrepancies" for any sensible person.
One of my favorites is the "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I get it, the conspirators did all this stuff to frame Oswald, but left the wrong rifle there. Yesssirree.
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:16:28 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
You hit the key point: why did the forgers go to all this trouble of faking the document trail but not include that stamp? That correct way to think about the real world (rather than just nit-picking to no point) eliminates most of these "discrepancies" for any sensible person.
One of my favorites is the "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I get it, the conspirators did all this stuff to frame Oswald, but left the wrong rifle there. Yesssirree.
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:16:28 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
Research
Sep 22, 2012, 2:37:10 PM9/22/12
to
This is intersting. But the bigger question in my mind is, How did Oswald
pay for the pistol. We do have the Seaport shipping invoice. But we don't
have the method of payment. Or do we? Is it part of the record? Or even
where is this little jewel? Tanks
pay for the pistol. We do have the Seaport shipping invoice. But we don't
have the method of payment. Or do we? Is it part of the record? Or even
where is this little jewel? Tanks
David Von Pein
Sep 22, 2012, 7:34:40 PM9/22/12
to
>>> "How did Oswald pay for the pistol?" <<<
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html
Anthony Marsh
Sep 22, 2012, 9:43:33 PM9/22/12
to
timstter
Sep 22, 2012, 9:44:45 PM9/22/12
to
On Sep 21, 12:16 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The front and back of the money order for the Carcano rifle can be seen
> in CE 788:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
> The front and back of the money order for the Carcano rifle can be seen
> in CE 788:
>
> 352a.htm
>
> The back of the money order, shown in the bottom image, displays this
> stamp:
>
> Pay to the order of
> The First National Bank of Chicago
> 50 91144
> Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc
>
> Before the eyes of the Commissioners in his WC testimony, William Waldman
> stamped a piece of paper, labeled Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9, and
> what he stamped on that paper looks identical in every way with the stamp
> on the back of the money order:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol...
>
> The back of the money order, shown in the bottom image, displays this
> stamp:
>
> Pay to the order of
> The First National Bank of Chicago
> 50 91144
> Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc
>
> Before the eyes of the Commissioners in his WC testimony, William Waldman
> stamped a piece of paper, labeled Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9, and
> what he stamped on that paper looks identical in every way with the stamp
> on the back of the money order:
>
Can you repost? TIA.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
John Reagor King
Sep 23, 2012, 10:25:37 AM9/23/12
to
In article <5c4eb5df-d9c8-42aa...@googlegroups.com>,
were replying here?
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
Lol, what on EARTH does that have to do with my article to which you
> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
were replying here?
curtjester1
Sep 23, 2012, 10:25:54 AM9/23/12
to
curtjester1
Sep 23, 2012, 10:26:11 AM9/23/12
to
On Sep 22, 7:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "How did Oswald pay for the pistol?" <<<
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1b388c7ae5747d69
> >>> "How did Oswald pay for the pistol?" <<<
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html
curtjester1
Sep 23, 2012, 2:53:35 PM9/23/12
to
to a person who didn't have that name on their P.O. Box record? There
was no A. Hidell on record for Oswald's PO Box.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Sep 23, 2012, 6:24:23 PM9/23/12
to
theory. Used to be that the driver-did-it theorists were content with
blaming the head shot on Greer. Now they want to make it all shots,
including the back shots.
Give him a little more rope and he'll say that Greer shot the curb near
Tague.
John Reagor King
Sep 23, 2012, 6:59:01 PM9/23/12
to
In article
<0c49586d-ad0f-4b3e...@j2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
Matters links, and you've even got one in your .sig above. Are you
talking about the ones broken up into two lines? If so, you have to
copy the entire URL, both lines, then paste it into your browser address
window, making sure it's all on one line and no characters are missing.
Works for me every time unless for some reason the link went dead after
it was posted. I don't think reposting the links is going to make any
difference since they'll just be the same length again and will still be
broken up into two lines again, but here goes:
Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0
365a.htm
I just copied and pasted both of those into my browser just now before
typing this sentence and both times it took me right there to those
documents.
<0c49586d-ad0f-4b3e...@j2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't get the links you posted to work.
>
> Can you repost? TIA.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.
> htm
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Hmm, strange. Almost no one else here ever says that about the History
> I can't get the links you posted to work.
>
> Can you repost? TIA.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.
> htm
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Matters links, and you've even got one in your .sig above. Are you
talking about the ones broken up into two lines? If so, you have to
copy the entire URL, both lines, then paste it into your browser address
window, making sure it's all on one line and no characters are missing.
Works for me every time unless for some reason the link went dead after
it was posted. I don't think reposting the links is going to make any
difference since they'll just be the same length again and will still be
broken up into two lines again, but here goes:
Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0
365a.htm
I just copied and pasted both of those into my browser just now before
typing this sentence and both times it took me right there to those
documents.
John Reagor King
Sep 23, 2012, 7:28:26 PM9/23/12
to
In article <7731c39d-60f0-4a24...@googlegroups.com>,
Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David,
No, I'm John. You may have meant to reply to David, but your reply was
actually posted directly to my article, and below your text you quoted my
text, not David's. ;-)
> You hit the key point: why did the forgers go to all this trouble of faking
> the document trail but not include that stamp? That correct way to think
> about the real world (rather than just nit-picking to no point) eliminates
> most of these "discrepancies" for any sensible person.
You might have a good point there.
> One of my favorites is the "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I get it, the
> conspirators did all this stuff to frame Oswald, but left the wrong rifle
> there. Yesssirree.
I don't recall any "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I think you're
talking about the Carcano found near the opposite corner of the floor that
Seymour Weitzman first identified as a Mauser. He is the sole origin of
the myth that a Mauser was found in that building. The others present,
such as Boone and Mooney merely wrote Mauser in their original reports
because they heard Weitzman call it a Mauser, not because they
independently identified it as such from their own personal observations.
Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David,
No, I'm John. You may have meant to reply to David, but your reply was
actually posted directly to my article, and below your text you quoted my
text, not David's. ;-)
> You hit the key point: why did the forgers go to all this trouble of faking
> the document trail but not include that stamp? That correct way to think
> about the real world (rather than just nit-picking to no point) eliminates
> most of these "discrepancies" for any sensible person.
> One of my favorites is the "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I get it, the
> conspirators did all this stuff to frame Oswald, but left the wrong rifle
> there. Yesssirree.
talking about the Carcano found near the opposite corner of the floor that
Seymour Weitzman first identified as a Mauser. He is the sole origin of
the myth that a Mauser was found in that building. The others present,
such as Boone and Mooney merely wrote Mauser in their original reports
because they heard Weitzman call it a Mauser, not because they
independently identified it as such from their own personal observations.
John Reagor King
Sep 23, 2012, 9:15:26 PM9/23/12
to
In article <eca2a647-d588-4b5f...@googlegroups.com>,
mainly exploring just this one particular issue, as I explained at the
beginning.
> 2. What is the basis of this "understanding" of an "absolute requirement"?
> This is striking me as running along the well-worn track of "but surely"
> arguments. "But surely" X would have done this, "but surely" X act had to
> be performed, etc.
>
> 3. In addition, often even when a layperson takes the trouble to find the
> "rules and regulations" that apply to an activity, if they do not actually
> work or operate in that field, they often do not realize how practice
> varies from the rules and regulations and requirements. As one example,
> think of how a real estate closing (home purchase) works in practice and
> what the technical laws and regulations of the state provide. Customary
> ways of handling things develop and become accepted. And, of course,
> there are also times when people (real life people) do not follow the
> perfect procedures. Again, that's the real world.
Yes, I know that practices sometimes vary or are sometimes inconsistent.
But that's not very helpful in clarifying this one particular issue.
What I need to know is evidence that they *did* vary, or did *not* vary in
the specific issue here: banks stamping the back of money orders before
the transaction can proceed any further.
Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1. If you have ever read a deposition or oral testimony, you would know
> that there are almost always some puzzling and hard to understand
> portions. It's the nature of the beast.
I've read hundreds of them, thanks, and know this quite well. I was
> 1. If you have ever read a deposition or oral testimony, you would know
> that there are almost always some puzzling and hard to understand
> portions. It's the nature of the beast.
mainly exploring just this one particular issue, as I explained at the
beginning.
> 2. What is the basis of this "understanding" of an "absolute requirement"?
> This is striking me as running along the well-worn track of "but surely"
> arguments. "But surely" X would have done this, "but surely" X act had to
> be performed, etc.
>
> 3. In addition, often even when a layperson takes the trouble to find the
> "rules and regulations" that apply to an activity, if they do not actually
> work or operate in that field, they often do not realize how practice
> varies from the rules and regulations and requirements. As one example,
> think of how a real estate closing (home purchase) works in practice and
> what the technical laws and regulations of the state provide. Customary
> ways of handling things develop and become accepted. And, of course,
> there are also times when people (real life people) do not follow the
> perfect procedures. Again, that's the real world.
But that's not very helpful in clarifying this one particular issue.
What I need to know is evidence that they *did* vary, or did *not* vary in
the specific issue here: banks stamping the back of money orders before
the transaction can proceed any further.
John Reagor King
Sep 23, 2012, 9:15:53 PM9/23/12
to
In article
<6a567b52-64be-456e...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
<6a567b52-64be-456e...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JRK,
>
> All transactions In a bank must be processed through the Proof
> Department on a proof machine operated by a Proof Operator. Mistakes
> happen when checks piggyback through the machine. The PO is supposed
> to rerun if they realize there was a problem. Proof must be in
> balance at the end of the day, but sometimes a mistake is hard to find
> and the bank must look for it to surface in another part of the
> process. Experienced proof operators are quite good but a temporary
> replacement might not operate at the same level of expertise.
>
> In this case the important issue is did the bank credit this item to
> Klein's account? If so, the transaction was successfully completed
> even though there is no stamp on the back. In a piggyback situation
> one check will have a stamp but was not credited and the other check
> was credited but not stamped. So it is possible the money order in
> question did pay and was credited to Klein's without a stamp on the
> back. If Klein's reconciled their bank accounts on a regular basis
> they should know whether they were given credit on this item or not
> within 30 days.
Ok, thanks, this is a helpful response.
> JRK,
>
> All transactions In a bank must be processed through the Proof
> Department on a proof machine operated by a Proof Operator. Mistakes
> happen when checks piggyback through the machine. The PO is supposed
> to rerun if they realize there was a problem. Proof must be in
> balance at the end of the day, but sometimes a mistake is hard to find
> and the bank must look for it to surface in another part of the
> process. Experienced proof operators are quite good but a temporary
> replacement might not operate at the same level of expertise.
>
> In this case the important issue is did the bank credit this item to
> Klein's account? If so, the transaction was successfully completed
> even though there is no stamp on the back. In a piggyback situation
> one check will have a stamp but was not credited and the other check
> was credited but not stamped. So it is possible the money order in
> question did pay and was credited to Klein's without a stamp on the
> back. If Klein's reconciled their bank accounts on a regular basis
> they should know whether they were given credit on this item or not
> within 30 days.
Sandy McCroskey
Sep 24, 2012, 3:42:23 PM9/24/12
to
On 9/23/12 7:28 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <7731c39d-60f0-4a24...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> David,
>
> No, I'm John. You may have meant to reply to David, but your reply was
> actually posted directly to my article, and below your text you quoted my
> text, not David's. ;-)
>
>> You hit the key point: why did the forgers go to all this trouble of faking
>> the document trail but not include that stamp? That correct way to think
>> about the real world (rather than just nit-picking to no point) eliminates
>> most of these "discrepancies" for any sensible person.
>
> You might have a good point there.
>
>> One of my favorites is the "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I get it, the
>> conspirators did all this stuff to frame Oswald, but left the wrong rifle
>> there. Yesssirree.
>
> I don't recall any "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I think you're
> talking about the Carcano found near the opposite corner of the floor that
> Seymour Weitzman first identified as a Mauser. He is the sole origin of
> the myth that a Mauser was found in that building. The others present,
> such as Boone and Mooney merely wrote Mauser in their original reports
> because they heard Weitzman call it a Mauser, not because they
> independently identified it as such from their own personal observations.
>
But that was Ace's point. He was saying that it's ridiculous for a
> In article <7731c39d-60f0-4a24...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> David,
>
> No, I'm John. You may have meant to reply to David, but your reply was
> actually posted directly to my article, and below your text you quoted my
> text, not David's. ;-)
>
>> You hit the key point: why did the forgers go to all this trouble of faking
>> the document trail but not include that stamp? That correct way to think
>> about the real world (rather than just nit-picking to no point) eliminates
>> most of these "discrepancies" for any sensible person.
>
> You might have a good point there.
>
>> One of my favorites is the "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I get it, the
>> conspirators did all this stuff to frame Oswald, but left the wrong rifle
>> there. Yesssirree.
>
> I don't recall any "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I think you're
> talking about the Carcano found near the opposite corner of the floor that
> Seymour Weitzman first identified as a Mauser. He is the sole origin of
> the myth that a Mauser was found in that building. The others present,
> such as Boone and Mooney merely wrote Mauser in their original reports
> because they heard Weitzman call it a Mauser, not because they
> independently identified it as such from their own personal observations.
>
conspiracy theorist to insist that the gun found was actually a Mauser,
as some of them actually still do, based on the early erroneous report,
because it means that the brilliant folks who framed Oswald and have
gotten away till this day couldn't even keep straight what kind of gun
Oswald owned.
I, just as Ace does, fail to see the relevance of the absence of the
stamp on the money order. What nefarious doings are suspected here? If a
forgery, the genius conspirators were again less than thorough in the
execution of their scheme.
/sm
John Reagor King
Sep 24, 2012, 7:18:41 PM9/24/12
to
In article <505f4e2b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Yes, and have you seen his new video that he posted five days ago?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1uoQbluW1w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1uoQbluW1w
Anthony Marsh
Sep 24, 2012, 7:19:50 PM9/24/12
to
And some people keep posting with Google which can compact links with
ellipses.
John Reagor King
Sep 24, 2012, 11:00:30 PM9/24/12
to
In article <5060...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
with Ace overall, but to start with merely to correct him that not even
Weitzman claimed that the rifle was "found at Oswald's window." The rest
of the paragraph was meant merely to re-articulate something that I've
said in this newsgroup many times, that this is a myth originating with
one single person, Weitzman. It was not otherwise meant to suggest that I
disagreed with Ace about anything except the "in Oswald's window"
business.
And just for the record, the Mauser Myth is one of my favorites too. ;-)
> I, just as Ace does, fail to see the relevance of the absence of the
> stamp on the money order.
My purpose in starting the thread was to find out whether there really was
relevance or not, since prior to that I had only read articles in which it
was stated that a bank stamp on the back of the money order was an
absolute requirement for the transaction to proceed any further.
> What nefarious doings are suspected here? If a
> forgery, the genius conspirators were again less than thorough in the
> execution of their scheme.
Well, and I think an even better point to bring up is this: was any of
this at all unusual for firearms ordered from Klein's in, say, 1962-1963?
There have been many conspiracy-oriented articles to point out other
supposed "problems" with the ordering of the rifle, such as the lack of
documentation that Carton 3376, the one that contained C2766, the Oswald
rifle, was ever shipped by Crescent Firearms to Klein's. And Oswald
supposedly ordered a 36" rifle but received a 40" rifle. There are also
some supposed problems with the Klein's records of deposits which included
the Oswald money order.
But I don't know of anyone ever doing an investigation of the majority of
*other* orders for firearms sent in by many *other* people to Klein's
during the months preceding, including, and following the Oswald order to
find out if these inconsistencies were unique to his order only, or had
occurred in many other orders and shipments to many other people who had
ordered firearms from Klein's as well. Also, much has been made about how
Part 3 of Oswald's P.O. Box application had gone missing, even though
supposedly the post office was required to keep it for two years after the
box was closed. But not only has David von Pein addressed this on his
blog, but I do not know of any investigation ever done to ascertain
whether or not Oswald's Part 3 was the only one missing from that post
office, or whether it was only one of many missing from that post office
less than two years after closure.
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 9/23/12 7:28 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <7731c39d-60f0-4a24...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> One of my favorites is the "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I get it,
> >> the
> >> conspirators did all this stuff to frame Oswald, but left the wrong rifle
> >> there. Yesssirree.
> >
> > I don't recall any "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I think you're
> > talking about the Carcano found near the opposite corner of the floor that
> > Seymour Weitzman first identified as a Mauser. He is the sole origin of
> > the myth that a Mauser was found in that building. The others present,
> > such as Boone and Mooney merely wrote Mauser in their original reports
> > because they heard Weitzman call it a Mauser, not because they
> > independently identified it as such from their own personal observations.
> >
>
> But that was Ace's point. He was saying that it's ridiculous for a
> conspiracy theorist to insist that the gun found was actually a Mauser,
> as some of them actually still do, based on the early erroneous report,
> because it means that the brilliant folks who framed Oswald and have
> gotten away till this day couldn't even keep straight what kind of gun
> Oswald owned.
Psst, Sandy, I mainly posted that paragraph, not because I was disagreeing
> On 9/23/12 7:28 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <7731c39d-60f0-4a24...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> One of my favorites is the "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I get it,
> >> the
> >> conspirators did all this stuff to frame Oswald, but left the wrong rifle
> >> there. Yesssirree.
> >
> > I don't recall any "Mauser" found at Oswald's window. I think you're
> > talking about the Carcano found near the opposite corner of the floor that
> > Seymour Weitzman first identified as a Mauser. He is the sole origin of
> > the myth that a Mauser was found in that building. The others present,
> > such as Boone and Mooney merely wrote Mauser in their original reports
> > because they heard Weitzman call it a Mauser, not because they
> > independently identified it as such from their own personal observations.
> >
>
> But that was Ace's point. He was saying that it's ridiculous for a
> conspiracy theorist to insist that the gun found was actually a Mauser,
> as some of them actually still do, based on the early erroneous report,
> because it means that the brilliant folks who framed Oswald and have
> gotten away till this day couldn't even keep straight what kind of gun
> Oswald owned.
with Ace overall, but to start with merely to correct him that not even
Weitzman claimed that the rifle was "found at Oswald's window." The rest
of the paragraph was meant merely to re-articulate something that I've
said in this newsgroup many times, that this is a myth originating with
one single person, Weitzman. It was not otherwise meant to suggest that I
disagreed with Ace about anything except the "in Oswald's window"
business.
And just for the record, the Mauser Myth is one of my favorites too. ;-)
> I, just as Ace does, fail to see the relevance of the absence of the
> stamp on the money order.
relevance or not, since prior to that I had only read articles in which it
was stated that a bank stamp on the back of the money order was an
absolute requirement for the transaction to proceed any further.
> What nefarious doings are suspected here? If a
> forgery, the genius conspirators were again less than thorough in the
> execution of their scheme.
this at all unusual for firearms ordered from Klein's in, say, 1962-1963?
There have been many conspiracy-oriented articles to point out other
supposed "problems" with the ordering of the rifle, such as the lack of
documentation that Carton 3376, the one that contained C2766, the Oswald
rifle, was ever shipped by Crescent Firearms to Klein's. And Oswald
supposedly ordered a 36" rifle but received a 40" rifle. There are also
some supposed problems with the Klein's records of deposits which included
the Oswald money order.
But I don't know of anyone ever doing an investigation of the majority of
*other* orders for firearms sent in by many *other* people to Klein's
during the months preceding, including, and following the Oswald order to
find out if these inconsistencies were unique to his order only, or had
occurred in many other orders and shipments to many other people who had
ordered firearms from Klein's as well. Also, much has been made about how
Part 3 of Oswald's P.O. Box application had gone missing, even though
supposedly the post office was required to keep it for two years after the
box was closed. But not only has David von Pein addressed this on his
blog, but I do not know of any investigation ever done to ascertain
whether or not Oswald's Part 3 was the only one missing from that post
office, or whether it was only one of many missing from that post office
less than two years after closure.
curtjester1
Sep 24, 2012, 11:02:18 PM9/24/12
to
On Sep 23, 9:15 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <6a567b52-64be-456e-817c-ecd8c7ddc...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
So, I guess some opinion will let this case rest then. How easy for it is
to latch onto something when it's 'convenient', eh? And this is the
poster who stated that he had praises for Gil Jesus who really made 'best
things he's seen so far', a mere asterisk in his research now. I'll give
Gil a plug, just to keep this going for people of research that like finer
details of things.
http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm
CJ
> In article
> <6a567b52-64be-456e-817c-ecd8c7ddc...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
to latch onto something when it's 'convenient', eh? And this is the
poster who stated that he had praises for Gil Jesus who really made 'best
things he's seen so far', a mere asterisk in his research now. I'll give
Gil a plug, just to keep this going for people of research that like finer
details of things.
http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Sep 24, 2012, 11:11:26 PM9/24/12
to
lose it. Unfortunately the English language is not rich enough to
describe his mentality.
Now that I've informed him of his oversight, he needs to make a new
video claiming that Greer also shot the curb near Tague because he had a
personal grudge against it.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 24, 2012, 11:46:15 PM9/24/12
to
John Reagor King
Sep 25, 2012, 6:06:07 PM9/25/12
to
In article <5061143d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Sorry.
> Unfortunately the English language is not rich enough to
> describe his mentality.
Or at least we won't be allowed to use that language here. ;-)
> Now that I've informed him of his oversight, he needs to make a new
> video claiming that Greer also shot the curb near Tague because he had a
> personal grudge against it.
Agreed.
> Unfortunately the English language is not rich enough to
> describe his mentality.
> Now that I've informed him of his oversight, he needs to make a new
> video claiming that Greer also shot the curb near Tague because he had a
> personal grudge against it.
Saintly Oswald
Sep 25, 2012, 7:49:02 PM9/25/12
to
Cabluck which shows motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood up on the bridge
looking at a man who has a gun leaned up against the concrete railing in
front of him, apparently talking on a walkie-talkie. He is dressed as a
Dallas police detective. He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VtueTh36k&feature=plcp
Anthony Marsh
Sep 26, 2012, 5:04:26 PM9/26/12
to
On 9/25/2012 7:49 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 5:16 pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
>>
>>> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
>>
>>> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
>>
>>> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please explain the trajectory of this bullet from the front. Where
>>
>> was the sniper positioned to fire this shot?
>
> The sniper was standing on the underpass bridge. There is a photo by
> Cabluck which shows motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood up on the bridge
Are you sure that is Haygood you are talking about? Would it make any
> On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 5:16 pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
>>
>>> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
>>
>>> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
>>
>>> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please explain the trajectory of this bullet from the front. Where
>>
>> was the sniper positioned to fire this shot?
>
> The sniper was standing on the underpass bridge. There is a photo by
> Cabluck which shows motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood up on the bridge
difference to you if it was Hargis? The only cycle cop up there wearing
black gloves. You don't even know how many seconds after the shooting
Caluck took that photo.
> looking at a man who has a gun leaned up against the concrete railing in
> front of him, apparently talking on a walkie-talkie. He is dressed as a
> Dallas police detective. He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
> frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
> throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VtueTh36k&feature=plcp
>
>
fatol...@gmail.com
Sep 26, 2012, 10:11:26 PM9/26/12
to
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:04:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/25/2012 7:49 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 21, 5:16 pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
>
> >>
>
> >>> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
>
> >>
>
> >>> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
>
> >>
>
> >>> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Please explain the trajectory of this bullet from the front. Where
>
> >>
>
> >> was the sniper positioned to fire this shot?
>
> >
>
> > The sniper was standing on the underpass bridge. There is a photo by
>
> > Cabluck which shows motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood up on the bridge
>
>
>
> Are you sure that is Haygood you are talking about? Would it make any
>
> difference to you if it was Hargis? The only cycle cop up there wearing
>
> black gloves.
At first I thought it was Hargis, and I was disappointed because Haygood
> On 9/25/2012 7:49 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 21, 5:16 pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
>
> >>
>
> >>> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
>
> >>
>
> >>> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
>
> >>
>
> >>> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Please explain the trajectory of this bullet from the front. Where
>
> >>
>
> >> was the sniper positioned to fire this shot?
>
> >
>
> > The sniper was standing on the underpass bridge. There is a photo by
>
> > Cabluck which shows motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood up on the bridge
>
>
>
> Are you sure that is Haygood you are talking about? Would it make any
>
> difference to you if it was Hargis? The only cycle cop up there wearing
>
> black gloves.
was further back in the motorcade, and that meant it would have taken him
longer to get there. But, first, it is identified as Haygood everywhere.
Second, the DPD channel 2 radio transcript makes it clear that Haygood is
the one who got up on the bridge. And third, Hargis's testimony, although
I did at first misunderstand it, does not say he ran up to the bridge. It
says he thought the shots came from there, but that he ran over to
concrete structure, I think he called it a "brick wall," where Dogman was.
He didn't mention Dogman, I just said that for reference. Apparently, he
stood up on that and took a look.
You don't even know how many seconds after the shooting
> Caluck took that photo.
and reporting before 12:35.
>
>
>
> > looking at a man who has a gun leaned up against the concrete railing in
>
> > front of him, apparently talking on a walkie-talkie. He is dressed as a
>
> > Dallas police detective. He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
>
> > frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
>
> > throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Physically impossible. There was no hole in the windshield.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J4MZUd2l0s&feature=plcp
Anthony Marsh
Sep 27, 2012, 9:55:33 PM9/27/12
to
middle of the left lane of Elm Street then ran across the street, then
ran back to his cycle and drove around to the other side of the
underpass and climbed up to overpass.
> You don't even know how many seconds after the shooting
>> Caluck took that photo.
>
> I don't. I had to estimate. But, the radio transcript has him calling in
> and reporting before 12:35.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> looking at a man who has a gun leaned up against the concrete railing in
>>
>>> front of him, apparently talking on a walkie-talkie. He is dressed as a
>>
>>> Dallas police detective. He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
>>
>>> frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
>>
>>> throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Physically impossible. There was no hole in the windshield.
>>
>
> I believe there was a hole in the windshield, as I demonstrate in this video.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J4MZUd2l0s&feature=plcp
>
>
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/windshield.htm
John Reagor King
Sep 27, 2012, 11:19:27 PM9/27/12
to
In article <a0b2fd0d-b889-4434...@googlegroups.com>,
and I don't see how on earth anyone can tell with anything even remotely
close to certainty that that is definitely a gun in that extremely blurry
and grainy image. It *might* be the butt of a rifle, but there are all
sorts of other things it might be too, such as one of the tools used by
railroad workers. That would also have to be an awfully long rifle. The
thing seems to be sticking up above the top of the concrete railing, and
one can plainly see that the top of the railing is above the man's waist.
Unless that man is very short, it looks to me like the rifle would have to
be an absolute minimum of four feet long to stick up that far, and
possibly longer.
How do you know that isn't a shovel instead?
And I certainly can't tell that that other thing is a walkie-talkie.
Looks to me like that's just his left arm and elbow.
> He is dressed as a
> Dallas police detective.
How on earth can you tell that? It's way too blurry and grainy.
> He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
> frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
> throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VtueTh36k&feature=plcp
What your video doesn't show is where JFK violently jerks starting at Z226
and his arms then quickly go up into the splayed position. What on earth
is he reacting to there if not the wound being inflicted in his throat?
You're suggesting that maybe he was not wounded in the throat until after
the head shot? And JFK's chest? What evidence is there of any bullet
wound in his chest? And how on earth are you getting the bullet from
Connally's wrist to JFK, when this is after Nellie has already pulled her
husband down in the seat? Wouldn't Connally's wrist be down much too low
by then for that to work? Your bullet seems much more "magic" than the
single bullet. And you do not show any "graphic" in the entire video
which shows how the bullet goes from the windshield to Connally's wrist to
JFK.
Also at 0:48 you say that Kellerman ducks. I would think he would as he
has just looked back a few seconds earlier, seen that the Governor is
wounded, and then hears another shot at Z313. You are showing him ducking
only half a second after hearing that shot.
Then, starting at 1:10 you begin showing a photo, and you have a circle
around what appears to be smoke or steam. Haven't some researchers
claimed there were steam pipes there? And in the next photo, the one you
claim shows the man with a gun and a walkie-talkie, you also show the
officer climbing up on the bridge on the right. Is that possibly the same
officer who said he grabbed a steam pipe and it burned his hand? I do not
know.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 5:16?pm, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
> > > the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
> > > area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
> > > quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
> >
> > Please explain the trajectory of this bullet from the front. Where
> > was the sniper positioned to fire this shot?
>
> The sniper was standing on the underpass bridge. There is a photo by
> Cabluck which shows motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood up on the bridge
> looking at a man who has a gun leaned up against the concrete railing in
> front of him, apparently talking on a walkie-talkie.
You begin to focus in on that part of the photo at c.1:38 in your video,
> >
> > > But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
> > > the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
> > > area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
> > > quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
> >
> > Please explain the trajectory of this bullet from the front. Where
> > was the sniper positioned to fire this shot?
>
> The sniper was standing on the underpass bridge. There is a photo by
> Cabluck which shows motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood up on the bridge
> looking at a man who has a gun leaned up against the concrete railing in
> front of him, apparently talking on a walkie-talkie.
and I don't see how on earth anyone can tell with anything even remotely
close to certainty that that is definitely a gun in that extremely blurry
and grainy image. It *might* be the butt of a rifle, but there are all
sorts of other things it might be too, such as one of the tools used by
railroad workers. That would also have to be an awfully long rifle. The
thing seems to be sticking up above the top of the concrete railing, and
one can plainly see that the top of the railing is above the man's waist.
Unless that man is very short, it looks to me like the rifle would have to
be an absolute minimum of four feet long to stick up that far, and
possibly longer.
How do you know that isn't a shovel instead?
And I certainly can't tell that that other thing is a walkie-talkie.
Looks to me like that's just his left arm and elbow.
> He is dressed as a
> Dallas police detective.
> He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
> frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
> throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VtueTh36k&feature=plcp
and his arms then quickly go up into the splayed position. What on earth
is he reacting to there if not the wound being inflicted in his throat?
You're suggesting that maybe he was not wounded in the throat until after
the head shot? And JFK's chest? What evidence is there of any bullet
wound in his chest? And how on earth are you getting the bullet from
Connally's wrist to JFK, when this is after Nellie has already pulled her
husband down in the seat? Wouldn't Connally's wrist be down much too low
by then for that to work? Your bullet seems much more "magic" than the
single bullet. And you do not show any "graphic" in the entire video
which shows how the bullet goes from the windshield to Connally's wrist to
JFK.
Also at 0:48 you say that Kellerman ducks. I would think he would as he
has just looked back a few seconds earlier, seen that the Governor is
wounded, and then hears another shot at Z313. You are showing him ducking
only half a second after hearing that shot.
Then, starting at 1:10 you begin showing a photo, and you have a circle
around what appears to be smoke or steam. Haven't some researchers
claimed there were steam pipes there? And in the next photo, the one you
claim shows the man with a gun and a walkie-talkie, you also show the
officer climbing up on the bridge on the right. Is that possibly the same
officer who said he grabbed a steam pipe and it burned his hand? I do not
know.
fatol...@gmail.com
Sep 28, 2012, 1:45:43 PM9/28/12
to
Show me a shovel or any other railroad tool that is shaped like a shoulder stock. I'd like to see it. Your point about the length, however, is challenging. It does look like a very long rifle. I think a better point of reference than the man's height is the concrete railing's. I don't know what that is, but by comparing to the adjacent stockade fence, which I cannot measure, but I see is reported to be 5 feet in some sources. It looks to me that the top of the concrete rail on that section would be about 1.5 feet lower, which is 3.5 feet. And the stock looks to be 6 to 9 inches above that, making my rifle 4 feet or a little more, as you say. Another point, which you didn't mention, is that it doesn't look as if the rifle would stay up leaned that way. This all has perplexed me over the last few minutes, but I may have found my savior. It probably can't be seen in my video, but if you zoom in on a good copy of the photo itself, you can see a taught line just between the man and the gun just above the railing. I think that is the rifle sling, and that he is holding onto it with his right hand. This explains why the gun doesn't fall over, at least. And, if the barrel is not resting on the ground, but on the bottom edge of the railing, that would add about 6 to 9 inches to the apparent length of the gun, putting it right into your average gun length range.
> Looks to me like that's just his left arm and elbow.
>
>
>
> > He is dressed as a
>
> > Dallas police detective.
>
>
>
> How on earth can you tell that? It's way too blurry and grainy.
>
>
>
> > He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
>
> > frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
>
> > throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
>
> >
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VtueTh36k&feature=plcp
>
>
>
> What your video doesn't show is where JFK violently jerks starting at Z226
>
> and his arms then quickly go up into the splayed position. What on earth
>
> is he reacting to there if not the wound being inflicted in his throat?
>
> You're suggesting that maybe he was not wounded in the throat until after
>
> the head shot?
And JFK's chest? What evidence is there of any bullet
>
> wound in his chest?
And how on earth are you getting the bullet from
>
> Connally's wrist to JFK, when this is after Nellie has already pulled her
>
> husband down in the seat? Wouldn't Connally's wrist be down much too low
>
> by then for that to work? Your bullet seems much more "magic" than the
>
> single bullet. And you do not show any "graphic" in the entire video
>
> which shows how the bullet goes from the windshield to Connally's wrist to
>
> JFK.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 28, 2012, 9:15:57 PM9/28/12
to
First you say everybody says JFK grabs "for" his throat. Then you say
they say he grabbed his throat.
You are so close with your idea that it was a traumatic reaction, but I
believe it was a reflex reaction. Have you ever had a doctor test your
reflexes by hitting your nerve? I think the bullet excited the C8 nerve
and that caused the arms to fly up and hands to ball into fists in front
of his throat as a defensive reaction.
John Reagor King
Sep 28, 2012, 9:16:32 PM9/28/12
to
In article <ae41f6c4-c520-48fe...@googlegroups.com>,
That image is so incredibly blurry and grainy that I can't really tell
*what* that thing is shaped like, and I don't see how you can either.
Wouldn't you have to first establish, at least somewhat conclusively,
that it *is* shaped like a stock before comparing it to another object?
> I'd like to see it. Your point about the length, however, is
> challenging. It does look like a very long rifle.
It looks like a very long, or tall, something, if it is indeed the top
part of something leaning against the concrete railing. However, since
I do not see any lower part of the object through the gap in the railing
to the right, there is no way to know for certain whether or not that is
the top part of an object that is leaning against the railing, or if it
is just an object sitting on top of the railing. Whatever the case may
be, there is no way to come anywhere close to conclusively proving that
that is a rifle, especially with the additional severe problem of the
image being so incredibly unclear, and even worse, in black and white,
so we miss the color contrast that might tell us whether or not the
object is made of wood, since if it was the stock of a rifle it would
probably be brown. But without color, there is no way to tell what
color that thing is other than fairly dark.
> I think a better point of
> reference than the man's height is the concrete railing's. I don't know what
> that is, but by comparing to the adjacent stockade fence, which I cannot
> measure, but I see is reported to be 5 feet in some sources.
And keep in mind also that the photo is being shot from a lower
elevation than the bridge, so this would require the object to be even
longer or taller for the top of the object to still be seen above the
railing than it would be if the photo was shot from the same level as
the top of the railing. I rather doubt that railing is as high as five
feet though, because even photographed from lower it appears to come up
only to about mid-chest on the man, so unless he is well over six feet
tall, with the top of the railing obviously being more than a foot below
the top of his head, I'd guesstimate about four feet for the railing,
but I could be way off on that, I suppose.
> It looks to me
> that the top of the concrete rail on that section would be about 1.5 feet
> lower, which is 3.5 feet. And the stock looks to be 6 to 9 inches above that,
> making my rifle 4 feet or a little more, as you say. Another point, which you
> didn't mention, is that it doesn't look as if the rifle would stay up leaned
> that way.
Yes, I see that. The object you're calling the stock is directly over
the open space in the railing, but no lower part of that object, if it
is indeed something leaning against the railing, can be seen, as I said
above. Looks to me like if that really was a rifle, or a shovel, or
whatever, it would fall over to the right and not stay there. That's
more evidence that what we see above the railing might be almost the
entire object, and that it is simply something sitting on top of the
railing that is only a few inches tall.
> This all has perplexed me over the last few minutes, but I may have
> found my savior. It probably can't be seen in my video, but if you zoom in on
> a good copy of the photo itself, you can see a taught line just between the
> man and the gun just above the railing. I think that is the rifle sling, and
> that he is holding onto it with his right hand.
This is perhaps the clearest scan of the Cabluck photo that I have yet
seen:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/cabluck%20jfk/quaneeri2/Cabluck_crop.j
pg
I honestly can't even in that make out anything that looks like a sling.
His right hand isn't even in view, so there's no way to tell if he's
holding anything or not.
> This explains why the gun
> doesn't fall over, at least. And, if the barrel is not resting on the ground,
> but on the bottom edge of the railing, that would add about 6 to 9 inches to
> the apparent length of the gun, putting it right into your average gun length
> range.
Could be, but it still isn't clear enough to come even remotely close to
conclusively identifying that as a gun.
> > > He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
> > > frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
> > > throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VtueTh36k&feature=plcp
> >
> > What your video doesn't show is where JFK violently jerks starting at Z226
> > and his arms then quickly go up into the splayed position. What on earth
> > is he reacting to there if not the wound being inflicted in his throat?
> > You're suggesting that maybe he was not wounded in the throat until after
> > the head shot?
>
> Everybody says JFK grabs for his throat, but that's not what it looks like to
> me.
"Everybody"? Please read my text more carefully. I said nothing,
nothing about him grabbing his throat. And you may not know it, but for
about nine years now I have been saying that he *didn't* grab his
throat. It is quite obvious that what he did instead was to bring his
right fist up and press it against his mouth, and the left fist up to
press that against the right fist, as if he is coughing into his right
fist.
> This is one that, I think, Gerald Posner got right.
Oh no, I don't at all agree with Posner on this. He has proposed the
Thorburn Position, and if you look up the origin of that term, you'll
find that what Thorburn himself originally described does not match
JFK's actions here very well.
> He's not grabbing his
> throat.
And I never said he did, so why on earth this was addressed to me I
can't imagine. Or maybe you were just addressing that claim in general.
But anyway, what he actually did was press his fists against his mouth.
> His arms are up do to the shot traumatizing his spine. This is an
> involuntary muscular reaction.
I don't agree.
> He never grabs at his throat.
He indeed did not. He put his fists up to his mouth.
So now, again, we come back to your claim that he was not shot in the
throat until much later. Yet even you seem to be agreeing that he was
clearly reacting to being shot there.
> > And JFK's chest? What evidence is there of any bullet
> > wound in his chest?
>
> If you look at frame 322, you will see what seems to be a very odd
> representation of a frontal hit. A mass of stuff seems to be shooting up and
> forward.
From his *chest*? If that's what you mean, I see nothing even remotely
like that at all.
> Here we must remember where the bullet has been, through the
> windshield and Connally's wrist which it shattered.
I have watched your video about where you claim the hole in the
windshield to have been, far to the left (in the orientation of the
limo, or to the right in the orientation of the camera) of the obvious
indentation in the windshield that is quite clearly seen. I'm sorry,
but what you call a hole seems to me to be a reflection of light off
something well behind the windshield, because it is not nearly as well
in focus as the windshield itself, or the frame on the top and side of
the windshield. Yet the indentation in the windshield farther over to
the right of the limo (or the left of the image) is in good focus. The
camera would be about the same distance from the part of the windshield
where your "hole" is, yet I see no fracturing of glass that is even
remotely as clear as the indentation, and with this being a hole all the
way through the glass, rather than just an indentation, one would expect
to see even more starring and cracking around it, and to see it in
roughly equal focus as those which radiate from the indentation.
> I think that the bullet
> itself has shattered and lost much velocity and that what we are seeing here
> is the shattered bullet fragments actually bouncing off JFK.
I don't know how on earth one could make out objects that small
traveling that fast in the Zapruder film. It's hard enough to see the
much larger object which might be a piece of skull shooting forward in
the frames immediately following Z313, hitting the back of the jump
seat, and then falling out of view toward the floorboard, and that
wouldn't be traveling nearly as fast as bullet fragments:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/anim.htm
> Whether this
> shot actually penetrated his throat is hard to say. It certainly should have
> left some evidence on his chest, and it wouldn't surprise me if it did and we
> never heard about it.
We've got autopsy photos taken from above him showing the tracheotomy
very clearly, but no wounding at all below that.
> I think, also, that it is possible that another shot
> hit from another direction in the exposure of this frame.
But where is the evidence of it?
> > And how on earth are you getting the bullet from
> > Connally's wrist to JFK, when this is after Nellie has already pulled her
> > husband down in the seat? Wouldn't Connally's wrist be down much too low
> > by then for that to work? Your bullet seems much more "magic" than the
> > single bullet. And you do not show any "graphic" in the entire video
> > which shows how the bullet goes from the windshield to Connally's wrist to
> > JFK.
>
> The graphic is frame 322. But, you do have to look at it.
I did look at it, and nowhere is it explained how the bullet, or
fragment, would go downward from the windshield to hit Connally's wrist
and then go back upward to hit JFK.
*what* that thing is shaped like, and I don't see how you can either.
Wouldn't you have to first establish, at least somewhat conclusively,
that it *is* shaped like a stock before comparing it to another object?
> I'd like to see it. Your point about the length, however, is
> challenging. It does look like a very long rifle.
part of something leaning against the concrete railing. However, since
I do not see any lower part of the object through the gap in the railing
to the right, there is no way to know for certain whether or not that is
the top part of an object that is leaning against the railing, or if it
is just an object sitting on top of the railing. Whatever the case may
be, there is no way to come anywhere close to conclusively proving that
that is a rifle, especially with the additional severe problem of the
image being so incredibly unclear, and even worse, in black and white,
so we miss the color contrast that might tell us whether or not the
object is made of wood, since if it was the stock of a rifle it would
probably be brown. But without color, there is no way to tell what
color that thing is other than fairly dark.
> I think a better point of
> reference than the man's height is the concrete railing's. I don't know what
> that is, but by comparing to the adjacent stockade fence, which I cannot
> measure, but I see is reported to be 5 feet in some sources.
elevation than the bridge, so this would require the object to be even
longer or taller for the top of the object to still be seen above the
railing than it would be if the photo was shot from the same level as
the top of the railing. I rather doubt that railing is as high as five
feet though, because even photographed from lower it appears to come up
only to about mid-chest on the man, so unless he is well over six feet
tall, with the top of the railing obviously being more than a foot below
the top of his head, I'd guesstimate about four feet for the railing,
but I could be way off on that, I suppose.
> It looks to me
> that the top of the concrete rail on that section would be about 1.5 feet
> lower, which is 3.5 feet. And the stock looks to be 6 to 9 inches above that,
> making my rifle 4 feet or a little more, as you say. Another point, which you
> didn't mention, is that it doesn't look as if the rifle would stay up leaned
> that way.
the open space in the railing, but no lower part of that object, if it
is indeed something leaning against the railing, can be seen, as I said
above. Looks to me like if that really was a rifle, or a shovel, or
whatever, it would fall over to the right and not stay there. That's
more evidence that what we see above the railing might be almost the
entire object, and that it is simply something sitting on top of the
railing that is only a few inches tall.
> This all has perplexed me over the last few minutes, but I may have
> found my savior. It probably can't be seen in my video, but if you zoom in on
> a good copy of the photo itself, you can see a taught line just between the
> man and the gun just above the railing. I think that is the rifle sling, and
> that he is holding onto it with his right hand.
seen:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/cabluck%20jfk/quaneeri2/Cabluck_crop.j
pg
I honestly can't even in that make out anything that looks like a sling.
His right hand isn't even in view, so there's no way to tell if he's
holding anything or not.
> This explains why the gun
> doesn't fall over, at least. And, if the barrel is not resting on the ground,
> but on the bottom edge of the railing, that would add about 6 to 9 inches to
> the apparent length of the gun, putting it right into your average gun length
> range.
conclusively identifying that as a gun.
> > > He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
> > > frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
> > > throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VtueTh36k&feature=plcp
> >
> > What your video doesn't show is where JFK violently jerks starting at Z226
> > and his arms then quickly go up into the splayed position. What on earth
> > is he reacting to there if not the wound being inflicted in his throat?
> > You're suggesting that maybe he was not wounded in the throat until after
> > the head shot?
>
> Everybody says JFK grabs for his throat, but that's not what it looks like to
> me.
nothing about him grabbing his throat. And you may not know it, but for
about nine years now I have been saying that he *didn't* grab his
throat. It is quite obvious that what he did instead was to bring his
right fist up and press it against his mouth, and the left fist up to
press that against the right fist, as if he is coughing into his right
fist.
> This is one that, I think, Gerald Posner got right.
Thorburn Position, and if you look up the origin of that term, you'll
find that what Thorburn himself originally described does not match
JFK's actions here very well.
> He's not grabbing his
> throat.
can't imagine. Or maybe you were just addressing that claim in general.
But anyway, what he actually did was press his fists against his mouth.
> His arms are up do to the shot traumatizing his spine. This is an
> involuntary muscular reaction.
> He never grabs at his throat.
So now, again, we come back to your claim that he was not shot in the
throat until much later. Yet even you seem to be agreeing that he was
clearly reacting to being shot there.
> > And JFK's chest? What evidence is there of any bullet
> > wound in his chest?
>
> If you look at frame 322, you will see what seems to be a very odd
> representation of a frontal hit. A mass of stuff seems to be shooting up and
> forward.
like that at all.
> Here we must remember where the bullet has been, through the
> windshield and Connally's wrist which it shattered.
windshield to have been, far to the left (in the orientation of the
limo, or to the right in the orientation of the camera) of the obvious
indentation in the windshield that is quite clearly seen. I'm sorry,
but what you call a hole seems to me to be a reflection of light off
something well behind the windshield, because it is not nearly as well
in focus as the windshield itself, or the frame on the top and side of
the windshield. Yet the indentation in the windshield farther over to
the right of the limo (or the left of the image) is in good focus. The
camera would be about the same distance from the part of the windshield
where your "hole" is, yet I see no fracturing of glass that is even
remotely as clear as the indentation, and with this being a hole all the
way through the glass, rather than just an indentation, one would expect
to see even more starring and cracking around it, and to see it in
roughly equal focus as those which radiate from the indentation.
> I think that the bullet
> itself has shattered and lost much velocity and that what we are seeing here
> is the shattered bullet fragments actually bouncing off JFK.
traveling that fast in the Zapruder film. It's hard enough to see the
much larger object which might be a piece of skull shooting forward in
the frames immediately following Z313, hitting the back of the jump
seat, and then falling out of view toward the floorboard, and that
wouldn't be traveling nearly as fast as bullet fragments:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/anim.htm
> Whether this
> shot actually penetrated his throat is hard to say. It certainly should have
> left some evidence on his chest, and it wouldn't surprise me if it did and we
> never heard about it.
very clearly, but no wounding at all below that.
> I think, also, that it is possible that another shot
> hit from another direction in the exposure of this frame.
> > And how on earth are you getting the bullet from
> > Connally's wrist to JFK, when this is after Nellie has already pulled her
> > husband down in the seat? Wouldn't Connally's wrist be down much too low
> > by then for that to work? Your bullet seems much more "magic" than the
> > single bullet. And you do not show any "graphic" in the entire video
> > which shows how the bullet goes from the windshield to Connally's wrist to
> > JFK.
>
> The graphic is frame 322. But, you do have to look at it.
fragment, would go downward from the windshield to hit Connally's wrist
and then go back upward to hit JFK.
Saintly Oswald
Sep 29, 2012, 1:29:35 PM9/29/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:33 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <ae41f6c4-c520-48fe...@googlegroups.com>,
with confidence that it is indeed shaped like a shoulder stock, for
shoulder stock it resembles and shoulder stock is it's shape. It so looks
like a shoulder stock, that I think that it might be one. And at 12:30
Chief Curry and Bobby Hargis thought that somebody standing there fired
upon the motorcade.
> In article <ae41f6c4-c520-48fe...@googlegroups.com>,
> That image is so incredibly blurry and grainy that I can't really tell
*what* that thing is shaped like, and I don't see how you can either.
Wouldn't you have to first establish, at least somewhat conclusively,
that it *is* shaped like a stock before comparing it to another object?
In my opinion, it is so obviously shaped a shoulder stock that one can say
*what* that thing is shaped like, and I don't see how you can either.
Wouldn't you have to first establish, at least somewhat conclusively,
that it *is* shaped like a stock before comparing it to another object?
with confidence that it is indeed shaped like a shoulder stock, for
shoulder stock it resembles and shoulder stock is it's shape. It so looks
like a shoulder stock, that I think that it might be one. And at 12:30
Chief Curry and Bobby Hargis thought that somebody standing there fired
upon the motorcade.
Saintly Oswald
Sep 29, 2012, 1:30:12 PM9/29/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:15:57 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> Even in one short paragraph you manage to mangle it.
>
> First you say everybody says JFK grabs "for" his throat. Then you say
>
> they say he grabbed his throat.
>
> You are so close with your idea that it was a traumatic reaction, but I
>
> believe it was a reflex reaction. Have you ever had a doctor test your
>
> reflexes by hitting your nerve? I think the bullet excited the C8 nerve
>
> and that caused the arms to fly up and hands to ball into fists in front
>
> of his throat as a defensive reaction.
>
Perhaps I have mangled something technical, but I don't see much
>
> Even in one short paragraph you manage to mangle it.
>
> First you say everybody says JFK grabs "for" his throat. Then you say
>
> they say he grabbed his throat.
>
> You are so close with your idea that it was a traumatic reaction, but I
>
> believe it was a reflex reaction. Have you ever had a doctor test your
>
> reflexes by hitting your nerve? I think the bullet excited the C8 nerve
>
> and that caused the arms to fly up and hands to ball into fists in front
>
> of his throat as a defensive reaction.
>
difference between what you said and what I meant. I accepted the idea put
forth in Posner's book that the shot to the back caused his elbows to
elevate and that he was not grabbing at his throat. Posner gave some
medical name for the reaction which I do not remember. Anyway, he doesn't
grab at his throat. Nobody is going to raise his elbows like that and make
fists to grab at his throat. I don't know anything about the C8 nerve, so
I'll defer to you.
Saintly Oswald
Sep 29, 2012, 4:30:48 PM9/29/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:33 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>
I have a higher resolution version of the Cabluck photo than the one you
linked to, and I have produced a graphic for your amusement which you can
see here.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3shgRqG1REc/UGbS5nM4LOI/AAAAAAAAAM4/SCmEUrGXgYA/s601/CabluckRifleSling.jpg
Unfortunately, I do not remember where I got this, and the "sling" would
be easy to fake, though I did not do so. This possibility becomes a real
problem in the internet age where faking is so easy. But, I am confident
that this represents the reality, and I'm sure there are some in this
august body who have access to high resolution versions of this photograph
who could verify or refute what I say.
I say that it's a shoulder stock with a sling which the man is holding in
his right hand. But, if you really want to believe that this guy put on
his suit and hat and tied a rope to his shovel to go down and watch the
presidential cavalcade, I can't stop you.
>
I have a higher resolution version of the Cabluck photo than the one you
linked to, and I have produced a graphic for your amusement which you can
see here.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3shgRqG1REc/UGbS5nM4LOI/AAAAAAAAAM4/SCmEUrGXgYA/s601/CabluckRifleSling.jpg
Unfortunately, I do not remember where I got this, and the "sling" would
be easy to fake, though I did not do so. This possibility becomes a real
problem in the internet age where faking is so easy. But, I am confident
that this represents the reality, and I'm sure there are some in this
august body who have access to high resolution versions of this photograph
who could verify or refute what I say.
I say that it's a shoulder stock with a sling which the man is holding in
his right hand. But, if you really want to believe that this guy put on
his suit and hat and tied a rope to his shovel to go down and watch the
presidential cavalcade, I can't stop you.
Saintly Oswald
Sep 29, 2012, 4:32:00 PM9/29/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:33 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <ae41f6c4-c520-48fe...@googlegroups.com>,
although it wouldn't surprise me to hear that you see nothing of the sort.
I seem to see many things which you do not. They look like little holes or
bruises, and are absolutely consistent with my wacky theory.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-HCMp_epcTps/UGbjQGWffDI/AAAAAAAAANE/iK2kJvoE_kY/s646/jfkstareofdeath.jpg
I never noticed this before. Thank you for sending me off to have a look!
> In article <ae41f6c4-c520-48fe...@googlegroups.com>,
>We've got autopsy photos taken from above him showing the tracheotomy
very clearly, but no wounding at all below that.
This autopsy photo does show marks all over the middle of JFK's chest,
very clearly, but no wounding at all below that.
although it wouldn't surprise me to hear that you see nothing of the sort.
I seem to see many things which you do not. They look like little holes or
bruises, and are absolutely consistent with my wacky theory.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-HCMp_epcTps/UGbjQGWffDI/AAAAAAAAANE/iK2kJvoE_kY/s646/jfkstareofdeath.jpg
I never noticed this before. Thank you for sending me off to have a look!
curtjester1
Sep 29, 2012, 9:37:37 PM9/29/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Sep 29, 2012, 9:55:11 PM9/29/12
to
cell phone?
Anthony Marsh
Sep 29, 2012, 9:55:42 PM9/29/12
to
theory that it is the Thorburn position. But that involves actual damage
to the C6 nerve in the neck. The bullet hit too low to cause the Thorburn
response.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 30, 2012, 4:02:01 PM9/30/12
to
cough out the bullet.
Saintly Oswald
Sep 30, 2012, 4:08:14 PM9/30/12
to
Thank you. I find that video to be the most persuasive explanation I've
ever seen for the throat wound. Maybe Posner didn't get *anything* right.
I'll have to ponder this for a while.
ever seen for the throat wound. Maybe Posner didn't get *anything* right.
I'll have to ponder this for a while.
John Reagor King
Sep 30, 2012, 6:44:08 PM9/30/12
to
In article <b1703c8e-120a-4b63...@googlegroups.com>,
me saying a few things.
> I seem to see many things which you do not.
Yes, I've noticed that. That is not always a positive thing. ;-)
> They look like little holes or
> bruises,
Surprise, but I do indeed see what you're talking about, at least to some
extent. I don't see any "hole," but I do indeed see what could be a few
small bruises.
> and are absolutely consistent with my wacky theory.
Absolutely consistent? I thought you had said that JFK was shot in the
throat after he was shot in the head, or at least you gave that as a
possibility. So I somewhat disagree with your use of the word
"absolutely." Also you said something a few days ago about Connally's
wrist being struck first and then that fragment or whatever hitting JFK.
And you still having a good deal of trouble with that hole in the
windshield that you have to have for any of this to work.
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-HCMp_epcTps/UGbjQGWffDI/AAAAAAAAANE/iK2kJvo
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:33 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <ae41f6c4-c520-48fe...@googlegroups.com>,
> >We've got autopsy photos taken from above him showing the tracheotomy
> very clearly, but no wounding at all below that.
>
> This autopsy photo does show marks all over the middle of JFK's chest,
> although it wouldn't surprise me to hear that you see nothing of the sort.
I don't think you'll ever "hear" me say anything. But you might "read"
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:33 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <ae41f6c4-c520-48fe...@googlegroups.com>,
> >We've got autopsy photos taken from above him showing the tracheotomy
> very clearly, but no wounding at all below that.
>
> This autopsy photo does show marks all over the middle of JFK's chest,
> although it wouldn't surprise me to hear that you see nothing of the sort.
me saying a few things.
> I seem to see many things which you do not.
> They look like little holes or
> bruises,
extent. I don't see any "hole," but I do indeed see what could be a few
small bruises.
> and are absolutely consistent with my wacky theory.
throat after he was shot in the head, or at least you gave that as a
possibility. So I somewhat disagree with your use of the word
"absolutely." Also you said something a few days ago about Connally's
wrist being struck first and then that fragment or whatever hitting JFK.
And you still having a good deal of trouble with that hole in the
windshield that you have to have for any of this to work.
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-HCMp_epcTps/UGbjQGWffDI/AAAAAAAAANE/iK2kJvo
> E_kY/s646/jfkstareofdeath.jpg
>
> I never noticed this before. Thank you for sending me off to have a look!
Oh, you are most welcome. ;-)
>
> I never noticed this before. Thank you for sending me off to have a look!
John Reagor King
Sep 30, 2012, 6:48:22 PM9/30/12
to
In article <699148a3-99a6-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
cannot make out anything that looks especially like a sling.
> I say that it's a shoulder stock with a sling which the man is holding in
> his right hand. But, if you really want to believe that this guy put on
> his suit and hat and tied a rope to his shovel to go down and watch the
> presidential cavalcade, I can't stop you.
Uh, first of all, whether it is a shovel or not, I cannot tell for certain
that there is anything "tied" to the object. Yes, yes, yes, where you
have the contrast increased, I do see *something*, a small, dark line in
the very tiny space between the man and the object just above the top of
the railing, but it is far, far, far too indistinct to tell if it is
really something tied to the object or not. I freely admit that it
*could* be, but even with your best attempts to clarify the image it is
still much too grainy and blurry to be anywhere close to certain. Also,
if it is a shovel, or some other tool, how do you know that that's the man
who put it there? Maybe someone else put it there and he just happened by
pure chance to be standing next to it at the instant the photo was taken?
I also don't see how on earth anyone could fire a rifle from such a
helplessly visible location without at least a dozen witnesses plainly
seeing it, especially the witnesses whom the limo had already passed at
this point, as many of them would be looking both toward the limo and the
overpass at the same time. Also I don't know of a single witness anywhere
near there who said that any individual shot sounded louder and closer
than any other shot, unless you're proposing that that man fired *all* the
shots. The closest thing we have to that is Sam Holland, who was standing
on the same bridge at the time, but what he said was he thought that one
shot had come from behind the fence, and from a part of the fence that was
closer to the other end than to the bridge, over fairly close to witnesses
such as Hudson, Sitzman, and Zapruder. Are you claiming Sam Holland would
not have noticed a man firing a rifle less than 30 feet away from him, and
standing on the same bridge he was standing on? Even one shot from that
would have been *tremendously* louder to Holland than a shot fired from
the fence much farther away. If someone fired a rifle that close to you,
wouldn't you immediately, almost involuntarily, whirl and look? And
Holland would have then had to have run right past this man with this
*long* rifle to do what he said he did in his same-day affidavit, "I
immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade."
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:33 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>
> I have a higher resolution version of the Cabluck photo than the one you
> linked to, and I have produced a graphic for your amusement which you can
> see here.
>
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3shgRqG1REc/UGbS5nM4LOI/AAAAAAAAAM4/SCmEUrG
> XgYA/s601/CabluckRifleSling.jpg
>
> Unfortunately, I do not remember where I got this, and the "sling" would
> be easy to fake, though I did not do so. This possibility becomes a real
> problem in the internet age where faking is so easy. But, I am confident
> that this represents the reality, and I'm sure there are some in this
> august body who have access to high resolution versions of this photograph
> who could verify or refute what I say.
I assure you that I am being totally honest when I say that I still
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:33 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>
> I have a higher resolution version of the Cabluck photo than the one you
> linked to, and I have produced a graphic for your amusement which you can
> see here.
>
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3shgRqG1REc/UGbS5nM4LOI/AAAAAAAAAM4/SCmEUrG
> XgYA/s601/CabluckRifleSling.jpg
>
> Unfortunately, I do not remember where I got this, and the "sling" would
> be easy to fake, though I did not do so. This possibility becomes a real
> problem in the internet age where faking is so easy. But, I am confident
> that this represents the reality, and I'm sure there are some in this
> august body who have access to high resolution versions of this photograph
> who could verify or refute what I say.
cannot make out anything that looks especially like a sling.
> I say that it's a shoulder stock with a sling which the man is holding in
> his right hand. But, if you really want to believe that this guy put on
> his suit and hat and tied a rope to his shovel to go down and watch the
> presidential cavalcade, I can't stop you.
that there is anything "tied" to the object. Yes, yes, yes, where you
have the contrast increased, I do see *something*, a small, dark line in
the very tiny space between the man and the object just above the top of
the railing, but it is far, far, far too indistinct to tell if it is
really something tied to the object or not. I freely admit that it
*could* be, but even with your best attempts to clarify the image it is
still much too grainy and blurry to be anywhere close to certain. Also,
if it is a shovel, or some other tool, how do you know that that's the man
who put it there? Maybe someone else put it there and he just happened by
pure chance to be standing next to it at the instant the photo was taken?
I also don't see how on earth anyone could fire a rifle from such a
helplessly visible location without at least a dozen witnesses plainly
seeing it, especially the witnesses whom the limo had already passed at
this point, as many of them would be looking both toward the limo and the
overpass at the same time. Also I don't know of a single witness anywhere
near there who said that any individual shot sounded louder and closer
than any other shot, unless you're proposing that that man fired *all* the
shots. The closest thing we have to that is Sam Holland, who was standing
on the same bridge at the time, but what he said was he thought that one
shot had come from behind the fence, and from a part of the fence that was
closer to the other end than to the bridge, over fairly close to witnesses
such as Hudson, Sitzman, and Zapruder. Are you claiming Sam Holland would
not have noticed a man firing a rifle less than 30 feet away from him, and
standing on the same bridge he was standing on? Even one shot from that
would have been *tremendously* louder to Holland than a shot fired from
the fence much farther away. If someone fired a rifle that close to you,
wouldn't you immediately, almost involuntarily, whirl and look? And
Holland would have then had to have run right past this man with this
*long* rifle to do what he said he did in his same-day affidavit, "I
immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade."
John Reagor King
Sep 30, 2012, 6:48:51 PM9/30/12
to
In article <d9c1e95a-39d6-47ec...@googlegroups.com>,
evidence to make that man into a shooter.
> And at 12:30
> Chief Curry and Bobby Hargis thought that somebody standing there fired
> upon the motorcade.
And I've already told you that Hargis thought ALL of the shots came from
there. Not just one of them. Not just some of them. ALL of them. And
he seemed to think they were all of equal volume too.
But Sam Holland was standing right there on the bridge too. No way he
would have been more than 30 feet from the shooter. But he never once
said anything about any gunshot coming from anywhere near that close to
him. Instead he said the first two shots seemed to come from somewhere up
near the intersection of Elm and Houston, and that the third shot came
from under the trees along the fence, and from some point that was closer
to the other end of the fence away from the bridge. And he is one of the
very, very, very few witnesses who said the shots came from multiple
directions.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my opinion, it is so obviously shaped a shoulder stock that one can say
> with confidence that it is indeed shaped like a shoulder stock, for
> shoulder stock it resembles and shoulder stock is it's shape. It so looks
> like a shoulder stock, that I think that it might be one.
In your opinion. And you have to ignore a great deal of additional
> In my opinion, it is so obviously shaped a shoulder stock that one can say
> with confidence that it is indeed shaped like a shoulder stock, for
> shoulder stock it resembles and shoulder stock is it's shape. It so looks
> like a shoulder stock, that I think that it might be one.
evidence to make that man into a shooter.
> And at 12:30
> Chief Curry and Bobby Hargis thought that somebody standing there fired
> upon the motorcade.
there. Not just one of them. Not just some of them. ALL of them. And
he seemed to think they were all of equal volume too.
But Sam Holland was standing right there on the bridge too. No way he
would have been more than 30 feet from the shooter. But he never once
said anything about any gunshot coming from anywhere near that close to
him. Instead he said the first two shots seemed to come from somewhere up
near the intersection of Elm and Houston, and that the third shot came
from under the trees along the fence, and from some point that was closer
to the other end of the fence away from the bridge. And he is one of the
very, very, very few witnesses who said the shots came from multiple
directions.
John Reagor King
Sep 30, 2012, 6:49:09 PM9/30/12
to
In article <fa17795f-3bf9-4c80...@googlegroups.com>,
before, but maybe you missed it. I thought you had already replied to
that article, but I might be wrong. Anyway, there I advised you to look
up the origin of that term. It is almost never applied to any other case
except for the JFK assassination, and I think the earliest claim of it, at
least that is now well known, is from Dr. John Lattimer c.1980. But Dr.
Lattimer used the term very differently from what the very person whom
this is named after, Dr. William Thorburn, described in the 1880s in his
"Cases of injury to the Cervical Region of the Spinal Cord." Thorburn
himself apparently described nothing even remotely like what we see with
Kennedy.
> Anyway, he doesn't
> grab at his throat. Nobody is going to raise his elbows like that and make
> fists to grab at his throat.
And in that same article I've already told you that what he actually did
was to press his right fist against his mouth and his left fist against
his right fist.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps I have mangled something technical, but I don't see much
> difference between what you said and what I meant. I accepted the idea put
> forth in Posner's book that the shot to the back caused his elbows to
> elevate and that he was not grabbing at his throat. Posner gave some
> medical name for the reaction which I do not remember.
The Thorburn position. I told you about that either yesterday or the day
> Perhaps I have mangled something technical, but I don't see much
> difference between what you said and what I meant. I accepted the idea put
> forth in Posner's book that the shot to the back caused his elbows to
> elevate and that he was not grabbing at his throat. Posner gave some
> medical name for the reaction which I do not remember.
before, but maybe you missed it. I thought you had already replied to
that article, but I might be wrong. Anyway, there I advised you to look
up the origin of that term. It is almost never applied to any other case
except for the JFK assassination, and I think the earliest claim of it, at
least that is now well known, is from Dr. John Lattimer c.1980. But Dr.
Lattimer used the term very differently from what the very person whom
this is named after, Dr. William Thorburn, described in the 1880s in his
"Cases of injury to the Cervical Region of the Spinal Cord." Thorburn
himself apparently described nothing even remotely like what we see with
Kennedy.
> Anyway, he doesn't
> grab at his throat. Nobody is going to raise his elbows like that and make
> fists to grab at his throat.
was to press his right fist against his mouth and his left fist against
his right fist.
Saintly Oswald
Sep 30, 2012, 6:56:04 PM9/30/12
to
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 9:37:37 PM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpFHYwot6bk
>
>
>
> CJ
After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
bullet at Z224. Even after concluding that Greer had shot Connally in the
back, I still hadn't shaked the residual effects of that lie. Connally is
not reacting to a hit, and he is not reacting to the report of a shot. He
is reacting to a bullet zooming by his ear. He thought that bullet was
aimed at him. That's why he panicked. That's why he said, "They're going
to kill us all." He thought they were trying to kill him, too. Nobody
else, other than JFK, has a dramatic reaction to this shot, just Connally,
because he's the one who got buzzed by the bullet. If this is true,
though, this shot cannot have come through the windshield. William Greer
doesn't react like that, and it would have passed even closer to him.
Also, it seems to me that the trajectory would fly over the south end of
the bridge, but very high over, too high to have originated there. And,
for it to have buzzed Connally's ear alone, it would have to have come
from the other side, from the fence, the knoll or from Dark Complected
Man, whom I was already convinced had fired a shot at about this time.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 30, 2012, 10:58:13 PM9/30/12
to
fists without damaging them?
Anthony Marsh
Sep 30, 2012, 11:00:03 PM9/30/12
to
On 9/30/2012 6:48 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <d9c1e95a-39d6-47ec...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, it is so obviously shaped a shoulder stock that one can say
>> with confidence that it is indeed shaped like a shoulder stock, for
>> shoulder stock it resembles and shoulder stock is it's shape. It so looks
>> like a shoulder stock, that I think that it might be one.
>
> In your opinion. And you have to ignore a great deal of additional
> evidence to make that man into a shooter.
>
>> And at 12:30
>> Chief Curry and Bobby Hargis thought that somebody standing there fired
>> upon the motorcade.
>
> And I've already told you that Hargis thought ALL of the shots came from
> there. Not just one of them. Not just some of them. ALL of them. And
> he seemed to think they were all of equal volume too.
>
> But Sam Holland was standing right there on the bridge too. No way he
> would have been more than 30 feet from the shooter. But he never once
Instead of constantly guessing why don't you actually measure the
> In article <d9c1e95a-39d6-47ec...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, it is so obviously shaped a shoulder stock that one can say
>> with confidence that it is indeed shaped like a shoulder stock, for
>> shoulder stock it resembles and shoulder stock is it's shape. It so looks
>> like a shoulder stock, that I think that it might be one.
>
> In your opinion. And you have to ignore a great deal of additional
> evidence to make that man into a shooter.
>
>> And at 12:30
>> Chief Curry and Bobby Hargis thought that somebody standing there fired
>> upon the motorcade.
>
> And I've already told you that Hargis thought ALL of the shots came from
> there. Not just one of them. Not just some of them. ALL of them. And
> he seemed to think they were all of equal volume too.
>
> But Sam Holland was standing right there on the bridge too. No way he
> would have been more than 30 feet from the shooter. But he never once
distance on the most accurate map?
> said anything about any gunshot coming from anywhere near that close to
> him. Instead he said the first two shots seemed to come from somewhere up
> near the intersection of Elm and Houston, and that the third shot came
> from under the trees along the fence, and from some point that was closer
> to the other end of the fence away from the bridge. And he is one of the
> very, very, very few witnesses who said the shots came from multiple
> directions.
>
directions. And in the Mark Lane film he walked around to that position
and stood where he thought that grassy knoll shot came from.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 30, 2012, 11:00:25 PM9/30/12
to
On 9/30/2012 6:48 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <699148a3-99a6-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:33 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>>
>> I have a higher resolution version of the Cabluck photo than the one you
>> linked to, and I have produced a graphic for your amusement which you can
>> see here.
>>
>> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3shgRqG1REc/UGbS5nM4LOI/AAAAAAAAAM4/SCmEUrG
>> XgYA/s601/CabluckRifleSling.jpg
>>
>> Unfortunately, I do not remember where I got this, and the "sling" would
>> be easy to fake, though I did not do so. This possibility becomes a real
>> problem in the internet age where faking is so easy. But, I am confident
>> that this represents the reality, and I'm sure there are some in this
>> august body who have access to high resolution versions of this photograph
>> who could verify or refute what I say.
>
> I assure you that I am being totally honest when I say that I still
> cannot make out anything that looks especially like a sling.
>
>> I say that it's a shoulder stock with a sling which the man is holding in
>> his right hand. But, if you really want to believe that this guy put on
>> his suit and hat and tied a rope to his shovel to go down and watch the
>> presidential cavalcade, I can't stop you.
>
> Uh, first of all, whether it is a shovel or not, I cannot tell for certain
Shovel? What are you shoveling? Oh, maybe it's one of those survival
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16:33 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>>
>> I have a higher resolution version of the Cabluck photo than the one you
>> linked to, and I have produced a graphic for your amusement which you can
>> see here.
>>
>> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3shgRqG1REc/UGbS5nM4LOI/AAAAAAAAAM4/SCmEUrG
>> XgYA/s601/CabluckRifleSling.jpg
>>
>> Unfortunately, I do not remember where I got this, and the "sling" would
>> be easy to fake, though I did not do so. This possibility becomes a real
>> problem in the internet age where faking is so easy. But, I am confident
>> that this represents the reality, and I'm sure there are some in this
>> august body who have access to high resolution versions of this photograph
>> who could verify or refute what I say.
>
> I assure you that I am being totally honest when I say that I still
> cannot make out anything that looks especially like a sling.
>
>> I say that it's a shoulder stock with a sling which the man is holding in
>> his right hand. But, if you really want to believe that this guy put on
>> his suit and hat and tied a rope to his shovel to go down and watch the
>> presidential cavalcade, I can't stop you.
>
> Uh, first of all, whether it is a shovel or not, I cannot tell for certain
rifles where the stock folds out to become a shovel Was that the AR-3000?
spot during the shooting.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 30, 2012, 11:00:37 PM9/30/12
to
On 9/30/2012 6:48 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
of them.
curtjester1
Sep 30, 2012, 11:03:01 PM9/30/12
to
it takes time to react to any hit and to take arms a way's up from low
to high. He came out from the sign at circa z225. It gives room to
be hit a time before that.
CJ
Saintly Oswald
Oct 1, 2012, 1:50:08 PM10/1/12
to
John Reagor King
Oct 1, 2012, 1:54:21 PM10/1/12
to
In article <5068...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
And as *I* said before, that position was *not* on the bridge, or
especially close to it, so nowhere close to where Jay is putting his
shooter.
especially close to it, so nowhere close to where Jay is putting his
shooter.
John Reagor King
Oct 1, 2012, 3:54:12 PM10/1/12
to
In article <e8667418-ec64-49db...@googlegroups.com>,
violently at exactly the same instant, beginning at Z226. Strange then
that for the rest of his life Connally almost always said he heard a
shot, looked to his right, then intended to turn the other way, to the
left, to look around into the back seat, but only got as far in the turn
as facing just about straight forward when he felt himself to be hit.
Strange then that it's exactly at Z226 that we see him suddenly face
forward just after his head has been continuously turned to the right
since Z165.
> Even after concluding that Greer had shot Connally in the
> back,
While he's driving the car.
That alone is an incredible aspect to your claim.
And Connally himself, you know, the man who was shot, who would know
better than any other human who ever lived or ever will live exactly
when he felt that blow in his back, said he was facing almost exactly
straight forward, toward the front of the limousine, when he was shot.
Sheesh, talk about a magic bullet, Greer's bullet would have to be at
least 1000 times more magical than anything even the most virulent
critics of the single bullet had ever proposed.
> I still hadn't shaked the residual effects of that lie.
Wouldn't you have to first conclusively establish that it was a lie in
the first place?
> Connally is
> not reacting to a hit, and he is not reacting to the report of a shot. He
> is reacting to a bullet zooming by his ear.
At Z226??? He NEVER said anything even remotely like that.
> He thought that bullet was
> aimed at him. That's why he panicked. That's why he said, "They're going
> to kill us all."
He said that AFTER he was hit. He never once claimed to have said that
BEFORE he was hit. Have you even read his testimony?
> He thought they were trying to kill him, too. Nobody
> else, other than JFK, has a dramatic reaction to this shot, just Connally,
ROFL, they both violently jerk starting at Z226.
> because he's the one who got buzzed by the bullet.
He never once said he thought a bullet went right by his ear.
> If this is true,
> though, this shot cannot have come through the windshield.
Duh.
> William Greer
> doesn't react like that, and it would have passed even closer to him.
Ya think that might be because you're inventing a shot that didn't
actually happen?
> Also, it seems to me that the trajectory would fly over the south end of
> the bridge, but very high over, too high to have originated there. And,
> for it to have buzzed Connally's ear alone, it would have to have come
> from the other side, from the fence, the knoll or from Dark Complected
> Man, whom I was already convinced had fired a shot at about this time.
Too bad (for you alone) there's not a shred of credible evidence that
any shot barely missed Connally, at least in the manner you describe.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
> something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
> wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
> because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
> bullet at Z224.
Oh, that's a "lie," is it? Strange then that both Connally and JFK jerk
> After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
> something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
> wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
> because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
> bullet at Z224.
violently at exactly the same instant, beginning at Z226. Strange then
that for the rest of his life Connally almost always said he heard a
shot, looked to his right, then intended to turn the other way, to the
left, to look around into the back seat, but only got as far in the turn
as facing just about straight forward when he felt himself to be hit.
Strange then that it's exactly at Z226 that we see him suddenly face
forward just after his head has been continuously turned to the right
since Z165.
> Even after concluding that Greer had shot Connally in the
> back,
That alone is an incredible aspect to your claim.
And Connally himself, you know, the man who was shot, who would know
better than any other human who ever lived or ever will live exactly
when he felt that blow in his back, said he was facing almost exactly
straight forward, toward the front of the limousine, when he was shot.
Sheesh, talk about a magic bullet, Greer's bullet would have to be at
least 1000 times more magical than anything even the most virulent
critics of the single bullet had ever proposed.
> I still hadn't shaked the residual effects of that lie.
the first place?
> Connally is
> not reacting to a hit, and he is not reacting to the report of a shot. He
> is reacting to a bullet zooming by his ear.
> He thought that bullet was
> aimed at him. That's why he panicked. That's why he said, "They're going
> to kill us all."
BEFORE he was hit. Have you even read his testimony?
> He thought they were trying to kill him, too. Nobody
> else, other than JFK, has a dramatic reaction to this shot, just Connally,
> because he's the one who got buzzed by the bullet.
> If this is true,
> though, this shot cannot have come through the windshield.
> William Greer
> doesn't react like that, and it would have passed even closer to him.
actually happen?
> Also, it seems to me that the trajectory would fly over the south end of
> the bridge, but very high over, too high to have originated there. And,
> for it to have buzzed Connally's ear alone, it would have to have come
> from the other side, from the fence, the knoll or from Dark Complected
> Man, whom I was already convinced had fired a shot at about this time.
any shot barely missed Connally, at least in the manner you describe.
John Reagor King
Oct 1, 2012, 3:55:11 PM10/1/12
to
In article <5068d8b8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
It's what I see in that film, you know, the one you're such an expert in
that is authentic, oh dear, what is it called, it starts with a Z, oh
goodness, um, Zer, no, that's not right, Zapper, no, that isn't it either,
oh, doggie, help me, what is it, oh yes, the one shot by Abraham Zapruder.
> And how can a SB get through his
> fists without damaging them?
Strawman. You know perfectly well I've never said the SB passed through
him after he raised his fists. ;-)
that is authentic, oh dear, what is it called, it starts with a Z, oh
goodness, um, Zer, no, that's not right, Zapper, no, that isn't it either,
oh, doggie, help me, what is it, oh yes, the one shot by Abraham Zapruder.
> And how can a SB get through his
> fists without damaging them?
him after he raised his fists. ;-)
John Reagor King
Oct 1, 2012, 3:56:01 PM10/1/12
to
In article <656c278e-4d6b-4aae...@googlegroups.com>,
now that Posner (and John Lattimer before him) were way off in the claim
of the Thorburn Position? I believe that nonsense no more Gil Jesus does
in that video.
Ah, but why can't JFK be trying to cough up *blood* instead? Why does it
have to be a bullet lodged in his throat? And where did that bullet go if
it didn't exit his back? And where did the bullet into his back go if it
didn't exit the front of his throat? When neither of them struck bone
directly enough to slow them down enough to stop them from exiting? And
why does John Connally right in front of JFK jerk violently at exactly the
same instant that JFK does, beginning at Z226, which is exactly the same
frame when JFK's right hand first begins rising in the motion that will
end with his right fist against his mouth? And why is Connally facing
toward the front of the limo for the only time between Z165 and when he is
pulled back by Nellie, and why did Connally almost always say that he had
been facing almost directly toward the front when he was hit?
A gigantic amount of evidence is being ignored, and not by me.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you. I find that video to be the most persuasive explanation I've
> ever seen for the throat wound. Maybe Posner didn't get *anything* right.
> I'll have to ponder this for a while.
Have you noticed that I've been telling you for at least a couple of days
> Thank you. I find that video to be the most persuasive explanation I've
> ever seen for the throat wound. Maybe Posner didn't get *anything* right.
> I'll have to ponder this for a while.
now that Posner (and John Lattimer before him) were way off in the claim
of the Thorburn Position? I believe that nonsense no more Gil Jesus does
in that video.
Ah, but why can't JFK be trying to cough up *blood* instead? Why does it
have to be a bullet lodged in his throat? And where did that bullet go if
it didn't exit his back? And where did the bullet into his back go if it
didn't exit the front of his throat? When neither of them struck bone
directly enough to slow them down enough to stop them from exiting? And
why does John Connally right in front of JFK jerk violently at exactly the
same instant that JFK does, beginning at Z226, which is exactly the same
frame when JFK's right hand first begins rising in the motion that will
end with his right fist against his mouth? And why is Connally facing
toward the front of the limo for the only time between Z165 and when he is
pulled back by Nellie, and why did Connally almost always say that he had
been facing almost directly toward the front when he was hit?
A gigantic amount of evidence is being ignored, and not by me.
curtjester1
Oct 1, 2012, 4:22:46 PM10/1/12
to
hole in JBC's jacket is much lower.
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm (scroll down a tad)
Coincidences seem glaring to many studying the 'anomolies' of the Z film.
The sign gaining size, and well what might have told the most, was the
'splice' at 207-210.
CJ
Saintly Oswald
Oct 1, 2012, 7:43:46 PM10/1/12
to
John: OK, maybe a smidgen) wherever it went through, it would be whatever
material came with it. I wish I could see a picture of the actual wound.
It doesn't look like something that would be blowing the necktie around,
which is what Z225 shows.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 1, 2012, 7:44:57 PM10/1/12
to
you better, I'd think you weren't being completely honest.
claviger
Oct 1, 2012, 8:55:50 PM10/1/12
to
Anthony,
> Sitzman and Zapruder did not see Black Dog Man only a few feet in front
> of them.
Mainly because there was no Black Dog Man in front of them, only a
black couple.
> Sitzman and Zapruder did not see Black Dog Man only a few feet in front
> of them.
black couple.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 1, 2012, 10:59:41 PM10/1/12
to
How come Sitzman didn't mention the baby? Did you forget about the baby?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 1, 2012, 11:17:54 PM10/1/12
to
bullet flipped the lapel. The theory is that the debris exiting from the
chest flipped the lapel.
claviger
Oct 2, 2012, 2:58:35 PM10/2/12
to
not see a Black Dog Man crawling around on all fours. If he was as
sinister as you think he is maybe BDM was a "skin-walker". If so,
this might explain the strange mystery of Black Dog Man:
Dogman - "The World Through Native Eyez"
http://www.nativeeyezmedia.com/dogman.html
Anthony Marsh
Oct 2, 2012, 3:26:29 PM10/2/12
to
got tangled up in his clothing.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 2, 2012, 3:26:36 PM10/2/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Oct 2, 2012, 3:26:44 PM10/2/12
to
On 10/1/2012 3:54 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <e8667418-ec64-49db...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
>> something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
>> wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
>> because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
>> bullet at Z224.
>
> Oh, that's a "lie," is it? Strange then that both Connally and JFK jerk
Strange that they don't. Strange that JFK reacted BEFORE Connally. Maybe
> In article <e8667418-ec64-49db...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
>> something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
>> wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
>> because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
>> bullet at Z224.
>
> Oh, that's a "lie," is it? Strange then that both Connally and JFK jerk
it was a very slow bullet. Maybe one of them thar CIA boring bullets.
> violently at exactly the same instant, beginning at Z226. Strange then
> that for the rest of his life Connally almost always said he heard a
> shot, looked to his right, then intended to turn the other way, to the
> left, to look around into the back seat, but only got as far in the turn
> as facing just about straight forward when he felt himself to be hit.
> Strange then that it's exactly at Z226 that we see him suddenly face
> forward just after his head has been continuously turned to the right
> since Z165.
>
in order to seem important.
>> Even after concluding that Greer had shot Connally in the
>> back,
>
> While he's driving the car.
>
> That alone is an incredible aspect to your claim.
>
> And Connally himself, you know, the man who was shot, who would know
> better than any other human who ever lived or ever will live exactly
> when he felt that blow in his back, said he was facing almost exactly
> straight forward, toward the front of the limousine, when he was shot.
> Sheesh, talk about a magic bullet, Greer's bullet would have to be at
> least 1000 times more magical than anything even the most virulent
> critics of the single bullet had ever proposed.
>
goes through Kennedy?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 2, 2012, 3:27:02 PM10/2/12
to
On 10/1/2012 1:53 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <5068ddd8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/30/2012 6:48 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <699148a3-99a6-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
>
I thought you said the black couple was there. Changed your mind already?
> In article <5068ddd8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/30/2012 6:48 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <699148a3-99a6-480c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Sitzman and Zapruder did not see Black Dog Man only a few feet in front
>> of them.
>
> Maybe because there wasn't any person there to see?
>> of them.
>
>
I thought you said the black couple was there. Changed your mind already?
John Reagor King
Oct 2, 2012, 3:27:27 PM10/2/12
to
John Reagor King
Oct 2, 2012, 4:08:44 PM10/2/12
to
In article <d603c876-a559-454d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Since 221 is the
> frame preceding the reactions in which the limo is blurry and the sign is
> nice and clear, I think it is safe to say that something important happened
> there.
What you're failing to notice in Z221 is that it is a directional blur.
Zapruder was moving the camera somewhat at a diagonal, but more to the
side than up or down. Horizontal images, such as the top of the sign,
are not going to be as blurry as the vertical. One can plainly see the
somewhat diagonal directional blur on metal parts of the motorcycles
that were reflecting sunlight. But look at the top right corner of the
sign. It's more blurry than the horizontal top edge of the sign. This
is a mundane, natural effect of photography and in and of itself
indicates nothing suspicious at all.
> But that sign just happens by pure coincidence to be in the way at
> this critical moment. Too bad.
That sign is certainly there at a bad time, I'll at least agree with
that.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. The lapel pops at 224, but that is a Zapruder film lie.
Oh, another "lie," according to you. You certainly overuse that word.
> Yes. The lapel pops at 224, but that is a Zapruder film lie.
> Since 221 is the
> frame preceding the reactions in which the limo is blurry and the sign is
> nice and clear, I think it is safe to say that something important happened
> there.
Zapruder was moving the camera somewhat at a diagonal, but more to the
side than up or down. Horizontal images, such as the top of the sign,
are not going to be as blurry as the vertical. One can plainly see the
somewhat diagonal directional blur on metal parts of the motorcycles
that were reflecting sunlight. But look at the top right corner of the
sign. It's more blurry than the horizontal top edge of the sign. This
is a mundane, natural effect of photography and in and of itself
indicates nothing suspicious at all.
> But that sign just happens by pure coincidence to be in the way at
> this critical moment. Too bad.
that.
John Reagor King
Oct 2, 2012, 4:09:19 PM10/2/12
to
In article <3a3643ba-0817-41e1...@googlegroups.com>,
your real name or the alias you use here, Saintly Oswald, or the
different one which begins your email address. This is yet another
example of you descending to levels that I have not descended to with
you, or at least not until responding to you doing it first. "Go run
along and play," you said to me on Youtube, and then you said to me here
that I acted as if I was at least 100 years old. You continue to
demonstrate that your maturity level is lower than mine.
> OK, maybe a smidgen) wherever it went through, it would be whatever
> material came with it.
Why was I, of all people, mentioned in connection with this? I don't
recall ever bringing up the supposed lapel flip with you.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was looking for that! A bullet wouldn't push it out at all (for King
> John:
You know, Jay, I do not recall ever making fun of your name, whether
> I was looking for that! A bullet wouldn't push it out at all (for King
> John:
your real name or the alias you use here, Saintly Oswald, or the
different one which begins your email address. This is yet another
example of you descending to levels that I have not descended to with
you, or at least not until responding to you doing it first. "Go run
along and play," you said to me on Youtube, and then you said to me here
that I acted as if I was at least 100 years old. You continue to
demonstrate that your maturity level is lower than mine.
> OK, maybe a smidgen) wherever it went through, it would be whatever
> material came with it.
recall ever bringing up the supposed lapel flip with you.
John Reagor King
Oct 2, 2012, 4:09:44 PM10/2/12
to
In article <a6a7a56f-9e2b-4324...@googlegroups.com>,
You are comparing apples and oranges, a moving film, in color no less,
to a still black and white photograph. Seeing motions is an entirely
different thing from trying to make out the identity of a
distantly-photographed object, with the additional problem, as I've told
you before, of no color contrast to give more evidence. Because of the
photo being black and white, there are various colors the object could
be, but each of those colors will look the same in black and white as
long as they are equally light or dark. Thus we can't, for example,
tell if the object is brown or not, such as would be the color we might
expect from a wooden rifle stock. Also, this is merely what you
*think*, in your *opinion* to be a shoulder stock. That's not even
remotely similar to watching the motions of people in the color Zapruder
film. It is not my "opinion" that both men jerk violently starting in
frame Z226; they clearly do that in objective truth. It is not my
"opinion" that JFK's right hand begins to move upward in Z226; that's
simply what it does. It is not my "opinion" that Connally's hat
suddenly begins to flip in Z226; that's simply what it does. And this
is not a problem of trying to identify an object. We know that's JFK's
right hand. We know that is Connally's Stetson. There is no question
about the identification of those things. There is no question about
the identification of the two men we're looking at there.
Only if we were talking about an *object* in the Zapruder film that is
difficult to identify would we be talking about the same type of thing
as the object in the Cabluck photo.
You are trying to demonstrate an imaginary inconsistency in my
statements, when in reality with the Zapruder film I was talking about
things that are totally different, on several levels, as the object you
claim in your opinion is a shoulder stock in a still black and white
photo. I was talking about *motions* of things that are already
identified.
See the obvious difference?
> If I didn't know
> you better, I'd think you weren't being completely honest.
You should indeed know better, and you have no legitimate excuse to even
express the most meager hint imaginable to the contrary.
to a still black and white photograph. Seeing motions is an entirely
different thing from trying to make out the identity of a
distantly-photographed object, with the additional problem, as I've told
you before, of no color contrast to give more evidence. Because of the
photo being black and white, there are various colors the object could
be, but each of those colors will look the same in black and white as
long as they are equally light or dark. Thus we can't, for example,
tell if the object is brown or not, such as would be the color we might
expect from a wooden rifle stock. Also, this is merely what you
*think*, in your *opinion* to be a shoulder stock. That's not even
remotely similar to watching the motions of people in the color Zapruder
film. It is not my "opinion" that both men jerk violently starting in
frame Z226; they clearly do that in objective truth. It is not my
"opinion" that JFK's right hand begins to move upward in Z226; that's
simply what it does. It is not my "opinion" that Connally's hat
suddenly begins to flip in Z226; that's simply what it does. And this
is not a problem of trying to identify an object. We know that's JFK's
right hand. We know that is Connally's Stetson. There is no question
about the identification of those things. There is no question about
the identification of the two men we're looking at there.
Only if we were talking about an *object* in the Zapruder film that is
difficult to identify would we be talking about the same type of thing
as the object in the Cabluck photo.
You are trying to demonstrate an imaginary inconsistency in my
statements, when in reality with the Zapruder film I was talking about
things that are totally different, on several levels, as the object you
claim in your opinion is a shoulder stock in a still black and white
photo. I was talking about *motions* of things that are already
identified.
See the obvious difference?
> If I didn't know
> you better, I'd think you weren't being completely honest.
express the most meager hint imaginable to the contrary.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 2, 2012, 5:36:34 PM10/2/12
to
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 4:09:20 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <3a3643ba-0817-41e1...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was looking for that! A bullet wouldn't push it out at all (for King
>
> > John:
>
>
>
> You know, Jay, I do not recall ever making fun of your name,
Who is Jay?
> In article <3a3643ba-0817-41e1...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was looking for that! A bullet wouldn't push it out at all (for King
>
> > John:
>
>
>
> You know, Jay, I do not recall ever making fun of your name,
Anthony Marsh
Oct 2, 2012, 7:17:20 PM10/2/12
to
baby being dropped?
If you claim it was a black couple behind the retaining wall, where was
the baby?
And why is the image BLACK when their clothing was light?
John Reagor King
Oct 3, 2012, 8:56:22 PM10/3/12
to
John Reagor King
Oct 3, 2012, 8:56:35 PM10/3/12
to
In article <506b5faa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
saying that there was the sound of a baby being dropped. How you do go
on, Anthony. ;-)
> If you claim it was a black couple behind the retaining wall, where was
> the baby?
Quote me verbatim from any previous article that I've ever posted saying
that the black couple was behind the retaining wall, Anthony. And who
says they had a baby?
> And why is the image BLACK when their clothing was light?
Perhaps because you've got the Black couple in the wrong place, and the
dark area is simply shadow? ;-)
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 3:27 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <506a57f6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/1/2012 8:55 PM, claviger wrote:
> >>> Anthony,
> >>>
> >>>> Sitzman and Zapruder did not see Black Dog Man only a few feet in front
> >>>> of them.
> >>>
> >>> Mainly because there was no Black Dog Man in front of them, only a
> >>> black couple.
> >>
> >> So where was the baby? Did the woman drop it when she heard the shot?
> >> How come Sitzman didn't mention the baby? Did you forget about the baby?
> >
> > I thought it was a soda bottle, not a baby.
>
> So you are saying that a soda bottle hitting the ground sounds like a
> baby being dropped?
Strawman. Quote me verbatim from any previous article I've ever posted
> On 10/2/2012 3:27 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <506a57f6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/1/2012 8:55 PM, claviger wrote:
> >>> Anthony,
> >>>
> >>>> Sitzman and Zapruder did not see Black Dog Man only a few feet in front
> >>>> of them.
> >>>
> >>> Mainly because there was no Black Dog Man in front of them, only a
> >>> black couple.
> >>
> >> So where was the baby? Did the woman drop it when she heard the shot?
> >> How come Sitzman didn't mention the baby? Did you forget about the baby?
> >
> > I thought it was a soda bottle, not a baby.
>
> So you are saying that a soda bottle hitting the ground sounds like a
> baby being dropped?
saying that there was the sound of a baby being dropped. How you do go
on, Anthony. ;-)
> If you claim it was a black couple behind the retaining wall, where was
> the baby?
that the black couple was behind the retaining wall, Anthony. And who
says they had a baby?
> And why is the image BLACK when their clothing was light?
dark area is simply shadow? ;-)
John Reagor King
Oct 3, 2012, 8:57:00 PM10/3/12
to
In article <506a5f2e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
JFK's right hand does not start rising until Z226, exactly the same
frame that Connally's flip of the hat begins?
> > violently at exactly the same instant, beginning at Z226. Strange then
> > that for the rest of his life Connally almost always said he heard a
> > shot, looked to his right, then intended to turn the other way, to the
> > left, to look around into the back seat, but only got as far in the turn
> > as facing just about straight forward when he felt himself to be hit.
> > Strange then that it's exactly at Z226 that we see him suddenly face
> > forward just after his head has been continuously turned to the right
> > since Z165.
>
> Strange that Lattimer said Z-224.
Didn't he say Z224 for when the bullet went through them, not for the
frame they begin to react? And it's only two frames difference,
Anthony. That's less than one-sixth of a second.
> But you have to make up you own frame
> in order to seem important.
I'm not "making up" that JFK's right hand first begins to rise in Z226
and that Connally's hat flip begins in that same frame also.
> >> Even after concluding that Greer had shot Connally in the
> >> back,
> >
> > While he's driving the car.
> >
> > That alone is an incredible aspect to your claim.
> >
> > And Connally himself, you know, the man who was shot, who would know
> > better than any other human who ever lived or ever will live exactly
> > when he felt that blow in his back, said he was facing almost exactly
> > straight forward, toward the front of the limousine, when he was shot.
> > Sheesh, talk about a magic bullet, Greer's bullet would have to be at
> > least 1000 times more magical than anything even the most virulent
> > critics of the single bullet had ever proposed.
>
> So? Do you have a SBT with Connally hit by Greer's bullet which then
> goes through Kennedy?
Obviously not. Strawman. Do you ever tire of asking stupid questions
you already know the answer to before you ask them? You knew years ago
that the only SBT I've ever proposed in this newsgroup is that the
bullet was fired from the TSBD, entered JFK's back, exited the front of
his throat, entered Connally's back, exited his chest, went through his
right wrist, and then into his left thigh.
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/1/2012 3:54 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <e8667418-ec64-49db...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
> >> something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
> >> wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
> >> because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
> >> bullet at Z224.
> >
> > Oh, that's a "lie," is it? Strange then that both Connally and JFK jerk
>
> Strange that they don't. Strange that JFK reacted BEFORE Connally. Maybe
> it was a very slow bullet. Maybe one of them thar CIA boring bullets.
Lol, JFK reacted "before" Connally? How do you work that out, when
> On 10/1/2012 3:54 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <e8667418-ec64-49db...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
> >> something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
> >> wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
> >> because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
> >> bullet at Z224.
> >
> > Oh, that's a "lie," is it? Strange then that both Connally and JFK jerk
>
> Strange that they don't. Strange that JFK reacted BEFORE Connally. Maybe
> it was a very slow bullet. Maybe one of them thar CIA boring bullets.
JFK's right hand does not start rising until Z226, exactly the same
frame that Connally's flip of the hat begins?
> > violently at exactly the same instant, beginning at Z226. Strange then
> > that for the rest of his life Connally almost always said he heard a
> > shot, looked to his right, then intended to turn the other way, to the
> > left, to look around into the back seat, but only got as far in the turn
> > as facing just about straight forward when he felt himself to be hit.
> > Strange then that it's exactly at Z226 that we see him suddenly face
> > forward just after his head has been continuously turned to the right
> > since Z165.
>
> Strange that Lattimer said Z-224.
frame they begin to react? And it's only two frames difference,
Anthony. That's less than one-sixth of a second.
> But you have to make up you own frame
> in order to seem important.
and that Connally's hat flip begins in that same frame also.
> >> Even after concluding that Greer had shot Connally in the
> >> back,
> >
> > While he's driving the car.
> >
> > That alone is an incredible aspect to your claim.
> >
> > And Connally himself, you know, the man who was shot, who would know
> > better than any other human who ever lived or ever will live exactly
> > when he felt that blow in his back, said he was facing almost exactly
> > straight forward, toward the front of the limousine, when he was shot.
> > Sheesh, talk about a magic bullet, Greer's bullet would have to be at
> > least 1000 times more magical than anything even the most virulent
> > critics of the single bullet had ever proposed.
>
> So? Do you have a SBT with Connally hit by Greer's bullet which then
> goes through Kennedy?
you already know the answer to before you ask them? You knew years ago
that the only SBT I've ever proposed in this newsgroup is that the
bullet was fired from the TSBD, entered JFK's back, exited the front of
his throat, entered Connally's back, exited his chest, went through his
right wrist, and then into his left thigh.
John Reagor King
Oct 3, 2012, 8:57:12 PM10/3/12
to
In article <46b77708-4615-456a...@googlegroups.com>,
I've called you that several times since and you never corrected me. Is
that not your name?
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 4:09:20 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <3a3643ba-0817-41e1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I was looking for that! A bullet wouldn't push it out at all (for King
> > > John:
> >
> > You know, Jay, I do not recall ever making fun of your name,
>
> Who is Jay?
Anthony called you that several weeks ago and you didn't correct him.
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 4:09:20 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <3a3643ba-0817-41e1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I was looking for that! A bullet wouldn't push it out at all (for King
> > > John:
> >
> > You know, Jay, I do not recall ever making fun of your name,
>
> Who is Jay?
I've called you that several times since and you never corrected me. Is
that not your name?
John Reagor King
Oct 3, 2012, 8:57:22 PM10/3/12
to
In article <506a5dda$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Oh, you're afraid to look through the archives and see how very many
times I've done exactly that?
times I've done exactly that?
Saintly Oswald
Oct 3, 2012, 10:50:01 PM10/3/12
to
Are you making fun of me in some way by calling me Jay, or are you
suffering from some delusion that this is my name? It does seem childish
that a person would call another person "Jay" when that is not the
person's name. I certainly have never said that my name is Jay. I know
this to be true because my name is not Jay, and I am not in the habit of
calling myself Jay. Perhaps it is a joke. Ha ha. I don't mind really, but
calling you "King John," at least I do use your name. Right? I mean, we
all know who I'm talking about. Communication is achieved. But, when you
call me Jay, what does this mean? What are you communicating? Who is this
Jay?
suffering from some delusion that this is my name? It does seem childish
that a person would call another person "Jay" when that is not the
person's name. I certainly have never said that my name is Jay. I know
this to be true because my name is not Jay, and I am not in the habit of
calling myself Jay. Perhaps it is a joke. Ha ha. I don't mind really, but
calling you "King John," at least I do use your name. Right? I mean, we
all know who I'm talking about. Communication is achieved. But, when you
call me Jay, what does this mean? What are you communicating? Who is this
Jay?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 4, 2012, 10:46:59 PM10/4/12
to
On 10/3/2012 8:57 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <506a5f2e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/1/2012 3:54 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <e8667418-ec64-49db...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
>>>> something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
>>>> wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
>>>> because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
>>>> bullet at Z224.
>>>
>>> Oh, that's a "lie," is it? Strange then that both Connally and JFK jerk
>>
>> Strange that they don't. Strange that JFK reacted BEFORE Connally. Maybe
>> it was a very slow bullet. Maybe one of them thar CIA boring bullets.
>
> Lol, JFK reacted "before" Connally? How do you work that out, when
> JFK's right hand does not start rising until Z226, exactly the same
> frame that Connally's flip of the hat begins?
>
Dr. Roger McCarthy of Failure Analysis worked it out.
> In article <506a5f2e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/1/2012 3:54 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <e8667418-ec64-49db...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
>>>> something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
>>>> wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
>>>> because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
>>>> bullet at Z224.
>>>
>>> Oh, that's a "lie," is it? Strange then that both Connally and JFK jerk
>>
>> Strange that they don't. Strange that JFK reacted BEFORE Connally. Maybe
>> it was a very slow bullet. Maybe one of them thar CIA boring bullets.
>
> Lol, JFK reacted "before" Connally? How do you work that out, when
> JFK's right hand does not start rising until Z226, exactly the same
> frame that Connally's flip of the hat begins?
>
If Connally was in fact hit at frame 224, then this missile could not
have struck President Kennedy. Why? Because it is extremely unlikely, if
not impossible, that this same bullet could have caused JFK to react the
way he does in frame 225. In the Zapruder film Kennedy is seen to be
clearly reacting to a wound by frame 225. In this frame his right arm is
at his chest and is bent sharply inward. His left arm is at about the
level of his diaphragm. Together, his arms appear to be in somewhat of a
football-like blocking position. If a missile transited Connally at
frame 224, it would have gone through Kennedy at almost the exact same
fraction of a second, between frames 223 and 224, or during 224 alone
(as Posner opines). But Kennedy could not have stopped waving his right
hand, begun to move his left hand, and brought his right arm to his
upper chest, all in less than two frames (or in less than 1/9th of a
second). Ballistics expert Dr. Roger McCarthy has argued that it would
have taken a minimum of 200 milliseconds, or right around four frames,
for Kennedy to react, even involuntarily, as we see him doing in Z225:
Mr. CHESLER. Now, what I'd like to do is, is move to the very next
frame, 225. How much time elapsed on that day between time frame 224 was
filmed and the time that frame 225 was filmed?
Dr. McCARTHY. About 56 milliseconds. This camera is running at a
shade more than 18 frames/second, so between any 2 frames there's about
an 18th of a second or 56 thousandth of a second. . . .
Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., based upon that, do you have a conclusion or
an opinion as to when the President was hit with the bullet--how much
before this point?
Dr. McCARTHY. Yes, as I think Dr. Piziali accurately indicated,
there is a latency or a delay of about 200 milliseconds between the time
that a message is delivered by either traumatic shock to the spine or by
your mind to a muscle before you can get movement. You've experienced
that every time you've ever grabbed something hot. You've known it was
hot and were burned because of the delay, because you couldn't get--let
go or move fast enough to avoid the damage. You knew it, and you just
couldn't make your body move fast enough. There's nothing wrong with
you; it takes about a fifth of a second to get all the hardware up to
full power--to get the muscles to move.
Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., if, then, the President was hit 200
milliseconds before the movement on [frame] 225, how many frames back in
the film would that be?
Dr. McCARTHY. That would be at 221 AT A MINIMUM [i.e., at the
latest, and notice this is just based on timing it from a reaction at Z225]
Mr. CHESLER. And at 221 he's behind the sign, is that correct?
Dr. McCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. CHESLER. Alright. If he was hit at 221 and the Governor was hit
at 224 according to the prosecution, then could they have been hit by
the same bullet?
Dr. McCARTHY. NO. (63:235-236, emphasis added)
>>> violently at exactly the same instant, beginning at Z226. Strange then
>>> that for the rest of his life Connally almost always said he heard a
>>> shot, looked to his right, then intended to turn the other way, to the
>>> left, to look around into the back seat, but only got as far in the turn
>>> as facing just about straight forward when he felt himself to be hit.
>>> Strange then that it's exactly at Z226 that we see him suddenly face
>>> forward just after his head has been continuously turned to the right
>>> since Z165.
>>
>> Strange that Lattimer said Z-224.
>
> Didn't he say Z224 for when the bullet went through them, not for the
> frame they begin to react? And it's only two frames difference,
> Anthony. That's less than one-sixth of a second.
>
JFK could not react in one frame by putting his arms up.
That is a reflex reaction not a mechanical reaction.
>> But you have to make up you own frame
>> in order to seem important.
>
> I'm not "making up" that JFK's right hand first begins to rise in Z226
> and that Connally's hat flip begins in that same frame also.
>
>>>> Even after concluding that Greer had shot Connally in the
>>>> back,
>>>
>>> While he's driving the car.
>>>
>>> That alone is an incredible aspect to your claim.
>>>
>>> And Connally himself, you know, the man who was shot, who would know
>>> better than any other human who ever lived or ever will live exactly
>>> when he felt that blow in his back, said he was facing almost exactly
>>> straight forward, toward the front of the limousine, when he was shot.
>>> Sheesh, talk about a magic bullet, Greer's bullet would have to be at
>>> least 1000 times more magical than anything even the most virulent
>>> critics of the single bullet had ever proposed.
>>
>> So? Do you have a SBT with Connally hit by Greer's bullet which then
>> goes through Kennedy?
>
> Obviously not. Strawman. Do you ever tire of asking stupid questions
> you already know the answer to before you ask them? You knew years ago
> that the only SBT I've ever proposed in this newsgroup is that the
> bullet was fired from the TSBD, entered JFK's back, exited the front of
> his throat, entered Connally's back, exited his chest, went through his
> right wrist, and then into his left thigh.
>
Ace Kefford
Oct 4, 2012, 10:55:56 PM10/4/12
to
Therefore, ... what?
All the evidence showing Oswald had and used that rifle is faked?!
Typical ill-thought-out nitpicking.
The assassination happened only one way.
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:16:28 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> The front and back of the money order for the Carcano rifle can be seen
>
> in CE 788:
>
>
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0
>
> 352a.htm
>
>
>
> The back of the money order, shown in the bottom image, displays this
>
> stamp:
>
>
>
> Pay to the order of
>
> The First National Bank of Chicago
>
> 50 91144
>
> Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc
>
>
>
> Before the eyes of the Commissioners in his WC testimony, William Waldman
>
> stamped a piece of paper, labeled Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9, and
>
> what he stamped on that paper looks identical in every way with the stamp
>
> on the back of the money order:
>
>
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0
>
> 365a.htm
>
>
>
> But my understanding is that it was an absolute requirement for there to
>
> be an additional stamp on the back of the money order, that of the bank
>
> itself, and that this stamp had furthermore to be dated, to ensure that
>
> more than one bank didn't pay the money order, or that no bank paid it
>
> more than once.
>
>
>
> I see nothing even remotely resembling such a stamp on the back of this
>
> money order.
>
>
>
> Additionally, I find this passage from Waldman's WC testimony to be
>
> quite curious:
>
>
>
> **********
>
>
>
> Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No.
>
> 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order
>
> of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named
>
> A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No.
>
> 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and
>
> underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the
>
> reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
>
> I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine
>
> it, please.
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of
>
> the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50
>
> space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods,
>
> Inc."
>
> Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement
>
> on that money order?
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.
>
> Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition
>
> Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that
>
> shown on the money order in question.
>
> Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9
>
> with your endorsement stamp?
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money order
>
> was deposited by your company?
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was
>
> deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order
>
> for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963.
>
> Mr. BELIN. You're reading from Waldman---
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. From a Mr. A. Hidell of Post Office Box No. 2915, from
>
> Dallas, Tex.
>
> Mr. BELIN. And you are now reading from Waldman Deposition Exhibit No.
>
> 7?
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7. Now, we
>
> cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our
>
> deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on
>
> the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--as Waldman
>
> Deposition Exhibit No. 10.
>
> Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading
>
> from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of
>
> Chicago by your company; is that correct?
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
>
>
>
> **********
>
>
>
> At first Mr. Belin said that the stamp on the back of the money order
>
> "appears to be an endorsement of a bank." Mr. Waldman then clarified
>
> that this was a Klein's stamp, and as we can see, just as I said above,
>
> he stamped another piece of paper, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9,
>
> with an absolutely identical stamp, with Belin confirming that he had
>
> just seen Waldman do this: "You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition
>
> Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?" To which Waldman answered,
>
> "Correct."
>
>
>
> But although Belin initially described it as looking like the
>
> endorsement stamp of a bank, and even though Waldman both said and
>
> showed that it wasn't, we can plainly see that there was no followup as
>
> to why there was *not* an endorsement of a bank, any bank, on the back
>
> of the money order. In fact, the passage I quoted above contains the
>
> only three occurrences of the word "bank" in the entire testimony.
>
>
>
> For those of you who might be inclined to post a reply, especially if
>
> you're an LN, I ask you in advance to please not tell me that Waldman
>
> nevertheless produced a document showing that the money order was
>
> deposited in the bank.
>
>
>
> I obviously already knew that, as I quoted it above.
>
>
>
> And please don't tell me that the writing on the front side of the money
>
> order, and the writing on the order form for the rifle, were determined
>
> by handwriting experts to be that of Oswald.
>
>
>
> I already knew that too, thank you.
>
>
>
> And please don't tell me that Carl Day lifted Oswald's palmprint from
>
> the rifle that Klein's sent as a result of this money order.
>
>
>
> I already knew that too, thank you.
>
>
>
> And please don't remind me that the preponderance of evidence points to
>
> Oswald as being guilty of the assassination.
>
>
>
> I already knew that too, thank you.
>
>
>
> And please don't remind me that CE 399 was ballistically matched to the
>
> same rifle.
>
>
>
> I already knew that too, thank you.
>
>
>
> And please don't remind me that Connally and Kennedy were hit only by
>
> shots fired from the rear.
>
>
>
> I already knew that too, thank you.
>
>
>
> You can all post whatever replies you please, of course, but I am simply
>
> asking that you only address this one specific issue:
>
>
>
> There was no dated bank stamp on the back of this one particular money
>
> order, even though that was an absolute requirement for the bank to pay
>
> it.
>
>
>
> Wasn't it?
>
>
>
> Thank you.
All the evidence showing Oswald had and used that rifle is faked?!
Typical ill-thought-out nitpicking.
The assassination happened only one way.
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:16:28 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> The front and back of the money order for the Carcano rifle can be seen
>
> in CE 788:
>
>
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0
>
> 352a.htm
>
>
>
> The back of the money order, shown in the bottom image, displays this
>
> stamp:
>
>
>
> Pay to the order of
>
> The First National Bank of Chicago
>
> 50 91144
>
> Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc
>
>
>
> Before the eyes of the Commissioners in his WC testimony, William Waldman
>
> stamped a piece of paper, labeled Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9, and
>
> what he stamped on that paper looks identical in every way with the stamp
>
> on the back of the money order:
>
>
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0
>
> 365a.htm
>
>
>
> But my understanding is that it was an absolute requirement for there to
>
> be an additional stamp on the back of the money order, that of the bank
>
> itself, and that this stamp had furthermore to be dated, to ensure that
>
> more than one bank didn't pay the money order, or that no bank paid it
>
> more than once.
>
>
>
> I see nothing even remotely resembling such a stamp on the back of this
>
> money order.
>
>
>
> Additionally, I find this passage from Waldman's WC testimony to be
>
> quite curious:
>
>
>
> **********
>
>
>
> Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No.
>
> 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order
>
> of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named
>
> A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No.
>
> 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and
>
> underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the
>
> reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
>
> I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine
>
> it, please.
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of
>
> the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50
>
> space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods,
>
> Inc."
>
> Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement
>
> on that money order?
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.
>
> Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition
>
> Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that
>
> shown on the money order in question.
>
> Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9
>
> with your endorsement stamp?
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money order
>
> was deposited by your company?
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was
>
> deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order
>
> for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963.
>
> Mr. BELIN. You're reading from Waldman---
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. From a Mr. A. Hidell of Post Office Box No. 2915, from
>
> Dallas, Tex.
>
> Mr. BELIN. And you are now reading from Waldman Deposition Exhibit No.
>
> 7?
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7. Now, we
>
> cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our
>
> deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on
>
> the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--as Waldman
>
> Deposition Exhibit No. 10.
>
> Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading
>
> from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of
>
> Chicago by your company; is that correct?
>
> Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
>
>
>
> **********
>
>
>
> At first Mr. Belin said that the stamp on the back of the money order
>
> "appears to be an endorsement of a bank." Mr. Waldman then clarified
>
> that this was a Klein's stamp, and as we can see, just as I said above,
>
> he stamped another piece of paper, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9,
>
> with an absolutely identical stamp, with Belin confirming that he had
>
> just seen Waldman do this: "You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition
>
> Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?" To which Waldman answered,
>
> "Correct."
>
>
>
> But although Belin initially described it as looking like the
>
> endorsement stamp of a bank, and even though Waldman both said and
>
> showed that it wasn't, we can plainly see that there was no followup as
>
> to why there was *not* an endorsement of a bank, any bank, on the back
>
> of the money order. In fact, the passage I quoted above contains the
>
> only three occurrences of the word "bank" in the entire testimony.
>
>
>
> For those of you who might be inclined to post a reply, especially if
>
> you're an LN, I ask you in advance to please not tell me that Waldman
>
> nevertheless produced a document showing that the money order was
>
> deposited in the bank.
>
>
>
> I obviously already knew that, as I quoted it above.
>
>
>
> And please don't tell me that the writing on the front side of the money
>
> order, and the writing on the order form for the rifle, were determined
>
> by handwriting experts to be that of Oswald.
>
>
>
> I already knew that too, thank you.
>
>
>
> And please don't tell me that Carl Day lifted Oswald's palmprint from
>
> the rifle that Klein's sent as a result of this money order.
>
>
>
> I already knew that too, thank you.
>
>
>
> And please don't remind me that the preponderance of evidence points to
>
> Oswald as being guilty of the assassination.
>
>
>
> I already knew that too, thank you.
>
>
>
> And please don't remind me that CE 399 was ballistically matched to the
>
> same rifle.
>
>
>
> I already knew that too, thank you.
>
>
>
> And please don't remind me that Connally and Kennedy were hit only by
>
> shots fired from the rear.
>
>
>
> I already knew that too, thank you.
>
>
>
> You can all post whatever replies you please, of course, but I am simply
>
> asking that you only address this one specific issue:
>
>
>
> There was no dated bank stamp on the back of this one particular money
>
> order, even though that was an absolute requirement for the bank to pay
>
> it.
>
>
>
> Wasn't it?
>
>
>
> Thank you.
Dave Yandell
Oct 4, 2012, 11:41:11 PM10/4/12
to
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:55:33 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 10:11 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:04:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 9/25/2012 7:49 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> >>
>
>>> looking at a man who has a gun leaned up against the concrete railing in
> >>> front of him, apparently talking on a walkie-talkie. He is dressed as a
> >>> Dallas police detective. He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
> >>> frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
> >>> throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
>
>
> >> Physically impossible. There was no hole in the windshield.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > I believe there was a hole in the windshield, as I demonstrate in this video.
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J4MZUd2l0s&feature=plcp
>
> >
>
>
> I have disproved that.
>
>
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/windshield.htm
Just a brief plug here. Tony and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things
about the assassination, but everyone interested in the assassination
ought to read the article he linked to here. It is a first-rate piece of
work and describes his real research that should have settled several
issues about where shots did or didn't come from in Dealey Plaza. It is
especially incumbent on anyone claiming a front shot or any other
trajectory involving the windshield to come to terms with the evidence
there. If your theory doesn't fit the physical evidence Tony discovered,
your theory needs revising.
Best wishes,
Dave
> On 9/26/2012 10:11 PM, fatol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:04:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 9/25/2012 7:49 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>
> >>
>
>>> looking at a man who has a gun leaned up against the concrete railing in
> >>> front of him, apparently talking on a walkie-talkie. He is dressed as a
> >>> Dallas police detective. He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
> >>> frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
> >>> throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
>
>
> >> Physically impossible. There was no hole in the windshield.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > I believe there was a hole in the windshield, as I demonstrate in this video.
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J4MZUd2l0s&feature=plcp
>
> >
>
>
> I have disproved that.
>
>
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/windshield.htm
Just a brief plug here. Tony and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things
about the assassination, but everyone interested in the assassination
ought to read the article he linked to here. It is a first-rate piece of
work and describes his real research that should have settled several
issues about where shots did or didn't come from in Dealey Plaza. It is
especially incumbent on anyone claiming a front shot or any other
trajectory involving the windshield to come to terms with the evidence
there. If your theory doesn't fit the physical evidence Tony discovered,
your theory needs revising.
Best wishes,
Dave
John Reagor King
Oct 4, 2012, 11:44:26 PM10/4/12
to
In article <33d94956-a060-4739...@googlegroups.com>,
called you Jay on September 23 and you didn't correct him:
**********
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: No bank stamped the back of the money order for the rifle
Date: 23 Sep 2012 18:24:23 -0400
On 9/23/2012 10:25 AM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <5c4eb5df-d9c8-42aa...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even
in
>> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's
throat
>> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a
good
>> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
>
> Lol, what on EARTH does that have to do with my article to which you
> were replying here?
>
Does't matter. Jay will take ANY opportunity to inject his own wacky
theory. Used to be that the driver-did-it theorists were content with
blaming the head shot on Greer. Now they want to make it all shots,
including the back shots.
Give him a little more rope and he'll say that Greer shot the curb near
Tague.
**********
Because he called you Jay first, I thought that was your name. On
September 27 I called you Jay too and you did not correct me in your
reply on the following day. If that is not your real name I apologize,
but you ought to tell Anthony that's not your real name too, since he's
the one who first acted as if it was.
> I don't mind really, but
> calling you "King John," at least I do use your name. Right?
No. That would be like saying JFK's real name was Kennedy John. And of
course you have in at least one article reversed my name in a sarcastic
manner, "Regal King John," as if you are implying that I am some sort of
pretentious person. Again, I have not made fun of any name you've ever
used here, whether it is your real name or not, even though plenty of
comedy mileage could be gotten from "fatoldcreep," but I have refrained
from even that. ;-)
> I mean, we
> all know who I'm talking about. Communication is achieved.
I never said I didn't know who you were talking about. That still
doesn't excuse you from ridiculing a person's name when that person
never ridiculed any name you've ever gone by. ;-)
> But, when you
> call me Jay, what does this mean? What are you communicating? Who is this
> Jay?
Again, I already explained to you yesterday, though perhaps you haven't
seen it yet, that this was because Anthony Marsh called you Jay first.
Today I have quoted above where he did so on September 23. I simply
assumed that he knew your real name. I did *not* call you that to
ridicule you in any way whatsoever; I simply honestly believed that was
your name. I suppose I should not have trusted Anthony on this. And
again I apologize if that is not your name. Could you please also tell
Anthony that's not your name, since he's the one who first acted as if
it was?
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you making fun of me in some way by calling me Jay, or are you
> suffering from some delusion that this is my name? It does seem childish
> that a person would call another person "Jay" when that is not the
> person's name. I certainly have never said that my name is Jay. I know
> this to be true because my name is not Jay, and I am not in the habit of
> calling myself Jay. Perhaps it is a joke. Ha ha.
This will be the second time that I have explained to you that Anthony
> Are you making fun of me in some way by calling me Jay, or are you
> suffering from some delusion that this is my name? It does seem childish
> that a person would call another person "Jay" when that is not the
> person's name. I certainly have never said that my name is Jay. I know
> this to be true because my name is not Jay, and I am not in the habit of
> calling myself Jay. Perhaps it is a joke. Ha ha.
called you Jay on September 23 and you didn't correct him:
**********
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: No bank stamped the back of the money order for the rifle
Date: 23 Sep 2012 18:24:23 -0400
On 9/23/2012 10:25 AM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <5c4eb5df-d9c8-42aa...@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even
in
>> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's
throat
>> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a
good
>> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
>
> Lol, what on EARTH does that have to do with my article to which you
> were replying here?
>
Does't matter. Jay will take ANY opportunity to inject his own wacky
theory. Used to be that the driver-did-it theorists were content with
blaming the head shot on Greer. Now they want to make it all shots,
including the back shots.
Give him a little more rope and he'll say that Greer shot the curb near
Tague.
**********
Because he called you Jay first, I thought that was your name. On
September 27 I called you Jay too and you did not correct me in your
reply on the following day. If that is not your real name I apologize,
but you ought to tell Anthony that's not your real name too, since he's
the one who first acted as if it was.
> I don't mind really, but
> calling you "King John," at least I do use your name. Right?
course you have in at least one article reversed my name in a sarcastic
manner, "Regal King John," as if you are implying that I am some sort of
pretentious person. Again, I have not made fun of any name you've ever
used here, whether it is your real name or not, even though plenty of
comedy mileage could be gotten from "fatoldcreep," but I have refrained
from even that. ;-)
> I mean, we
> all know who I'm talking about. Communication is achieved.
doesn't excuse you from ridiculing a person's name when that person
never ridiculed any name you've ever gone by. ;-)
> But, when you
> call me Jay, what does this mean? What are you communicating? Who is this
> Jay?
seen it yet, that this was because Anthony Marsh called you Jay first.
Today I have quoted above where he did so on September 23. I simply
assumed that he knew your real name. I did *not* call you that to
ridicule you in any way whatsoever; I simply honestly believed that was
your name. I suppose I should not have trusted Anthony on this. And
again I apologize if that is not your name. Could you please also tell
Anthony that's not your name, since he's the one who first acted as if
it was?
Saintly Oswald
Oct 5, 2012, 10:39:25 AM10/5/12
to
Somebody says "Jay," in a forum, where it is obvious that much of the time people don't even know who they are responding to, and I'm supposed to know he is calling me "Jay" and care enough correct him? Who cares what my name is? I don't care what your name is. Fine. It bothers you that I put the King before the John. I won't do it anymore. I won't call you anything at all. Meanwhile, JFK is still dead.
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:44:27 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:44:27 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>
John Reagor King
Oct 5, 2012, 4:20:06 PM10/5/12
to
In article <506d2dbf$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite
obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have
probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have
also refused to admit.
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If Connally was in fact hit at frame 224, then this missile could not
I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit
> If Connally was in fact hit at frame 224, then this missile could not
that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite
obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have
probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have
also refused to admit.
John Reagor King
Oct 5, 2012, 4:28:27 PM10/5/12
to
In article <a30a59a1-7c45-4bc1...@googlegroups.com>,
> Typical ill-thought-out nitpicking.
Nonsense. It was a superbly relevant question. My understanding had
simply been that it was a requirement for a bank to stamp the back of
any money order before the transaction could proceed further, and I was
simply asking whether or not my understanding was correct.
> The assassination happened only one way.
Naturally. Is there some strange reason why you think I, of all people,
would disagree with that?
Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Therefore, ... what?
>
> All the evidence showing Oswald had and used that rifle is faked?!
Strawman. I never said anything even remotely like that.
> Therefore, ... what?
>
> All the evidence showing Oswald had and used that rifle is faked?!
> Typical ill-thought-out nitpicking.
Nonsense. It was a superbly relevant question. My understanding had
simply been that it was a requirement for a bank to stamp the back of
any money order before the transaction could proceed further, and I was
simply asking whether or not my understanding was correct.
> The assassination happened only one way.
would disagree with that?
John Reagor King
Oct 5, 2012, 4:29:02 PM10/5/12
to
In article <d63aebfe-2e5f-43e3...@googlegroups.com>,
person's real name here, even when they don't use it in their articles.
A good case in point is when you didn't know that Steve Barber was posting
replies to you, and Anthony came forward to tell you who that was. I
already knew who he was too, since I first had newsgroup exchanges with
Steve ten years ago. So sometimes people here are correct when they say
that such and such is the person's real name.
> I don't care what your name is. Fine. It bothers you that I put the King
> before the John. I won't do it anymore. I won't call you anything at all.
> Meanwhile, JFK is still dead.
Well yes, I think I already knew that. ;-)
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Somebody says "Jay," in a forum, where it is obvious that much of the time
> people don't even know who they are responding to, and I'm supposed to know
> he is calling me "Jay" and care enough correct him? Who cares what my name
> is?
Lol, simmer down, simmer down. Actually in many cases we do know a
> Somebody says "Jay," in a forum, where it is obvious that much of the time
> people don't even know who they are responding to, and I'm supposed to know
> he is calling me "Jay" and care enough correct him? Who cares what my name
> is?
person's real name here, even when they don't use it in their articles.
A good case in point is when you didn't know that Steve Barber was posting
replies to you, and Anthony came forward to tell you who that was. I
already knew who he was too, since I first had newsgroup exchanges with
Steve ten years ago. So sometimes people here are correct when they say
that such and such is the person's real name.
> I don't care what your name is. Fine. It bothers you that I put the King
> before the John. I won't do it anymore. I won't call you anything at all.
> Meanwhile, JFK is still dead.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 5, 2012, 9:39:00 PM10/5/12
to
many aliases he uses elsewhere. I even made fun of someone's alias by
using it myself after he was forced to stop using it. I called it an
homage.
John Reagor King
Oct 6, 2012, 10:07:33 AM10/6/12
to
In article <506f4ab1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Still can't admit that you were wrong when you falsely claimed that I
said JFK already had his fists up by Z225? Afraid to look through the
archives to see what I really said?
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I never said that was his real name. I was just making fun of one of his
Whatever.
> I never said that was his real name. I was just making fun of one of his
Still can't admit that you were wrong when you falsely claimed that I
said JFK already had his fists up by Z225? Afraid to look through the
archives to see what I really said?
0 new messages