Newly Released Video Raises Red Flag
brightwinger
shows the presidential limo four blocks prior to the murder scene.
Although brief, it's the clearest video yet.
So what's the red flag? The video clearly shows Secret Service Agent
Clint Hill riding on the back of the car. Four blocks later he's no
longer there at the moment of the shooting!
So the question is, why was he no longer on the back bumper just four
blocks later...where the murder took place?
As a bonus, why isn't there another Secret Service officer riding on
the other back spot on the limo that is specifically there for Secret
Service Agents to be positioned for security...such as blocking a
clear view for a shooter?
aeffects
> Yesterday a new video of the motorcade was made public. The video
> shows the presidential limo four blocks prior to the murder scene.
>
> Although brief, it's the clearest video yet.
>
> So what's the red flag? The video clearly shows Secret Service Agent
> Clint Hill riding on the back of the car. Four blocks later he's no
> longer there at the moment of the shooting!
>
> So the question is, why was he no longer on the back bumper just four
> blocks later...where the murder took place?
I doubt they were going to leave Clint Hill on a rear bumper when they
cleared the Plaza... appear going 60-70 mph, hanging on to a handrail
while standing on the rear bumper isn't part of the job....
David Von Pein
"suspicious" in Jefferies' film. It figures.
Clint Hill rode the bumper 3 or 4 times during the motorcade (via the
films). But there are many times he's seen NOT riding the bumper too.
JFK didn't want the agents on the bumpers. He didn't like it at all
(from reports I've heard). CTers, naturally, totally disagree, saying
that JFK NEVER said that he didn't like the SS on the bumpers. So,
lacking the words coming from JFK himself, I guess that argument's a
stalemate.
But to accuse the SS of some plot just because Hill left the bumper
prior to Dealey Plaza is nutty. But is to be expected from the CTers,
I must admit. Everything's fishy to those kooks.
Some nut at Lancer was saying that he thinks the film is "suspicious"
because Jefferies started his camera, then stopped it (a la Zapruder),
then started filming again. Of course WHAT that PROVES re.
"conspiracy"...only that kook must know. He just thinks it's "odd"
that BOTH Zapruder and Jefferies started and stopped their cameras on
11/22.
Plus -- Just exactly HOW are those BUMPER GUARDS supposed to totally
SHIELD the President from ALL possible angles of potential attack
anyhow? That's silly too.
Oswald could still have killed JFK even WITH an agent on JFK's right-
rear bumper. Those "bumper" agents were pretty much just for show
anyhow; they certainly couldn't throw a 360-degree circle of
"protection" around JFK every second of the motorcade....nor would JFK
have allowed that type of smothering protection.
After all, the WHOLE IDEA of even having a motorcade through a city is
to give a lot of people a good chance to SEE the President. If he was
to be "boxed in" by SS agents every minute of the trip...why the heck
even have a parade at all?
Walt
> That didn't take long -- one day for the kooks to see something
> "suspicious" in Jefferies' film. It figures.
When a film suddenly pops up after 44 years, my first reaction is WHY
haven't we seen or heard of this film before now.
Has it been kept from the public like the Croft photo and the Powell
photo?? Or was it merely kept as a personal memento ?
In the days and weeks following the assassination, the FBI repeatly
requested photos or film of the presidents visit. Did Jefferies ever
reveal to the authorities that he possessed this film......If
not..... Why not ??
Walt
David Von Pein
I haven't the foggiest.
>>> "If not...why not?" <<<
Maybe because it shows JFK on MAIN STREET, and not in the Kill Zone on
Elm. Ya think that could be why Jefferies didn't think it was of much
value to the DPD in determining who killed JFK?
What shady characters can you pick out of Jefferies' film? Were there
some plotters in the middle of Main Street...even though the killing
wasn't going to occur for several more blocks and around two more
corners?
Naturally, as usual, you're latching onto the "vague" and "murky" and
"unknown", and you feel obliged to run for the CT Endzone with this
piecemeal non-data...which proves...nada.
Don't you ever feel foolish looking at EVERYTHING sideways? If
not...why not?
Ben Holmes
says...
We already know the answer to that one - he was left at the airport.
David Von Pein
And yet, even WITHOUT Rybka in the SS follow-up car, that SS car was
PACKED to the gills with the MAXIMUM number of agents -- eight.
Including the MAXIMUM on each running board (2 on each side).
Was Rybka supposed to run alongside X100 ALL THE WAY TO THE TRADE MART
(including while the cars were on Stemmons, moving 50 MPH or so)?
An LOL is required at this point. Let's all join in.... LOL!
Ben's slipping. (If it's possible to slip from rock bottom, that is.)
Walt
Dear dumbass..... I'm well aware that Jefferies was standing on Main
street near Harwood when he filmed JFK's motorcade. Do you think the
only information in that film is JFK and Jackie? Are there people
lining the street? Perhaps Richard Nixon was in the crowd ( he
couldn't remember where he was at the time)
Walt
David Von Pein
in the crowd...would they? (Maybe he was wearing one of those "big
nose" disguises.)
Also: WHY would Nixon (or any plotters) want to hang around Main St.,
doing nothing, minutes PRIOR to the assassination (potentially being
filmed while hanging out)?
Any reason at all...other than to prop up a Walt-Kook wild-guess
theory?
Martin Shackelford
That was very normal due to the limited amount of footage contained in a
single 8mm reel of film.
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1171981922.2...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
assassination--few were. The last to be given to the FBI was the Bronson
film.
Martin
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1171986977.2...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
cdddraftsman
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1171981922.2...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > That didn't take long -- one day for the kooks to see something
> > "suspicious" in Jefferies' film. It figures.
>
> > Clint Hill rode the bumper 3 or 4 times during the motorcade (via the
> > films). But there are many times he's seen NOT riding the bumper too.
>
> > JFK didn't want the agents on the bumpers. He didn't like it at all
> > (from reports I've heard). CTers, naturally, totally disagree, saying
> > that JFK NEVER said that he didn't like the SS on the bumpers. So,
> > lacking the words coming from JFK himself, I guess that argument's a
> > stalemate.
>
> > But to accuse the SS of some plot just because Hill left the bumper
> > prior to Dealey Plaza is nutty. But is to be expected from the CTers,
> > I must admit. Everything's fishy to those kooks.
>
> > Some nut at Lancer was saying that he thinks the film is "suspicious"
> > because Jefferies started his camera, then stopped it (a la Zapruder),
>
> motorcade route?
> I'm almost 100% sure you are incorrect in your assessment of the
> Z-film.
>
> > then started filming again. Of course WHAT that PROVES re.
> > "conspiracy"...only that kook must know. He just thinks it's "odd"
> > that BOTH Zapruder and Jefferies started and stopped their cameras on
> > 11/22.
>
> very next day, as was pointed out when it was released Monday, Feb. 19. He
> didn't start-and-then-stop filming on the actual murder day Nov. 22, as you
> suggested he somehow did.
>
> > Plus -- Just exactly HOW are those BUMPER GUARDS supposed to totally
> > SHIELD the President from ALL possible angles of potential attack
> > anyhow? That's silly too.
>
> anybody shooting from that angle, which is why there was such a clear shot
> from ahead, and the frontal head shot (Z-313) proves that is where the fatal
> shot came from, since you can clearly see the shot hitting his right, front
> temple with no blood/brains flying up on the rear part of his head, as would
> be expected at the moment of impact.
>
> > Oswald could still have killed JFK even WITH an agent on JFK's right-
> > rear bumper.
>
> standard of "clear and convincing evidence" that LHO *was* the lone
> trigger-man, on that 6th floor window.
> Never mind "beyond a reasonable doubt" if LHO got to enjoy a real
> fair trial, and the WCR was anything but a "fair trial" to LHO when he had
> no representation in the WC "findings."
>
> > Those "bumper" agents were pretty much just for show
> > anyhow; they certainly couldn't throw a 360-degree circle of
> > "protection" around JFK every second of the motorcade....nor would JFK
> > have allowed that type of smothering protection.
>
> there was Rufus Youngblood (S.S. Agent) in the front next to the driver (Roy
> Kellerman), and Clint Hill in the rear if JFK didn't want any S.S.
> protection close-by?
> What about *this* damning video, which few people have seen (least
> of all, you)?
> S.S. Agent-in-charge Emory Roberts ORDERS an agent to get away
> from the limo when they left Love Field at the start of the motorcade. The
> frustrated agent raises both hands, perplexed by the contrary order to
> provide even minimum protection to the president running at his side.
> And, as the narrator mentions at the end, the FBI *confiscated*
> at least one film, and I'm sure there were others (ex., Jean Hill / Mary
> Moorman, had at least one pic, and I believe at least one person had his/her
> whole camera stolen by the FBI) whose films were unlawfully confiscated by
> your wonderful and objective FBI.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8
>
> 'JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown'
>
> "Watch as the two secret service men assigned to protect president
> Kennedy's motorcade are ordered to stand down just minutes before entering
> Dealey Plaza. They are obviously not happy about being given these orders."
>
> > After all, the WHOLE IDEA of even having a motorcade through a city is
> > to give a lot of people a good chance to SEE the President. If he was
> > to be "boxed in" by SS agents every minute of the trip...why the heck
> > even have a parade at all?
>
> Previous motorcades (incl. JFK) had maximum protection from S.S.
> Agents nearby and people easily got to see him go by at 15-25mph.
> BTW, S.S. rules were never to let a presidential motorcade go
> any slower than 15 mph, because that would give a potential assassin a
> better chance to score a hit.
> BTW2, a true S.S. sweep of the visiting site days before the
> actual motorcade would have nailed shut every open window in all high-rise
> buildings overlooking the motorcade route.
> This was obviously not done in Dallas, Nov. 22, 1963.
> That would have definitely knocked out Oswald (if he even fired
> a rifle at JFK) as a potential assassin since he would have no good vantage
> point behind to take a decent shot at the limo.
> But that would go against the repeated mantra and U.S.
> Government "official" conclusion for 42+ years now that only Oswald was
> involved in the assassination.
> If he had gone to trial, he could have had a very good chance
> at being given a 'not guilty' verdict on the actual murder itself because he
> would have been entitled to see *all the evidence*, not just bits and pieces
> as the WCR later gave as a sop to the people as the Government's
> "explanation."
> That 'not guilty' verdict wouldn't have played very well for the
> Government, and all hell would have broken loose with the people demanding
> the truth and full disclosure instead of getting the sappy WCR with numerous
> omissions of fact (and many people conveniently not called to testify in
> D.C., notably, Jack Ruby), and what "facts" they did get were all supplied
> by the FBI and Hoover--who personally hated JFK and was good friends with
> LBJ (as was Connally--who LBJ wanted to get out of the limo and substitute
> his enemy, Sen. Ralph Yarborough).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gosh ' A ' , that's a virtual corncopia of bogus information from
bogus conspiracy books for the last 44 years ! How you dood dat ? So
answer just one question :
If the assassination only could of happened one way , your 63 assassin
and co-helper scenario that you postulate can't possible be right ,
RIGHT ? So at best you've got a 1 in 63 chance that one of those
assassins that you read about in a luridly constructed conspiracy book
( A HOAX ! ) could be right . Now which one are you laying all you're
money on . Come on , there all mutually exclusive of each other , so
you can't mix and match ! Which one are you betting your life on . Or
are you already runniing scared down the street in avoidence of this
question ? ..............tl :
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4d4g17o
David Von Pein
Yes, Jefferies did. Three times on Nov. 22, in fact.
He started filming the crowd across the street...then stopped filming.
Then he filmed some more, looking east on Main...then stopped the
camera again.
Then he started filming as the cars approached him...then stopped a
third time.
Then he started filming the motorcade again as the limo passes
Jefferies.
But the CTer in question wasn't talking about the "stop/start" to film
the TSBD, which was obviously filmed at a post-shooting point in time.
The CTer thinks it's "suspicious" that Jefferies began filming the
cars, then stopped, then started up filming again.
To a reasonable person, of course, it's obvious as to why he stopped
filming, then started again just as the limo approached. Nothing
suspicious there at all.
But to a CT-Kook, everything MUST be looked at in a sideways "Why Is
This?" fashion.
BTW, the Hertz sign shows "66" degrees in the Jefferies Film, the
EXACT temp. that shows in Jim Murray's photo from 12:40 on 11/22. And
Jefferies supposedly filmed that on Nov. 23rd? Could be, I guess. But
it's an interesting "exact same temperature" coincidence.*
* = Just a casual observation -- NOT meant as a "Jefferies Conspiracy
Theory" of any kind. ;)
>>> "When did Zapruder stop-and-then-start his filming again in the motorcade route?" <<<
Zapruder filmed the lead cycles, then stopped. Then started up again
with the limo on Elm at Z133.
Or doesn't the pre-Z133 "stop" count as a "stop"?
David Von Pein
The above quote was uttered on a JFK Forum by Jack "Every Film Taken
On 11/22 Looks Hinky To Me" White. And it makes me wonder if the CT
clowns who continue to write crap like that really know just how
stupid they sound.
Mr. White obviously, therefore, MUST think that JFK was shot in the
back TWICE. How could he NOT think that?
He doesn't think the jacket hole can equate to the ONE known hole on
JFK's back/(skin). So...how did that hole get in JFK's jacket? Was he
shot twice in the back?
But if he was shot twice in the back, where's the OTHER hole in the
jacket? And where's the OTHER bullet hole in JFK's back, which would
need to "line up" perfectly (per White) to the hole in the suit
jacket?
For ANYONE to use the clothing of the victim as a definitive
indication of where the bullet entered the victim...is just crazy.
Quite obviously, regardless of WHERE the bullet hole resides in JFK's
jacket, since there was just ONE hole in the jacket JFK was wearing
when he was shot...and since there's just ONE single bullet hole in
his back --- this has to mean that the ONE bullet had to have gone
through that one hole in that jacket...no matter WHERE it was on the
clothing.
To believe anything else is to believe in something utterly nutty,
crazy, and just plain...kooky.
David Von Pein
So what? What's your point?
>>> "You aren't much better when you ignore damning videos as clear as on a sunny, bright day (aka, Dallas post-11am, Nov. 22, 1963)." <<<
Oh, the Rybka "wave-off", right?
Then explain how the SS car STILL had EIGHT agents in it in DP, with
the MAXIMUM # of agents on the side boards?
Any ideas? (Besides wild guesses.)
cdddraftsman
>
> news:1172000299.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> information where he was that day, but he said he wasn't in Dallas, and then
> he said he *was* there for a Pepsi board meeting that day.
> The problem is with his "explanation," there *was* no Pepsi
> board meeting set for Dallas that day.
> Madeleine Brown (LBJ's mistress) said he *was* in (N.) Dallas
> the night before [Nov. 21] at the Clint Murchison [wealthy oil baron] home
> for a party; also suspiciously attending: LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover.
> Not exactly a party where JFK (or RFK) would be welcomed.
>
> Skip ahead to 2:38 when the interview gets to the part where
> she mentions LBJ's devastating and indictable line of in present tense,
> "Those SOBs will never embarrass me again."
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y(added Nov. 22,
> 2006)
>
> 'LBJ's Mistress Blows Whistle On JFK Assassination'
>
> "The night before the Kennedy assassination, Lyndon Baines
> Johnson met with Dallas tycoons, FBI moguls and organized crime kingpins -
> emerging from the conference to tell his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown
> that "those SOB's" would never embarrass him again. It's a jaw-dropping
> deposition and it's the biggest JFK smoking gun there is - despite the fact
> that it has received little media attention."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You'd have to be a brainless idiot to believe that LBJ or anyone else
would breath a word to a second hand mistress , if they were involved
in a Assassination attempt , especially for the convenience of a big
whopper of a story that sounds too good to be true , because it is ! '
A ' your credibility for swallowing whole this manure cart , wheels
and all is beyond belief . There's no possible reason given in this
story and I've heard it before on the TMWKK , for LBJ to confide in
this lady anything of greater importance than the color of his
stockings . By the sound of your gullible and hillbilly ridden
demeanor I'll just have to conclude your either dimwitted with a touch
of shallow gene pooling or your just pulling our legs for the fun of
it . If the latter is the case try pulling on Rossley middle leg , I'm
sure both of you will get more sick pleasure out of it than coming in
here with some crap laden construct that's been driven into the ground
so many years ago , it seems like a eternity and I believe that story
is what touched off a libel suit against the History Channel for it's
efforts at construct making .
...........too bad they couldn't include you in that little party in
court , I'd love to see you do a couple of years in some queer
infested Texas Prisonf or Gay Con Artists ! You'd be most deserving of
the honors ............tl
Walt
> The FBI asked for films of the assassination. Jeffries film wasn't of the
> assassination--few were. The last to be given to the FBI was the Bronson
> film.
>
> Martin
Not So Martin, The FBI was requesting any film that was taken of the
motocade. Naturally they were primarily interested in any film like
Bev Oliver's film that was taken at the moment the bullets hit JFK so
they could either destoy it or alter it, But they accepted any film
from the naive suckers, like Robert Croft, who didn't know they were
giving their film to the perpetrators.
Walt
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> >> even have a parade at all?- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> >>> "The "coat bunch" is a non-issue. It is impossible for the coat to rise up enough to make the single bullet theory work." <<<
>
> The above quote was uttered on a JFK Forum by Jack "Every Film Taken
> On 11/22 Looks Hinky To Me" White. And it makes me wonder if the CT
> clowns who continue to write crap like that really know just how
> stupid they sound.
"It is impossible for the coat to rise up enough"
Jack may not have chose his words well, because it obviously is NOT
"impossible" for the coat to rise up enough enough to make the single
bullet theory work. Jack should have said ... JFK's coat was not
bunched up enough to make the single bullet bull shit plausible.
The whole bunched up not bunched up argument is nothing but a
diversion from the real fact.... That THE BACK WOUND WAS A WOUND MADE
BY AN EXITING BULLET ...that had struck JFK in the throat. Shortly
before his death Dr. Crenshaw wrote a book entitled... JFK Conspiracy
of Silence... In that book Dr Crenshaw, who was one of the doctors
who fought desperately to save JFK, wrote that there was NO DOUBT in
his mind that President Kennedy was struck twice from the
front ....once in the throat, and once in the right temple. He saw
the wounds made by both bullets so he should know.
Verification for Dr Crenshaws statement that a bullet had stuck JFK in
the right temple can be seen in a frame from the Z film that is
printed on page 184 of The Killing of a Preasident. In that photo a
tiny red spot can be seen on JFK's right temple, a split second later
his head explodes in a shower of blood and brain tissue.
So take that bunched up coat crap and stick it where the sun don't
shine.....
Walt
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Nix, Muchmore, Hughes and others ALSO stopped and re-started their cameras.
>That was very normal due to the limited amount of footage contained in a
>single 8mm reel of film.
>
>Martin
That's very much a bogus argument, as you're well aware of, Martin.
Why not tell everyone here just how many feet out of how many feet were exposed
in the extant Z-film, Martin?
Or put it in terms if time if you wish.
Lay out the FACTS, Martin; then try to assert what you just did above!
Ben Holmes
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1171981922.2...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> "suspicious" in Jefferies' film. It figures.
>>
>> Clint Hill rode the bumper 3 or 4 times during the motorcade (via the
>> films). But there are many times he's seen NOT riding the bumper too.
>>
>> JFK didn't want the agents on the bumpers. He didn't like it at all
>> (from reports I've heard). CTers, naturally, totally disagree, saying
>> that JFK NEVER said that he didn't like the SS on the bumpers. So,
>> lacking the words coming from JFK himself, I guess that argument's a
>> stalemate.
>>
>> But to accuse the SS of some plot just because Hill left the bumper
>> prior to Dealey Plaza is nutty. But is to be expected from the CTers,
>> I must admit. Everything's fishy to those kooks.
>>
>> Some nut at Lancer was saying that he thinks the film is "suspicious"
>> because Jefferies started his camera, then stopped it (a la Zapruder),
>
>
>motorcade route?
>Z-film.
It is claimed that he did so at Z-132/133.
That is proven false by the lack of 'First Frame Flash' at Z-133. You can
Google my previous discussions of First Frame Flash to read detail...
>> then started filming again. Of course WHAT that PROVES re.
>> "conspiracy"...only that kook must know. He just thinks it's "odd"
>> that BOTH Zapruder and Jefferies started and stopped their cameras on
>> 11/22.
>
> Jeffries took the last 10-sec. of his film on the TSBD building the
>very next day, as was pointed out when it was released Monday, Feb. 19. He
>didn't start-and-then-stop filming on the actual murder day Nov. 22, as you
>suggested he somehow did.
>
>> Plus -- Just exactly HOW are those BUMPER GUARDS supposed to totally
>> SHIELD the President from ALL possible angles of potential attack
>> anyhow? That's silly too.
>
> Obviously, there were no SS Agents on the *front* to guard against
>anybody shooting from that angle, which is why there was such a clear shot
>from ahead, and the frontal head shot (Z-313) proves that is where the fatal
>shot came from, since you can clearly see the shot hitting his right, front
>temple with no blood/brains flying up on the rear part of his head, as would
>be expected at the moment of impact.
>
>> Oswald could still have killed JFK even WITH an agent on JFK's right-
>> rear bumper.
>
> Except nobody has ever proven even with the lower [civil lawsuit]
>standard of "clear and convincing evidence" that LHO *was* the lone
>trigger-man, on that 6th floor window.
> Never mind "beyond a reasonable doubt" if LHO got to enjoy a real
>fair trial, and the WCR was anything but a "fair trial" to LHO when he had
>no representation in the WC "findings."
>
>
>> Those "bumper" agents were pretty much just for show
>> anyhow; they certainly couldn't throw a 360-degree circle of
>> "protection" around JFK every second of the motorcade....nor would JFK
>> have allowed that type of smothering protection.
>
> Contrary to your unverified "smothering" protection", how come
>there was Rufus Youngblood (S.S. Agent) in the front next to the driver (Roy
>Kellerman), and Clint Hill in the rear if JFK didn't want any S.S.
>protection close-by?
> What about *this* damning video, which few people have seen (least
>of all, you)?
> S.S. Agent-in-charge Emory Roberts ORDERS an agent to get away
>from the limo when they left Love Field at the start of the motorcade. The
>frustrated agent raises both hands, perplexed by the contrary order to
>provide even minimum protection to the president running at his side.
> And, as the narrator mentions at the end, the FBI *confiscated*
>at least one film, and I'm sure there were others (ex., Jean Hill / Mary
>Moorman, had at least one pic, and I believe at least one person had his/her
>whole camera stolen by the FBI) whose films were unlawfully confiscated by
>your wonderful and objective FBI.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8
>
> 'JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown'
>
> "Watch as the two secret service men assigned to protect president
>Kennedy's motorcade are ordered to stand down just minutes before entering
>Dealey Plaza. They are obviously not happy about being given these orders."
>
>
>> After all, the WHOLE IDEA of even having a motorcade through a city is
>> to give a lot of people a good chance to SEE the President. If he was
>> to be "boxed in" by SS agents every minute of the trip...why the heck
>> even have a parade at all?
>
David Von Pein
Fired by that midget in the glove compartment perhaps? Yeah, that's
logical.
Or perhaps Jackie fired the shot from that .38 in her handbag?
Once more, we have a kook accepting ANY evidence except the most
logical and sound evidence.
IOW -- If anything leads anywhere near Oswald and his weaponry, look
someplace else!
Plus: How does your obviously-kooky "Fired From The Front" scenario
help sort out the bullet-hole-in-the-coat discrepancy? There's STILL
going to be a discrepancy there in the "level" of the holes, even if
the bullet EXITED instead of ENTERED the back.
~~Awaiting Walt's Stellar Logic Re. Above Inquiry~~
Ben Holmes
>Street?
> If it happened then, it certainly could have happened at the time
>the shots were fired, leading to the misguided idea by the WC on where the
>(rear?) neck shot actually hit him and making it appear he was shot from the
>sixth floor when it could have actually been from the *front* hitting him in
>the throat, and not hitting Connally at all.
> But that one change would destroy the WCR "conclusions" that LHO
>was the only shooter and from the rear. So, how come the Parkland Hospital
>doctors (the first to examine him) said nothing about his supposed "neck"
>shot and used the *small, round* EXIT wound in his throat (unlike what a
>true 'exit' wound would have been--large and jagged) as a convenient
>tracheotomy point?
It's long been known that Ford "verbally" moved the wound up. It always *was*
in the upper back. No-one who saw it described it as "lower neck".
Ben Holmes
>>>>> "We already know the answer to that one - he was left at the airport."
>>>>> <<<
>>
>> And yet, even WITHOUT Rybka in the SS follow-up car, that SS car was
>> PACKED to the gills with the MAXIMUM number of agents -- eight.
>> Including the MAXIMUM on each running board (2 on each side).
>>
>> Was Rybka supposed to run alongside X100 ALL THE WAY TO THE TRADE MART
>> (including while the cars were on Stemmons, moving 50 MPH or so)?
>
>Plaza, and then were racing to the hospital at 80 mph?
>
>
>
>> Ben's slipping. (If it's possible to slip from rock bottom, that is.)
>
>as on a sunny, bright day (aka, Dallas post-11am, Nov. 22, 1963).
Rybka was intentionally left behind... all SS agents have "duty stations",
Rybka's that day was behind JFK, just as Clint Hill was behind Jackie. It
doesn't matter *how* many agents are still around, if none of them picks up
Rybka's job.
LNT'er can offer no reason for Rybka being left behind, and in the video, it's
clear that even *he* is simply amazed and disgusted at being left behind.
David Von Pein
Can Ben explain why ALL FOUR running-board positions were FILLED WITH
AGENTS in DP, if nobody "picked up Rybka's job"?
You cannot possibly argue that Rybka was planning on running with the
limo during the ENTIRE motorcade...or can you?
No way that was going to happen. Therefore, if Rybka's "job" wasn't
"picked up", how come we've got 8 agents riding in Queen Mary in DP,
including the max. # on the side boards (4)?
Ben Holmes
>
>On 21 Feb, 04:36, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "The "coat bunch" is a non-issue. It is impossible for the coat to rise up
>>enough to make the single bullet theory work." <<<
>
>>
>> The above quote was uttered on a JFK Forum by Jack "Every Film Taken
>> On 11/22 Looks Hinky To Me" White. And it makes me wonder if the CT
>> clowns who continue to write crap like that really know just how
>> stupid they sound.
>
>
>"It is impossible for the coat to rise up enough"
>
>Jack may not have chose his words well, because it obviously is NOT
>"impossible" for the coat to rise up enough enough to make the single
>bullet theory work. Jack should have said ... JFK's coat was not
>bunched up enough to make the single bullet bull shit plausible.
>
>The whole bunched up not bunched up argument is nothing but a
>diversion from the real fact.... That THE BACK WOUND WAS A WOUND MADE
>BY AN EXITING BULLET ...that had struck JFK in the throat.
Walt... no-one who was at the autopsy was able to conceive that the two wounds
were "connected" in any way (other than the prosectors, obviously)...
David Von Pein
Ben is now apparently going to pretend that everyone in the autopsy
room KNEW that the throat wound even existed during the autopsy
itself. (When, in fact, we know that's simply not true.)
(Can I chalk this one up as one of "Ben-Kook's Lies", Bud? If not, it
comes mighty close IMO.)
Bud
A wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> news:1172000299.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> information where he was that day, but he said he wasn't in Dallas, and then
> he said he *was* there for a Pepsi board meeting that day.
> The problem is with his "explanation," there *was* no Pepsi
> board meeting set for Dallas that day.
> Madeleine Brown (LBJ's mistress) said he *was* in (N.) Dallas
> the night before [Nov. 21] at the Clint Murchison [wealthy oil baron] home
> for a party; also suspiciously attending: LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover.
> Not exactly a party where JFK (or RFK) would be welcomed.
>
> Skip ahead to 2:38 when the interview gets to the part where
> she mentions LBJ's devastating and indictable line of in present tense,
> "Those SOBs will never embarrass me again."
> 2006)
>
> 'LBJ's Mistress Blows
I`d say thats about right.
David Von Pein
My post was DEBUNKING the notion that the "stops" by Jefferies were
"hinky"....you boob.
Geez.
brightwinger
> That didn't take long -- one day for the kooks to see something
> "suspicious" in Jefferies' film. It figures.
>
> Clint Hill rode the bumper 3 or 4 times during the motorcade (via the
> films). But there are many times he's seen NOT riding the bumper too.
>
> JFK didn't want the agents on the bumpers. He didn't like it at all
> (from reports I've heard). CTers, naturally, totally disagree, saying
> that JFK NEVER said that he didn't like the SS on the bumpers. So,
> lacking the words coming from JFK himself, I guess that argument's a
> stalemate.
>
> But to accuse the SS of some plot just because Hill left the bumper
> prior to Dealey Plaza is nutty. But is to be expected from the CTers,
> I must admit. Everything's fishy to those kooks.
>
> Some nut at Lancer was saying that he thinks the film is "suspicious"
> because Jefferies started his camera, then stopped it (a la Zapruder),
> "conspiracy"...only that kook must know. He just thinks it's "odd"
> that BOTH Zapruder and Jefferies started and stopped their cameras on
> 11/22.
>
> SHIELD the President from ALL possible angles of potential attack
> anyhow? That's silly too.
>
> anyhow; they certainly couldn't throw a 360-degree circle of
> "protection" around JFK every second of the motorcade....nor would JFK
> have allowed that type of smothering protection.
>
> to give a lot of people a good chance to SEE the President. If he was
> to be "boxed in" by SS agents every minute of the trip...why the heck
> even have a parade at all?
I can accept the possibility that the agents needed to get off the
bumper if the limo was going to go at high speed. However:
There are two bumper slots for TWO SS agents. Yet only Cliff Hill is
there. This is yet another example of highly suspicious activity by
the SS and others on that day.
Martin Shackelford
limousine was some distance behind and stopped his camera until it came into
view from his position.
Martin
"A" <a...@hot.net> wrote in message
news:vmUCh.4622$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1171981922.2...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> That didn't take long -- one day for the kooks to see something
>> "suspicious" in Jefferies' film. It figures.
>>
>> Clint Hill rode the bumper 3 or 4 times during the motorcade (via the
>> films). But there are many times he's seen NOT riding the bumper too.
>>
>> JFK didn't want the agents on the bumpers. He didn't like it at all
>> (from reports I've heard). CTers, naturally, totally disagree, saying
>> that JFK NEVER said that he didn't like the SS on the bumpers. So,
>> lacking the words coming from JFK himself, I guess that argument's a
>> stalemate.
>>
>> But to accuse the SS of some plot just because Hill left the bumper
>> prior to Dealey Plaza is nutty. But is to be expected from the CTers,
>> I must admit. Everything's fishy to those kooks.
>>
>> Some nut at Lancer was saying that he thinks the film is "suspicious"
>> because Jefferies started his camera, then stopped it (a la Zapruder),
>
>
> When did Zapruder stop-and-then-start his filming again in the
> motorcade route?
> I'm almost 100% sure you are incorrect in your assessment of the
> Z-film.
>
>
>> then started filming again. Of course WHAT that PROVES re.
>> "conspiracy"...only that kook must know. He just thinks it's "odd"
>> that BOTH Zapruder and Jefferies started and stopped their cameras on
>> 11/22.
>
> Jeffries took the last 10-sec. of his film on the TSBD building
> the very next day, as was pointed out when it was released Monday, Feb.
> 19. He didn't start-and-then-stop filming on the actual murder day Nov.
> 22, as you suggested he somehow did.
>
>> Plus -- Just exactly HOW are those BUMPER GUARDS supposed to totally
>> SHIELD the President from ALL possible angles of potential attack
>> anyhow? That's silly too.
>
> Obviously, there were no SS Agents on the *front* to guard
> against anybody shooting from that angle, which is why there was such a
> clear shot from ahead, and the frontal head shot (Z-313) proves that is
> where the fatal shot came from, since you can clearly see the shot hitting
> his right, front temple with no blood/brains flying up on the rear part of
> his head, as would be expected at the moment of impact.
>
>> Oswald could still have killed JFK even WITH an agent on JFK's right-
>> rear bumper.
>
> Except nobody has ever proven even with the lower [civil lawsuit]
> standard of "clear and convincing evidence" that LHO *was* the lone
> trigger-man, on that 6th floor window.
> Never mind "beyond a reasonable doubt" if LHO got to enjoy a real
> fair trial, and the WCR was anything but a "fair trial" to LHO when he had
> no representation in the WC "findings."
>
>
>> Those "bumper" agents were pretty much just for show
>> anyhow; they certainly couldn't throw a 360-degree circle of
>> "protection" around JFK every second of the motorcade....nor would JFK
>> have allowed that type of smothering protection.
>
> Contrary to your unverified "smothering" protection", how come
> there was Rufus Youngblood (S.S. Agent) in the front next to the driver
> (Roy Kellerman), and Clint Hill in the rear if JFK didn't want any S.S.
> protection close-by?
> What about *this* damning video, which few people have seen
> (least of all, you)?
> S.S. Agent-in-charge Emory Roberts ORDERS an agent to get away
> from the limo when they left Love Field at the start of the motorcade.
> The frustrated agent raises both hands, perplexed by the contrary order to
> provide even minimum protection to the president running at his side.
> And, as the narrator mentions at the end, the FBI *confiscated*
> at least one film, and I'm sure there were others (ex., Jean Hill / Mary
> Moorman, had at least one pic, and I believe at least one person had
> his/her whole camera stolen by the FBI) whose films were unlawfully
> confiscated by your wonderful and objective FBI.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8
>
> 'JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown'
>
> "Watch as the two secret service men assigned to protect
> president Kennedy's motorcade are ordered to stand down just minutes
> before entering Dealey Plaza. They are obviously not happy about being
> given these orders."
>
>
>> After all, the WHOLE IDEA of even having a motorcade through a city is
>> to give a lot of people a good chance to SEE the President. If he was
>> to be "boxed in" by SS agents every minute of the trip...why the heck
>> even have a parade at all?
>
Martin Shackelford
before, I will quote the entire text of the card inserted into "all packages
of processed film" on behalf of the FBI--it is reproduced on p. 590 of
Trask, Pictures of the Pain:
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
If this film depicts pictures depicting the scene
at the
time of the assassination of President Kennedy
please
call your local FBI office.
Now, where in that do you see a request for "any film that was taken of the
motorcade"?
Martin
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1172067162.9...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:erhme...@drn.newsguy.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
mode between Holland's 11 seconds, and this bunching crap. Its so
ridiculous and transparent. Hell Mark Fuhrman is looking like the very
incarnation of honesty personified, compared to these guys...
Bud
And another example of a glaring failure of the conspiracy mongers
to turn an event they find suspicious into the established work of the
conspirators. If someone told Rybka to stay behind from fear he would
foil the assassination, then that someone had foreknowledge of the
assassination, and would be an obvious place to start. If Rybka was
upset at being left, he should be happy to supply the name of the
person who ordered him to stay. Get the bloodhounds out, kooks, the
trails getting cold.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Feb 20, 8:32 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> That didn't take long -- one day for the kooks to see something
>> "suspicious" in Jefferies' film. It figures.
>>
>> Clint Hill rode the bumper 3 or 4 times during the motorcade (via the
>> films). But there are many times he's seen NOT riding the bumper too.
>>
>> JFK didn't want the agents on the bumpers. He didn't like it at all
>> (from reports I've heard). CTers, naturally, totally disagree, saying
>> that JFK NEVER said that he didn't like the SS on the bumpers. So,
>> lacking the words coming from JFK himself, I guess that argument's a
>> stalemate.
No, it's not a stalemate at all. *PRODUCE* the citations that JFK didn't like
agents on the bumpers.
If you can't produce it, then you have *NOTHING*.
For as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, I *can* produce citations to the
contrary. Thanks to Palamara.
>> But to accuse the SS of some plot just because Hill left the bumper
>> prior to Dealey Plaza is nutty.
Of course! That's merely one small *bit* of evidence. Why would anyone hang an
entire case on a single *bit* of evidence?
>> But is to be expected from the CTers,
>> I must admit. Everything's fishy to those kooks.
When you fight straw, you win everytime...
>> Some nut at Lancer was saying that he thinks the film is "suspicious"
>> because Jefferies started his camera, then stopped it (a la Zapruder),
>> then started filming again. Of course WHAT that PROVES re.
>> "conspiracy"...only that kook must know. He just thinks it's "odd"
>> that BOTH Zapruder and Jefferies started and stopped their cameras on
>> 11/22.
>
>> Plus -- Just exactly HOW are those BUMPER GUARDS supposed to totally
>> SHIELD the President from ALL possible angles of potential attack
>> anyhow? That's silly too.
>>
>> Oswald could still have killed JFK even WITH an agent on JFK's right-
>> rear bumper. Those "bumper" agents were pretty much just for show
>> anyhow; they certainly couldn't throw a 360-degree circle of
>> "protection" around JFK every second of the motorcade....nor would JFK
>> have allowed that type of smothering protection.
Then there was no reason to exclude Rybka, was there?
>> After all, the WHOLE IDEA of even having a motorcade through a city is
>> to give a lot of people a good chance to SEE the President. If he was
>> to be "boxed in" by SS agents every minute of the trip...why the heck
>> even have a parade at all?
>
>I can accept the possibility that the agents needed to get off the
>bumper if the limo was going to go at high speed. However:
That was the general policy.
>There are two bumper slots for TWO SS agents. Yet only Cliff Hill is
>there. This is yet another example of highly suspicious activity by
>the SS and others on that day.
Yep... Rybka, who *should* have been on the other side - was inexplicably told
to stay behind.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Zapruder filmed the approaching lead motorcycles, then realized the
>limousine was some distance behind and stopped his camera until it came into
>view from his position.
That's a *speculation* not supported by Zapruder's own words... or by the
statements made by those who saw the *original* film... who *describe* the limo
making the turn in the video.
By the way... I notice that you didn't bother to offer the lengths of the film,
or the time remaining on the film - to support your earlier assertion.
Why is that, Martin?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>There is no "bogus argument,"
Since you refuse to debate the merits of it, how can anyone draw any other
conclusion, Martin?
Try providing *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* for your "fact". You know, a statement
from the person filming... the amount of film left... *ANYTHING* Martin, to
support your "fact".
>Ben--you just don't want to accept the facts.
If they *are* "facts", why couldn't you provide the supporting arguments,
Martin?
Why couldn't you provide the amount of unused film, as I requested?
Do the facts scare you as much as they scare LNT'ers, Martin?
Why are you top posting, and not answering the points I make, Martin?
You *DO* know that this is typical for LNT'ers...
>Martin
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:erhme...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <4gUCh.20528$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, Martin
>> Shackelford
>> says...
>>>
>>>Nix, Muchmore, Hughes and others ALSO stopped and re-started their
>>>cameras.
>>>That was very normal due to the limited amount of footage contained in a
>>>single 8mm reel of film.
>>>
>>>Martin
>>
>> That's very much a bogus argument, as you're well aware of, Martin.
>>
>> Why not tell everyone here just how many feet out of how many feet were
>> exposed in the extant Z-film, Martin?
Why couldn't you do this, Martin? Surely you're not afraid of the *FACTS*, are
you?
>> Or put it in terms if time if you wish.
>>
>> Lay out the FACTS, Martin; then try to assert what you just did above!
Why did you duck this, Martin?
Walt
> This isn't the first time you've misrepresented this matter, Walt. As
> before, I will quote the entire text of the card inserted into "all packages
> of processed film" on behalf of the FBI--it is reproduced on p. 590 of
> Trask, Pictures of the Pain:
> ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
> If this film depicts pictures depicting the scene
> at the
> time of the assassination of President Kennedy
> please
> call your local FBI office.
> Now, where in that do you see a request for "any film that was taken of the
> motorcade"?
>
> Martin
Martin I'm well aware of the notes that were slipped into the packages
of processed prints ..... Could you enlighten us about the FBI's ads
that were placed in papers within a two hundred mile radius of
Dallas??
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "cdddraftsman" <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172066691.0...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 2:01 am, "A" <a...@hot.net> wrote:
> >> x-no-archive: yes> >>news:1172000299.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 20 Feb, 11:05, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> "Did Jefferies ever reveal to the authorities that he possessed
> >> >> >>> this
> >> 2006)
>
> >> 'LBJ's Mistress Blows Whistle On JFK Assassination'
>
> >> "The night before the Kennedy assassination, Lyndon Baines
> >> Johnson met with Dallas tycoons, FBI moguls and organized crime
> >> kingpins -
> >> emerging from the conference to tell his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown
> >> that "those SOB's" would never embarrass him again. It's a jaw-dropping
> >> deposition and it's the biggest JFK smoking gun there is - despite the
> >> fact
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > would breath a word to a second hand mistress , if they were involved
> > in a Assassination attempt , especially for the convenience of a big
> > whopper of a story that sounds too good to be true , because it is ! '
>
> Only in your sick opinion would someone dismiss something said in
> confidence to his mistress--but decades ago. Obviously, if she wanted to
> pull the plug on LBJ, she could have done so anytime during his 5-yr
> presidency.
GET REAL!.... She'd have been dead and discredited before she took
another breath.....
And LBJ was supporting her in a very comfortable manner.... As my
grandfather might ask..Do you think she would have cut off her meal
ticket, so she could go dumpster diving? Madeleine Browne actually
loved Lousy Bastard Johnson ( proof that women are not logical
creatures) and she was loyal to him even after his death. She became
very angry and decided to spill the beans when they murdered her son.
Her son's father was LBJ and apparently he looked just like his
father. He was a lawyer, and recognized that he had legal right to a
share of the loot and booty that LBJ had acquired as a vicious
pirate.He told his mother that he was suing the estate of LBJ for 10.5
million dollars. He was dead before he ever got to court.
Madeleine knew that other pirates in the band had murdered her son,
and wanted revenge.
Walt
> So she decided to wait until long after he was dead.
> I don't see anything wrong with someone waiting for a number of
> years before spilling her accounts of what happened, out of respect for a
> former lover.
>
> > A ' your credibility for swallowing whole this manure cart , wheels
> > and all is beyond belief . There's no possible reason given in this
> > story and I've heard it before on the TMWKK , for LBJ to confide in
> > this lady anything of greater importance than the color of his
> > stockings . By the sound of your gullible and hillbilly ridden
> > demeanor I'll just have to conclude your either dimwitted with a touch
> > of shallow gene pooling or your just pulling our legs for the fun of
> > it . If the latter is the case try pulling on Rossley middle leg , I'm
> > sure both of you will get more sick pleasure out of it than coming in
> > here with some crap laden construct that's been driven into the ground
> > so many years ago ,
>
> You are the one who is the sickie and highly demented for making
> your [LN'er] typical character assassination on myself [*] for whatever sick
> reason you have in sticking to the long-discredited nonsense that a
> nondescript ex-Communist (nee, Government FBI-informant) would be able to
> pull off such a deed all by his lonesome.
>
> [*] since you obviously can't refute her story except by name-calling and
> demeaning her, long after she has also passed but wanted to set the record
> straight on what she personally saw and heard before she died.
>
> it seems like a eternity and I believe that story
>
> > is what touched off a libel suit against the History Channel for it's
> > efforts at construct making .
> > ...........too bad they couldn't include you in that little party in
> > court , I'd love to see you do a couple of years in some queer
> > infested Texas Prisonf or Gay Con Artists ! You'd be most deserving of
> > the honors ............tl
>
> What about you getting thrown in there, since you seem to be
> associating yourself with this homosexual crapola and I don't associate
> myself with them?- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> In article <1172068982.821903.133...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 21 Feb, 04:36, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "The "coat bunch" is a non-issue. It is impossible for the coat to rise up
> >>enough to make the single bullet theory work." <<<
>
> >> The above quote was uttered on a JFK Forum by Jack "Every Film Taken
> >> On 11/22 Looks Hinky To Me" White. And it makes me wonder if the CT
> >> clowns who continue to write crap like that really know just how
> >> stupid they sound.
>
> >"It is impossible for the coat to rise up enough"
>
> >Jack may not have chose his words well, because it obviously is NOT
> >"impossible" for the coat to rise up enough enough to make the single
> >bullet theory work. Jack should have said ... JFK's coat was not
> >bunched up enough to make the single bullet bull shit plausible.
>
> >The whole bunched up not bunched up argument is nothing but a
> >diversion from the real fact.... That THE BACK WOUND WAS A WOUND MADE
> >BY AN EXITING BULLET ...that had struck JFK in the throat.
>
> Walt... no-one who was at the autopsy was able to conceive that the two wounds
> were "connected" in any way (other than the prosectors, obviously)...
Of course they couldn't "conceive" that the two wounds were
connected. They shouldn't have been forced to "conceive" they should
have been allowed to PROBE the wound in the back until they found the
passage of that bullet.
Even if the autopsy had been performed by good qualified prosectors
their minds were already tainted by the news reports that Oswald had
fired from BEHIND JFK. It's true the news reports should not have any
effect on the facts found during the autopsy, but since it was already
an open and shut case, they saw no pressing need to argue with those
higher ranking officers who told them what to do, and what not to
do.
I'm certain that if that back wound had been properly probed with the
appropriate tool they would have discovered that the bullet's path led
to a wound in the throat. A wound that was altered so it no longer
looked like the entry wound the doctors at Parkland had seen, but now
looked more like an EXIT wound. Since the doctors performing the
autopsy were under the impression that the bullet had been fired at a
down angle they tried to find a passage that conformed with that idea,
but they could find such a passage by probing with their fingers.
( Humes said he probed the back wound with his finger. That action
alone indicates he was probing an EXIT wound of a bullet that EXPANDED
in it's passage through the body. If that back wound had been an entry
wound made by a FMJ 6.5 bullet, Humes could not have inserted his
finger in that 3 /16" hole.
THE BACK WOUND WAS AN EXIT WOUND MADE BY THE BULLET THAT STRUCK JFK IN
THE THROAT.
Walt
>
>
>
> >Shortly
> >before his death Dr. Crenshaw wrote a book entitled... JFK Conspiracy
> >of Silence... In that book Dr Crenshaw, who was one of the doctors
> >who fought desperately to save JFK, wrote that there was NO DOUBT in
> >his mind that President Kennedy was struck twice from the
> >front ....once in the throat, and once in the right temple. He saw
> >the wounds made by both bullets so he should know.
> >Verification for Dr Crenshaws statement that a bullet had stuck JFK in
> >the right temple can be seen in a frame from the Z film that is
> >printed on page 184 of The Killing of a Preasident. In that photo a
> >tiny red spot can be seen on JFK's right temple, a split second later
> >his head explodes in a shower of blood and brain tissue.
>
> >So take that bunched up coat crap and stick it where the sun don't
> >shine.....
>
> >Walt
>
> >> Mr. White obviously, therefore, MUST think that JFK was shot in the
> >> back TWICE. How could he NOT think that?
>
> >> He doesn't think the jacket hole can equate to the ONE known hole on
> >> JFK's back/(skin). So...how did that hole get in JFK's jacket? Was he
> >> shot twice in the back?
>
> >> But if he was shot twice in the back, where's the OTHER hole in the
> >> jacket? And where's the OTHER bullet hole in JFK's back, which would
> >> need to "line up" perfectly (per White) to the hole in the suit
> >> jacket?
>
> >> For ANYONE to use the clothing of the victim as a definitive
> >> indication of where the bullet entered the victim...is just crazy.
>
> >> Quite obviously, regardless of WHERE the bullet hole resides in JFK's
> >> jacket, since there was just ONE hole in the jacket JFK was wearing
> >> when he was shot...and since there's just ONE single bullet hole in
> >> his back --- this has to mean that the ONE bullet had to have gone
> >> through that one hole in that jacket...no matter WHERE it was on the
> >> clothing.
>
> >> To believe anything else is to believe in something utterly nutty,
> >> crazy, and just plain...kooky.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Of course, if any of you kooks would bother to read anything ever
written by the incredibly-logical Jean Davison, you'd know that Jean
is 100% right when she says that it doesn't really make a damn bit of
difference WHAT Gerald Ford did ON PAPER to the JFK back wound,
because Ford's comments DO NOT CHANGE THE WOUND LOCATION ITSELF ON
THIS PHOTO:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
In fact, as Jean so aptly said in previous forum posts (and it's
certainly true without doubt)...if Ford was to MOVE the wound north
from the location where we find it in the above verified-as-unaltered
photo, it would TOTALLY WRECK the SBT trajectory.
<Quoting Jean:>
"To my knowledge, {nobody} has ever explained how moving the back
wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because
moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory,
not strengthen it. I'll refer you to CE903. Although Specter didn't
drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had
he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck.
There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of
about 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a
surveyor during the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT.
If the rod is moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above
the exit wound under
JFK's Adam's apple.
Or take a look at this photo of JFK:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's
tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right?
The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not
true.
If I haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison;
01/02/2007
<End Quote>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
If the above doesn't make a whole bunch of sense, then please tell the
world....WHY NOT?
David Von Pein
Any idea HOW the running boards were full of agents in DP...if Rybka
was supposed to be on one of them?
Was Rybka going to SHARE a board position with some other agent?
You kooks need to examine something else. Maybe the Anna Nicole
thing....try to find out who deserves the baby. This JFK thing isn't
for the kooks. That's fairly obvious; and has been for quite some time
now.
David Von Pein
You're mixed up, as usual. Clint Hill was an agent on the FRONT SIDE
of the follow-up SS car, not the "rear". (I.E., He was on one of the
two FRONT RUNNING BOARDS of Queen Mary).
Here's the complete SS agent roster for the Queen Mary follow-up car
on 11/22/63 in Dallas:
RUNNING BOARDS:
Left side/Front -- Clint Hill.
Right side/Front -- John Ready.
Left side/Rear -- Bill "Tim" McIntyre.
Right side/Rear -- Paul Landis.
FRONT SEAT:
Sam Kinney (driver).
Emory Roberts.
BACK SEAT:
Glen Bennett.
George Hickey.
JUMP SEATS:
Kennedy aides David Powers and Ken O'Donnell.
Plus -- Your comment -- "If he was there in the first place" -- is
hilarious, as you seem to actually be implying that there WEREN'T
agents on all four running boards in Dealey Plaza. When all you need
to do to confirm that there were agents there is to glance at the Phil
Willis photo or the Altgens picture (or the Z-Film!) to confirm the
number of agents in Queen Mary (two on each running board).....
http://www3.baylor.edu/Library/BCPM/JFK/Photos/JFK%20Motorcade%202%20Large.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens.jpg
Plus: The info about the agents' names can easily be found within many
books or within the testimony and/or reports of the agents themselves,
including the very first one I checked, Paul Landis' report:
David Von Pein
Ever hear of a dictionary, Mr. Kook?....
http://webster.com/dictionary/hinky
(I can't believe so many people here seem to not know what "hinky"
means. You're not the first. Curious.)
Ben Holmes
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:krcDh.1581$re4...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
>> There is no "bogus argument," Ben--you just don't want to accept the
>> facts.
>
>'argument' for LHO as the only gunman.
Yep... and Martin certainly claims to hail from the CT'er side. But the
authenticity of the Z-film is something he stays far away from.
He begins emulating LNT'er behavior, such as top posting, refusing to debate or
acknowledge points made, and refusing to cite.
Ben Holmes
>
>On 22 Feb, 02:22, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> This isn't the first time you've misrepresented this matter, Walt. As
>> before, I will quote the entire text of the card inserted into "all packages
>> of processed film" on behalf of the FBI--it is reproduced on p. 590 of
>> Trask, Pictures of the Pain:
>> ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
>> If this film depicts pictures depicting the scene
>> at the
>> time of the assassination of President Kennedy
>> please
>> call your local FBI office.
>> Now, where in that do you see a request for "any film that was taken of the
>> motorcade"?
>>
>> Martin
>
>
>Martin I'm well aware of the notes that were slipped into the packages
>of processed prints ..... Could you enlighten us about the FBI's ads
>that were placed in papers within a two hundred mile radius of
>Dallas??
>
>Walt
Don't tell me Martin has been caught *again* misrepresenting the evidence!?
Ben Holmes
>
>On 21 Feb, 09:22, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>>In article <1172068982.821903.133...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 21 Feb, 04:36, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "The "coat bunch" is a non-issue. It is impossible for the coat to rise up
>> >>enough to make the single bullet theory work." <<<
>>
>> >> The above quote was uttered on a JFK Forum by Jack "Every Film Taken
>> >> On 11/22 Looks Hinky To Me" White. And it makes me wonder if the CT
>> >> clowns who continue to write crap like that really know just how
>> >> stupid they sound.
>>
>> >"It is impossible for the coat to rise up enough"
>>
>> >Jack may not have chose his words well, because it obviously is NOT
>> >"impossible" for the coat to rise up enough enough to make the single
>> >bullet theory work. Jack should have said ... JFK's coat was not
>> >bunched up enough to make the single bullet bull shit plausible.
>>
>> >The whole bunched up not bunched up argument is nothing but a
>> >diversion from the real fact.... That THE BACK WOUND WAS A WOUND MADE
>> >BY AN EXITING BULLET ...that had struck JFK in the throat.
>>
>>Walt... no-one who was at the autopsy was able to conceive that the two wounds
>> were "connected" in any way (other than the prosectors, obviously)...
>
>Of course they couldn't "conceive" that the two wounds were
>connected. They shouldn't have been forced to "conceive" they should
>have been allowed to PROBE the wound in the back until they found the
>passage of that bullet.
Their 'beliefs' were based on the locations of the wounds.
>Even if the autopsy had been performed by good qualified prosectors
>their minds were already tainted by the news reports that Oswald had
>fired from BEHIND JFK. It's true the news reports should not have any
>effect on the facts found during the autopsy, but since it was already
>an open and shut case, they saw no pressing need to argue with those
>higher ranking officers who told them what to do, and what not to
>do.
>
>
>I'm certain that if that back wound had been properly probed with the
>appropriate tool they would have discovered that the bullet's path led
>to a wound in the throat.
The eyewitnesses there don't support such a theory.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"A" <a...@hot.net> wrote in message
news:WLdDh.2738$PL....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:krcDh.1581$re4...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
>> There is no "bogus argument," Ben--you just don't want to accept the
>> facts.
>
> Those last 8 words just about sums up the entire LN'er side and
> 'argument' for LHO as the only gunman.
>
>
Martin Shackelford
My record supporting conspiracy is long and clear.
As for "staying away" from the Zapruder authenticity issue, try using Google
and get your facts straight.
Dismissing top posting as "LN" is moronic.
This is what happens when you have nothing genuine to say. That and the
Cleopatra idiocy.
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:erlmm...@drn.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
I've never seen such ads. Perhaps Walt would care to post one.
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:erlmt...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Might, if they were coming from a LNer--but they aren't.
Top-posting... providing LNT'er arguments, refusing to cite...
Actions speak louder than words, Martin.
The evidence for photographic alteration is overwhelming, AND UNANSWERED.
Learn to live with it, or start *ANSWERING* it.
For every time you lie about the evidence, I; or someone else here, is going to
call you on it.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Why must you blatantly lie, Ben.
And *every* time someone accuses me of lying, my response is the same: *QUOTE*
the lie, and cite the evidence that makes it so.
Despite that constant challenge, no one ever does...
Which specific part of this sentence, Martin; is a "lie?": "He begins emulating
LNT'er behavior, such as top posting, refusing to debate or acknowledge points
made, and refusing to cite."
Be *SPECIFIC*.
>My record supporting conspiracy is long and clear.
So you believe. Just not quite as clear here on this news forum.
>As for "staying away" from the Zapruder authenticity issue, try using Google
>and get your facts straight.
Don't need to. Emulating Tony by referring to long past discussions is fine *IF
THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS ARE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION*
But you've *NEVER* attempted to defend some of the issues I've raised.
So don't bother to lie about it, Martin. Support your theory, or be laughed at.
>Dismissing top posting as "LN" is moronic.
Yep... every LNT'er will say that. Yet despite this, you continue to do so.
>This is what happens when you have nothing genuine to say. That and the
>Cleopatra idiocy.
LOL!!
You couldn't even see what was happening before your eyes...
It was aimed at LNT'ers... and you bit on it...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Quick to accuse, as usual.
And based *ENTIRELY* on your known history, and Walt's known history.
Walt is far more reliable and trustworthy than you are, Martin.
We occasionally disagree, but unlike *you*, Walt is always willing to support
his own words, cite the evidence, and answer points being made.