The Hickey Shot .When I recieved the book ' Mortal Error ' for christmas one year
cdddraftsman
christmas one year , as soon as I read the part about it being a stray
shot , I put the book down and didn't finish it .Those who believe in '
Mortal Error ' have to believe in this . Of the possible ten thousand
places , or more , a stray bullet could of went , is it possible , that
it would of hit exactely where LHO was aiming at ? The possibility's
are ten thousand , or greater to one against this happening .
I agree that anything is possible , but that's not the question here ,
the question then gets tossed into the probability sphere , which
precludes it from happening . .......Tom Lowry
David VP
And that's just exactly what I have said in the past, too, re. the
unbelievably-silly "Hickey Did It" theory.
Plus -- On top of the incredible IMPROBABILITY of an accident like that
having actually occurred, with the bullet ending up in just the place
Oswald was aiming too....there are the many other things that tell us
it never could have happened (or, at the very least, tell us that it
couldn't have been COVERED UP with the skill and all-encompassing
precision with which certain folks think it must have been covered up).
You'd have to believe that all of the SS agents (including Hickey)
desired to cover up the real truth. (Plus Kenny O'Donnell and Dave
Powers, to boot.) Likely?
You'd also have to believe that, incredibly, a third Oswald bullet
shell was either "planted" in the TSBD just after the shooting (great
fast footwork by the plotters there...how did they even KNOW that
Hickey had accidentally killed JFK by the time of this planting?) -- or
-- that a third bullet shell from a PREVIOUS pre-11/22 LHO shot just
happened to be expelled by LHO in the SN, alongside the two shots from
the 11/22 shooting. Likely? Either version?
Then there's the fact that MC/WCC bullet remnants were found in JFK's
head....proving the Hickey theory wrong yet again.
Then there's the two large fragments from C2766 in the limo -- both to
the front of JFK -- which almost HAD to have come from the head shot.
(If not -- then from which shot?)
So many reasons to know the Hickey theory is hogwash.
But some people thrive on wallowing in the wash of hogs. Evidently. (I
wonder why?)
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Just a short note : When I recieved the book ' Mortal Error ' for
> christmas one year , as soon as I read the part about it being a stray
> shot , I put the book down and didn't finish it .
That seems to be a common reaction of a number of people -- including
LN'ers, I am sorry to see. I guess this is their version of the
scientific method.
> Those who believe in '
> Mortal Error ' have to believe in this . Of the possible ten thousand
> places , or more , a stray bullet could of went , is it possible , that
> it would of hit exactely where LHO was aiming at ?
LHO was probably aiming at the back center of the president's head and
the fatal head shot actually struck him at the top of the head.
> The possibility's
> are ten thousand , or greater to one
> against this happening .
Just remember when you're feeling rather small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's buggers all down here on Earth!
- Monty Python, "The Galaxy Song" from the movie "The Meaning of
Life"
David VP
Oh for Pete sake, Griz! You aren't serious with this shit, are you??!!
Oswald was probably aiming at JFK's head during Shots 1 and 2,
too...right?
Griz seems to want to micro-manage the head-shot entry hole to the
millimeter now.
Gee whiz! How silly!
And there's an interesting word used above by The Griz -- "fatal", to
describe "Hickey's" head shot. I thought Oswald killed the President
first, in your view, Griz? Back-peddling a bit on that? Just curious.
>>> "Just remember when you're feeling rather small and insecure, How amazingly unlikely is your birth; And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'Cause there's buggers all down here on Earth! -- Monty Python..." <<<
Not quite sure what this really has to do with the implausibilities of
the Hickey-Did-It theory --- but I guess it must....otherwise Griz
wouldn't have printed it out.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >>> "LHO was probably aiming at the back center of the president's head and the fatal head shot actually struck him at the top of the head." <<<
>
>
> Oh for Pete sake, Griz! You aren't serious with this shit, are you??!!
>
> Oswald was probably aiming at JFK's head during Shots 1 and 2,
> too...right?
I guess so. He missed twice, didn't he?
> Griz seems to want to micro-manage the head-shot entry hole to the
> millimeter now.
Lowry said that the fatal head shot hit "exactly" where LHO intended,
and that isn't accurate, and the difference is a few inches - not a
millimeter. And yes, obviously a few inches is crucial here. Just a
little higher and the head shot would have missed altogether.
> Gee whiz! How silly!
>
> And there's an interesting word used above by The Griz -- "fatal", to
> describe "Hickey's" head shot. I thought Oswald killed the President
> first, in your view, Griz? Back-peddling a bit on that? Just curious.
Are you stupid or something? The neck shot was "fatal" in that it
probably would have killed JFK in and of itself. The head shot was
fatal in that it did kill him instantly.
Only someone with a Tom Rossley-type intellect could fail to grasp the
distinction.
> >>> "Just remember when you're feeling rather small and insecure, How amazingly unlikely is your birth; And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'Cause there's buggers all down here on Earth! -- Monty Python..." <<<
>
>
> Not quite sure what this really has to do with the implausibilities of
> the Hickey-Did-It theory
This is one of those moments where I wonder if the other guy is really
this stupid or is he only pretending.
> --- but I guess it must....otherwise Griz
> wouldn't have printed it out.
Yeah, I guess it must; otherwise I wouldn't have. But I'll leave it to
someone else to either acknowledge or figure out.
cdddraftsman
diameters would fit in an area the size of the back of JFK's head .
Lets say 400 . That wouldn't still not be good odd's , especially if
the possible areas a bullet could of strayed , was
not 10,000 , which was a figure I used arbitrarily , but lets say
20,000 or 30,000 .......I just don't buy it , it's a fantastic dream
.....but since I don't argue with the Griz. or Grizzle Bears for that
matter , It's almost time to go to bed . Tom Lowry
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Well , then it would be a factor of how many concievable bullet
> diameters would fit in an area the size of the back of JFK's head .
> Lets say 400 . That wouldn't still not be good odd's , especially if
> the possible areas a bullet could of strayed , was
> not 10,000 , which was a figure I used arbitrarily , but lets say
> 20,000 or 30,000 .......I just don't buy it , it's a fantastic dream
> .....but since I don't argue with the Griz. or Grizzle Bears for that
> matter , It's almost time to go to bed . Tom Lowry
Given that reasoning, the odds against the bullet striking ANYWHERE
would be too remote to contemplate.
But if you don't argue with the Griz, then never mind...
David VP
LOL!
Spoken as if Griz actually DOES think he KNOWS with 100% certainty
exactly what square inch on JFK's head Oswald was aiming at.
Absolutely amazing! And LOL-like too. (And I'm supposedly the stupid
one here, eh?)
One more --- LOL!
>>> "The neck shot was "fatal" in that it probably would have killed JFK in and of itself. The head shot was fatal in that it did kill him instantly." <<<
WTF?? Nice double-talk there. Do some more.
And Oswald's SBT shot was probably NOT a fatal shot, btw. Multiple
doctors have said that. They are to be ignored, though, so that Griz
can wedge himself into the unique Semi-Kook category of -- "I Believe
Oswald Killed JFK, But He Didn't Fire That Last Shot".
It's the "Have My Cake & Eat It Too" Syndrome.
And the "My God, I'm Hit" crap is just that -- crap. But apparently
every single thing Mr. Donahue says in "M.E." is to be taken as
fact...despite both female passengers in the limo (who were closer to
JFK than anyone) totally debunking Donahue's "I'm Hit" hunk of
nonsense. .....
MR. SPECTER -- "Did President Kennedy say anything at all after the
shooting?"
NELLIE CONNALLY -- "He did not say anything."
JACKIE KENNEDY -- "And my husband never made any sound."
MR. RANKIN -- "Do you recall anyone saying anything else during the
time of the shooting?"
JACKIE KENNEDY -- "No; there weren't any words. There was just Governor
Connally's."
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >>> "Lowry said that the fatal head shot hit "exactly" where LHO intended, and that isn't accurate..." <<<
>
> LOL!
>
> Spoken as if Griz actually DOES think he KNOWS with 100% certainty
> exactly what square inch on JFK's head Oswald was aiming at.
Oh, and you do? You know where Oswald was aiming? You know it for
sure? How do you know?
And if you don't know where Oswald was aiming, how can you say that the
final shot hit exactly where it was supposed to?
> Absolutely amazing! And LOL-like too. (And I'm supposedly the stupid
> one here, eh?)
I'd say that it was no longer a matter of supposition.
> One more --- LOL!
>
>
> >>> "The neck shot was "fatal" in that it probably would have killed JFK in and of itself. The head shot was fatal in that it did kill him instantly." <<<
>
>
> WTF?? Nice double-talk there. Do some more.
Double talk, WHAT? Where is your confusion? I'll bet that an 8 year
old dyslexic could understand that perfectly.
> And Oswald's SBT shot was probably NOT a fatal shot, btw. Multiple
> doctors have said that.
Yeah, like who? Fisher and Morgan said that based on their review of
the X-rays for Ramsey Clark in 1968l
But Lattimer -- who believes that Oswald fired all of the shots --
found damage to the vertebra and spinal cord that Fisher and Morgan
didn't find and concluded that the SBT shot was probably fatal.
> They are to be ignored, though, so that Griz
> can wedge himself into the unique Semi-Kook category of -- "I Believe
> Oswald Killed JFK, But He Didn't Fire That Last Shot".
>
> It's the "Have My Cake & Eat It Too" Syndrome.
You're full of shit. Whether or not JFK would have survived the SBT
wound is a collateral issue which is not relevant to Hickey firing the
head shot.
> And the "My God, I'm Hit" crap is just that -- crap. But apparently
> every single thing Mr. Donahue says in "M.E." is to be taken as
> fact...despite both female passengers in the limo (who were closer to
> JFK than anyone) totally debunking Donahue's "I'm Hit" hunk of
> nonsense. .....
> MR. SPECTER -- "Did President Kennedy say anything at all after the
> shooting?"
> NELLIE CONNALLY -- "He did not say anything."
>
> JACKIE KENNEDY -- "And my husband never made any sound."
>
> MR. RANKIN -- "Do you recall anyone saying anything else during the
> time of the shooting?"
> JACKIE KENNEDY -- "No; there weren't any words. There was just Governor
> Connally's."
I guess that the two females were too frightened to be of much use as
witnesses or to be conscious of everything that was going on around
them.
-------------------------------------------------
Mr. Specter.
With relationship to that first noise that you have described, when did
you hear the voice?
Mr. Kellerman.
His voice?
Mr. Specter.
We will start with his voice.
Mr. Kellerman.
OK. From the noise of which I was in the process of turning to
determine where it was or what it was, it carried on right then. Why I
am so positive, gentlemen, that it was his voice there is only one man
in that back seat that was from Boston, and the accents carried very
clearly.
Mr. Specter.
Well, had you become familiar with the President's voice prior to that
day?
Mr. Kellerman.
Yes; very much so.
Mr. Specter.
And what was the basis for your becoming familiar with his voice prior
to that day?
Mr. Kellerman.
I had been with him for 3 years.
Mr. Specter.
And had you talked with him on a very frequent basis during the course
of that association?
Mr. Kellerman.
He was a very free man to talk to; yes. He. knew most all the men, most
everybody who worked in the White House as well as everywhere, and he
would call you.
Mr. Specter.
And from your experience would you say that you could recognize the
voice?
Mr. Kellerman.
Very much, sir; I would.
-------------------------------------------------
And if you want to make me laugh at you again, you'll make the same
argument that you made the last time about Kellerman somehow confusing
Kennedy's New England accent with Connally's Texas twang.
David VP
Ludicrously-stupid argument here.
Was OSWALD aiming his rifle in all OTHER places within DP? If not, your
argument above is, as stated, ludicrous and stupid.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >>> "Given that reasoning, the odds against the bullet striking ANYWHERE would be too remote to contemplate." <<<
>
> Ludicrously-stupid argument here.
>
> Was OSWALD aiming his rifle in all OTHER places within DP?
How do you know where he was aiming and where he wasn't aiming? You
just got through saying that we couldn't know. James Reston thought
that Oswald was aiming at Connally and that theory was the subject of a
Time Magazine cover story and was also alluded to in a biography that
Reston wrote about Connally.
Marina once also told the WC that she thought that her husband might
have been shooting at Connally.
Given THAT supposition, Hickey didn't come close to hitting Oswald's
target.
> If not, your
> argument above is, as stated, ludicrous and stupid.
Hickey was considerably closer to JFK than Oswald was -- so if and when
the AR-15 went off, his accidentally shooting JFK was not such a remote
possibility.
To disregard THAT is ludicrous and stupid.
David VP
I don't know to the exact SQUARE INCH where on JFK's body Oswald was
aiming, and neither do you. And I never claimed to know such an
impossible-to-determine thing, kook.
But it's fairly obvious (via plain old common sense) that Oswald was
NOT aiming at the car's rear license plate, or at Jackie, or at Jean
Hill or Chuck Brehm....right?
He was aiming at JFK, and aiming to kill. So where do you think he was
aiming? His hand perhaps? Or his feet?
Geesh. Your stuff is getting progressively kookier by the minute.
>>> "And if you don't know where Oswald was aiming, how can you say that the final shot hit exactly where it was supposed to?" <<<
Oh, cut out this ridiculous shit, Griz. You can't possibly be this
stupid.
I never once said I could tell to the inch WHERE Oswald was aiming and
you know it. It was YOU who claimed you could probably do that. Now
you're trying a reverse check-mate type of backlash argument to put ME
on the defensive about something I obviously never claimed.
And re. Kellerman --- He didn't hear JFK say a damn thing. He's
confused. There's no way that BOTH women WOULDN'T have heard the words
of JFK if he had, in fact, said anything.
Plus:
Another in-the-car witness who claims JFK never uttered a word is John
Connally:
SPECTER -- Did President Kennedy make any statement during the time of
the shooting or immediately prior thereto?
CONNALLY -- He never uttered a sound at all that I heard.
~~~~~~~
And you can't use the excuse of being traumatized in JBC's instance
either....because Connally WAS able to discern what OTHERS were saying
in the car (e.g., Mrs. Connally's words plus Jackie Kennedy's):
SPECTER -- Did Mrs. Kennedy state anything at that time?
CONNALLY -- Yes; I have to--I would say it was after the third shot
when she said, "They have killed my husband."
SPECTER -- Did she say anything more?
CONNALLY -- Yes; she said, I heard her say one time, "I have got his
brains in my hand."
~~~~~~~
So, is it your contention, Griz, that John Connally was somehow able to
hear everything uttered by the two ladies in the car, PLUS he was able
to also clearly hear Kellerman's words too.....
CONNALLY -- After the third shot, and I heard Roy Kellerman tell the
driver, "Bill, get out of line." ... and he said, "Get us to a hospital
quick."
.....And yet Mr. Connally somehow totally missed hearing JFK say his
"I'm Hit" declaration?
Sound reasonable?
(Sounds like a kooky pick-and-choose fishing expedition to me.)
David VP
It certainly is not.
Why?
Because of that OTHER big pile of stuff that says the Hickey theory is
a smelly turd.
That's why.
And I hear a small bit of desperation in your tone via your last
argument here. (Understandable, though, considering your belief in this
outlandish theory in the first place.)
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >>> "Hickey was considerably closer to JFK than Oswald was -- so if and when the AR-15 went off, his accidentally shooting JFK was not such a remote possibility. To disregard THAT is ludicrous and stupid." <<<
>
>
> It certainly is not.
>
> Why?
>
> Because of that OTHER big pile of stuff that says the Hickey theory is
> a smelly turd.
>
> That's why.
>
> And I hear a small bit of desperation in your tone via your last
> argument here.
Ha! I hear a tremendous amount of desperation in your whiny screed "It
certainly is not".
You're using the "declare victory and go home" tactic. I notice that
every time things start to get rough for you, you whine, and you snip
out the arguments that you can't respond to, declare victory and go
home. Just like you're doing here. And you've added circular
reasoning to the mix, assuming the point that you want to prove.
You must be from South Windsor, Connecticut.
David VP
Additional thought re. the above silliness........
Via the above logic, we could also start advocating (in earnest) the
Greer-Shot-JFK theory too....since he was even CLOSER to JFK than was
Hickey...or Oswald.
Plus, there's always Kellerman as well.
And Nellie.
And Jackie. (Remember, she had a purse for hiding small handguns.)
And what about Charles Brehm? (He was one of the closest bystanders. He
COULD have had a bazooka under his white jacket...right?)
~~~~~~~
Re. the "Oswald Was Aiming At Connally" theory:
Yes, I've heard that rumor too, and it's hogwash (IMO).
For one thing, if LHO was aiming at JBC, he wasn't making it very easy
for himself by waiting to shoot until the car was well onto Elm
Street....because JFK was in the way (a major SBT-supporting point, of
course).
Plus: I'd be willing to wager that Oswald didn't even have the
slightest idea on the morning of 11/22 that Connally would even BE in
that motorcade.
Yes, the above is just a guess....but has anyone been able to prove for
certain that Oswald DID know that John Connally would be riding in
JFK's car (or would be riding in the motorcade in general)?
Here are some more of my own thoughts on that theory (which I think is
about as credible as the Hickey-Did-It junk):
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >>> Oh, and you do? You know where Oswald was aiming? You know it for sure? How do you know?" <<<
>
>
> I don't know to the exact SQUARE INCH where on JFK's body Oswald was
> aiming, and neither do you. And I never claimed to know such an
> impossible-to-determine thing, kook.
>
> But it's fairly obvious (via plain old common sense) that Oswald was
> NOT aiming at the car's rear license plate, or at Jackie, or at Jean
> Hill or Chuck Brehm....right?
Ha ha ha. That sounds like an admission that you can't discount the
possibility that he was aiming at Connally.
> He was aiming at JFK, and aiming to kill. So where do you think he was
> aiming? His hand perhaps? Or his feet?
If he was aiming at JFK and he probably was aiming at JFK, rather than
Connally, then he was aiming to kill. Now, given that he was aiming to
kill, are you moronic enough to believe that he said to himself, "I'll
aim for the top of his head and see how close I can come to missing him
without actually missing him"?
Obviously, dickwad, he would aim for the CENTER of his target and not
for his target's edge.
And I also see no reason to get bogged down in this shit about whether
the head shot hit Oswald's "exact" target. If the head shot came from
above and to Kennedy's LEFT as it surely did and if it behaved like an
exploding frangible bullet instead of a FMJ, as it surely did, then
Hickey fired it, and if you don't like that because you think that it
was too "perfect" a hit, that's too bad. It COULD have happened
because it DID happen. And you're the one that has to live with your
head planted firmly inside your worthless ass.
> >>> "And if you don't know where Oswald was aiming, how can you say that the final shot hit exactly where it was supposed to?" <<<
>
>
> Oh, cut out this ridiculous shit, Griz. You can't possibly be this
> stupid.
>
> I never once said I could tell to the inch WHERE Oswald was aiming and
> you know it. It was YOU who claimed you could probably do that. Now
> you're trying a reverse check-mate type of backlash argument to put ME
> on the defensive about something I obviously never claimed.
Oh no, I'm not doing anything. You're avoiding the question. I've
reminded you that you said that you couldn't tell exactly where Oswald
was aiming and having gotten you to say that, I've asked you "how can
you say that the final shot hit exactly where it was supposed to?" And
apparently, you acknowledge that you can't.
So your argument falls of its own weight, and you're the one that
weighed it down.
> And re. Kellerman --- He didn't hear JFK say a damn thing. He's
> confused.
Confused about what? Where is his confusion? I see that you're
reluctant to step into the doggy doo that you created last time about
him confusing a Texas accent with a New England one.
And another reason why you don't want to step into that is because then
you would have to acknowledge that the two women didn't report hearing
Connally say, "My God, I am hit" either.
So what is Kellerman confused about? Where does his confusion lie? Is
"My God, I am hit" a product of his imagination?
> There's no way that BOTH women WOULDN'T have heard the words
> of JFK if he had, in fact, said anything.
>
> Plus:
Bullshit. He's the SSA, and he's the more alert witness.
> Another in-the-car witness who claims JFK never uttered a word is John
> Connally:
>
> SPECTER -- Did President Kennedy make any statement during the time of
> the shooting or immediately prior thereto?
> CONNALLY -- He never uttered a sound at all that I heard.
Read his last three words over again.
> And you can't use the excuse of being traumatized in JBC's instance
> either....because Connally WAS able to discern what OTHERS were saying
> in the car (e.g., Mrs. Connally's words plus Jackie Kennedy's):
>
> SPECTER -- Did Mrs. Kennedy state anything at that time?
> CONNALLY -- Yes; I have to--I would say it was after the third shot
> when she said, "They have killed my husband."
> SPECTER -- Did she say anything more?
> CONNALLY -- Yes; she said, I heard her say one time, "I have got his
> brains in my hand."
> So, is it your contention, Griz, that John Connally was somehow able to
> hear everything uttered by the two ladies in the car, PLUS he was able
> to also clearly hear Kellerman's words too.....
>
> CONNALLY -- After the third shot, and I heard Roy Kellerman tell the
> driver, "Bill, get out of line." ... and he said, "Get us to a hospital
> quick."
> .....And yet Mr. Connally somehow totally missed hearing JFK say his
> "I'm Hit" declaration?
>
> Sound reasonable?
>
> (Sounds like a kooky pick-and-choose fishing expedition to me.)
Connally heard some things and didn't hear others. Greer didn't report
hearing anything said by anyone in the car, other than Kellerman. By
your reasoning, that would have to mean that everyone else in the car
was mute. Otherwise, you're just engaging in a kooky pick-and-choose
fishing expedition.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >>> "Hickey was considerably closer to JFK than Oswald was -- so if and when the AR-15 went off, his accidentally shooting JFK was not such a remote possibility. To disregard THAT is ludicrous and stupid." <<<
>
> Additional thought re. the above silliness........
>
> Via the above logic, we could also start advocating (in earnest) the
> Greer-Shot-JFK theory too....since he was even CLOSER to JFK than was
> Hickey...or Oswald.
>
> Plus, there's always Kellerman as well.
>
> And Nellie.
>
> And Jackie. (Remember, she had a purse for hiding small handguns.)
But they're on film and the film doesn't show them shooting JFK. You
really are poaching onto Rossley territory with this Mongoloid idiocy.
> And what about Charles Brehm? (He was one of the closest bystanders. He
> COULD have had a bazooka under his white jacket...right?)
But no one claimed to have seen wield a firearm, and a number of people
saw Hickey holding the AR-15 at the operative time.
> ~~~~~~~
>
> Re. the "Oswald Was Aiming At Connally" theory:
>
> Yes, I've heard that rumor too, and it's hogwash (IMO).
> For one thing, if LHO was aiming at JBC, he wasn't making it very easy
> for himself by waiting to shoot until the car was well onto Elm
> Street....because JFK was in the way (a major SBT-supporting point, of
> course).
I doubt that he was aiming at Connally, but he would have withheld fire
against his target -- whoever his target was -- until the car was on
Elm Street because he would have assumed that a frontal shot would
render HIM - Oswald - more visible to the Secret Service.
> Plus: I'd be willing to wager that Oswald didn't even have the
> slightest idea on the morning of 11/22 that Connally would even BE in
> that motorcade.
I don't know about that. I assume that Connally's presence would have
been announced in the papers and/or that he could comfortably assume
that the Governor would be in the same motorcade as the President.
David VP
Only a kook would say the above nonsense. So it appears Grizzlie has
earned that "K" trophy. Sorry, Griz, but you deserve that title, based
on the totality of this "Hickey Shot JFK" this thread alone.
>>> "And you've added circular reasoning to the mix, assuming the point that you want to prove." <<<
Would that be somewhat similar to the type of reasoning you've used in
this thread when you uttered this piece of hilarious,
impossible-to-prove (or support) speculation re. exactly where Lee
Oswald was aiming his rifle?:
"LHO was probably aiming at the back center of the president's head and
the fatal head shot actually struck him at the top of the head." --
Grizzlie Antagonist; July 25, 2006; 10:48 PM EDT
I guess the word "probably" was put into the above comment to give Griz
a loophole to crawl through when I bring this up from time to time.
Good strategy, too, I suppose. Because, technically, the word
"probably" in there will do the trick in that regard. But that's easy
to see through.
>>> "I guess that the two females {Jackie and Nellie} were too frightened to be of much use as witnesses or to be conscious of everything that was going on around them." <<<
I love this one! The two ladies (who were not injured by bullets in any
fashion, to dull their senses on that basis) were "too frightened" to
hear JFK's statement -- and yet these same two ladies WERE somehow not
"too frightened" to hear the comments being uttered by EVERYBODY ELSE
in the vehicle -- i.e., Jackie HEARD John Connally's "My God" statement
and Kellerman's words as well.
And Nellie HEARD Jackie Kennedy's comments about the brains in her
hands, plus other words spoken by the First Lady. And Nellie recalls
JBC's "Oh, no, no, no" comment, too.
Amazing, isn't it, that the ladies were able to hear everybody, it
seems, EXCEPT John F. Kennedy's words?
Some "circular reasoning" perhaps on Griz's part (or some other type of
oddball reasoning anyway)?
No...because of those two words he started it off with to protect him
from that accusation -- "I guess". Damn. He covered himself again.
I kinda wish Griz was a standard "CTer" -- because this comment....
"I guess that the two females were too frightened to be of much use as
witnesses or to be conscious of everything that was going on around
them."
....is just tailor-made for being thrown back into a full-fledged
"Patsy CTer's" face re. Nellie's not being worth a hoot as a witness
due to her "frightened" status at the time. Because she's the perfect
anti-SBT witness, as we all know, for most CT-Kooks.
Come on, Griz, change your stripes to an outright CTer...just for
today...I'm dying to use the above Nellie argument on a CT-Kook.
Please!
OK...never mind. I'll just have to wait until Ben-boy goes senile and
says the same thing about Nellie being a crappy witness. (Dammit.) :(
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >>> "I notice that every time things start to get rough for you, you whine, and you snip out the arguments that you can't respond to, declare victory and go home." <<<
>
>
> Only a kook would say the above nonsense. So it appears Grizzlie has
> earned that "K" trophy. Sorry, Griz, but you deserve that title, based
> on the totality of this "Hickey Shot JFK" this thread alone.
You just did it again - declare victory and announce your intention to
go home - only this time you poisoned the water. "Only a kook would
say the above nonsense". Shit, who would even bother to subject your
arguments to empirical scrutiny now? Not after you made it clear that
you were arguing with a "kook".
> >>> "And you've added circular reasoning to the mix, assuming the point that you want to prove." <<<
>
>
> Would that be somewhat similar to the type of reasoning you've used in
> this thread when you uttered this piece of hilarious,
> impossible-to-prove (or support) speculation re. exactly where Lee
> Oswald was aiming his rifle?:
>
> "LHO was probably aiming at the back center of the president's head and
> the fatal head shot actually struck him at the top of the head." --
> Grizzlie Antagonist; July 25, 2006; 10:48 PM EDT
> I guess the word "probably" was put into the above comment to give Griz
> a loophole to crawl through when I bring this up from time to time.
> Good strategy, too, I suppose. Because, technically, the word
> "probably" in there will do the trick in that regard. But that's easy
> to see through.
The word "probably" was put into the above because Oswald never
confessed guilt, was killed two days later, and no one ever had the
opportunity to ask him what his intentions were.
But "common sense" --- which you alluded to in another post and which I
think is in short supply here --- tells us that he would aim for the
center of his target and not the fringes.
> >>> "I guess that the two females {Jackie and Nellie} were too frightened to be of much use as witnesses or to be conscious of everything that was going on around them." <<<
>
>
> I love this one! The two ladies (who were not injured by bullets in any
> fashion, to dull their senses on that basis) were "too frightened" to
> hear JFK's statement -- and yet these same two ladies WERE somehow not
> "too frightened" to hear the comments being uttered by EVERYBODY ELSE
> in the vehicle -- i.e., Jackie HEARD John Connally's "My God" statement
> and Kellerman's words as well.
> And Nellie HEARD Jackie Kennedy's comments about the brains in her
> hands, plus other words spoken by the First Lady. And Nellie recalls
> JBC's "Oh, no, no, no" comment, too.
> Amazing, isn't it, that the ladies were able to hear everybody, it
> seems, EXCEPT John F. Kennedy's words?
No. Not the least bit amazing.
> Some "circular reasoning" perhaps on Griz's part (or some other type of
> oddball reasoning anyway)?
What's your definition of "circular reasoning"? I don't think that it
conforms to the dictionary definition. It doesn't conform to the
argument that you are making. I take it that given your limited
vocabulary, you found a phrase on my nickel that sounded good to you so
you tried it on and decided that you'd keep it, even though it doesn't
do a thing for you.
> No...because of those two words he started it off with to protect him
> from that accusation -- "I guess". Damn. He covered himself again.
It doesn't matter. Obviously, Kellerman heard JFK say what he said.
If the women didn't hear it, there must be a reason for it. I'm
speculating on what the reason was.
But it doesn't matter. Kellerman's testimony is unshakable.
Obviously, it's considerably more likely that he heard what he heard
and others missed it than it is that he only fancied that he heard it.
If there was no physical evidence to support Kellerman's testimony, I
might treat it skeptically also, but in fact, it's entirely consistent
with the physical evidence showing a first shot miss that still made a
physical impact on Kennedy.
I'm not playing the game that you're playing - the Red Queen's "verdict
first, trial afterwards" game. This might not be the only resemblance
that you bear to the Red Queen.
> I kinda wish Griz was a standard "CTer" -- because this comment....
>
> "I guess that the two females were too frightened to be of much use as
> witnesses or to be conscious of everything that was going on around
> them."
>
> ....is just tailor-made for being thrown back into a full-fledged
> "Patsy CTer's" face re. Nellie's not being worth a hoot as a witness
> due to her "frightened" status at the time. Because she's the perfect
> anti-SBT witness, as we all know, for most CT-Kooks.
Did I hear someone else talking about "kooky pick and choose" a little
while back?
What are you doing right now? You've decided that Nellie is a good
witness for the purpose of establishing JFK's silence and a bad one for
the purpose of establishing the SBT.
> Come on, Griz, change your stripes to an outright CTer...just for
> today...I'm dying to use the above Nellie argument on a CT-Kook.
> Please!
I have a better idea. Why don't you visit some singles club and see if
you can maneuver your way to kissing a girl for the first time in your
life?
David VP
LOL! What a goof! You still can't see the illogic of your "aiming"
bullshit, can you?
You seem to think that Oswald's aim would positively = Where the bullet
actually entered.
I know you seem to think this, based on this prior comment on the
subject:
"LHO was probably aiming at the back center of the president's head and
the fatal head shot actually struck him at the top of the head." -- The
Griz
Although WHY you seem to believe that the entry wound on JFK's head was
somehow at the "top" of the head...is anybody's guess. Beats me why you
seem to think this (even via your Hickey theory).
>>> "Obviously, dickwad, he would aim for the CENTER of his target and not for his target's edge." <<<
So what? Again...how does the "aim" = "the place the bullet hit". Do
you think Oswald was THAT good a shot? (I think Ozzie was a fair shot,
yes...but he did miss the head twice in three tries.)
And does your "dickwad" remark give me the right-of-way to call you a
"kook" a couple more times here? Just curious. (I think 1 "dickwad"
should entitle me to 2 "kooks" any day of the week...don't you?)
>>> "And I also see no reason to get bogged down in this shit about whether
the head shot hit Oswald's "exact" target." <<<
LOL! The irony of it all.
>>> "And you're the one that has to live with your head planted firmly inside your worthless ass." <<<
Oh boy! That allows me to have a minimum of three more "kook"
references. Because one "worthless ass" = at least 3 "kooks".
>>> "By your reasoning, that would have to mean that everyone else in the car was mute. Otherwise, you're just engaging in a kooky pick-and-choose
fishing expedition." <<<
Where did I hear that exact phrase before? Oh, yeah.
But my "picking & choosing" is more logical. With your fishing trip,
you've got only ONE passenger out of 5 (not counting JFK of course,
because he couldn't be polled) claiming to hear JFK say anything. My
trip to catch some bass and/or trout has way more people hearing other
people's comments -- EXCEPT that ALL of them missed hearing JFK's
words.
Odd, huh? Well maybe not to a Donahue bootlicker, it isn't.
>>> "But they're on film and the film doesn't show them shooting JFK. You really are poaching onto Rossley territory with this Mongoloid idiocy." <<<
LOL! And my "Mongoloid Idiocy" is considered far more crazy and out in
left field, it seems, than Grizzlie's proven-to-be-nutty
Hickey-Shot-The-President tripe???
Is that about the size of your latest comment, Griz-Kook?
Oh...and I get 1 more "kook" besides that last one (your "Mongoloid"
thingy in there permitted me that. Thanks.)
>>> "I doubt that he was aiming at Connally, but he would have withheld fire against his target -- whoever his target was -- until the car was on Elm Street because he would have assumed that a frontal shot would render HIM - Oswald - more visible to the Secret Service." <<<
At last! Something we can agree on!
With the above paragraph, I completely concur. Well-stated too. And
concise. Nice. (And that is something I've continually fought CTers
about too, using the exact same logic you've used here, Griz, when
battling the ever-popular "Why Didn't Oswald Take The Easiest Shot On
Houston St.?" inquiry that CT-Kooks love to ask every now and again.)
~~taking back one "kook" reference because of a mutual agreement re.
above statement~~
>>> "But no one claimed to have seen {him; Brehm} wield a firearm, and a number of people saw Hickey holding the AR-15 at the operative time." <<<
I forgot who those "number of people" were again, Griz. Can you remind
me, and the masses?
>>> "I assume that Connally's presence would have been announced in the papers and/or that he {Oswald} could comfortably assume that the Governor would be in the same motorcade as the President." <<<
Two "agreements" in one post! Somebody call Ripley's!
Although this one's really only half of an agreement. I've never heard
it stated that Oswald could (or did) know for sure what people (besides
JFK and probably Jackie) would be riding in the Dallas motorcade.
But, maybe the papers did print that information prior to November
22nd. (For the "He Was Shooting At Connally" brigade, let's hope so
anyway. Otherwise that particular strange theory is out on a very shaky
limb. As if it weren't anyhow.)
Phil Ossofee
Fuhrman and Donahue together and what do you get? No single bullet
theory, and no headshot from the sniper's nest, but no conspiracy. You
still have Oswald shooting Kennedy in the back bullet falls out, some
local yahoo is planting bullets on a stretcher( remember the nurse
Henchcliffe was the wife of O.P. Wright and she said on the Mark Oakes
video there were multiple bullets on multiple stretchers and J.Edgar
does his old switcheroo with an MC bullet. Damn one more round and this
theory could fly!
David VP
Nice to be able to "speculate" when you're in the vast minority, isn't
it?
And, of course, it's not JUST "the women". Nobody else in the car heard
any JFK comments either. But, there must be a GR ("Griz Reason") for
them missing it too. Probably the same as the female excuse, right?
You'll just ignore, or explain away, how 100% of the non-Kellerman
passengers in that car somehow failed to hear JFK say a word. (Try the
Z-Film for "proof", Griz. That might help. Although JFK's hands are
over his mouth just after Z224, so I doubt it will help. But you could
try and read the lips anyway.)
And, while on this subject, Jean Hill didn't hear JFK either....but she
DID hear Jackie talking after the shooting. Hmmmm. Odd that SHE, too,
missed the voice of Jack. (Yeah, I know, I'm propping up a "CT" witness
as one of my own. But, what the hell. Just this once, OK?)
Of course, I can't really figure out why in the world JFK's saying
anything is so important to Mr. Donahue and his Hickey theory. It seems
rather immaterial and meaningless to me, even from the Hickey POV. Oh,
well. Kooks sometimes like to ramble about unimportant shit...perhaps
this is one of those times.
~~girds loins for next retort -- Griz's standard "Read a book"~~
Don't let me down, Griz-Kook.
>>> "But it doesn't matter. Kellerman's testimony is unshakable. Obviously, it's considerably more likely that he heard what he heard and others missed it than it is that he only fancied that he heard it." <<<
Two "doesn't matters" in a row. Nice.
And two "obviouslys" (-lies?) to boot. Great. (Bud made a reference to
kooks using "obviously" a lot. Had something to do with them being
kooky, I think. Seems to fit here anyway.)
>>> "Why don't you visit some singles club and see if you can maneuver your way to kissing a girl for the first time in your life?" <<<
How do you know I even like girls, Griz? "Speculating" again
perhaps....like with many other things today?
(This should prompt a nice evil reply from Nutsack. Let's wait and see
if he comes through as expected.)
David VP
Heck, Phil, you don't need a falling-out bullet -- Fuhrman's got the
bullet going THROUGH JFK, but magically missing Connally and then
hitting the chrome and then -- poof -- gone -- out of the car.
So your theory is closer to reality than you think.
If you're prepared to be called a "Super LN Kook", that is.
:)
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >>> "Given that he {LHO} was aiming to kill, are you moronic enough to believe that he said to himself, "I'll aim for the top of his head and see how close I can come to missing him without actually missing him"?" <<<
>
>
> LOL! What a goof! You still can't see the illogic of your "aiming"
> bullshit, can you?
>
> You seem to think that Oswald's aim would positively = Where the bullet
> actually entered.
YOU'RE the one who's upset that Hickey's shot SUPPOSEDLY entered where
Oswald intended that his own shot would enter.
Are you now withdrawing that argument? If you're not withdrawing it,
then you'll just have to live with the response. When did you get to
make the rules that we could consider Oswald's intention only as far as
it served you and no further than that?
> I know you seem to think this, based on this prior comment on the
> subject:
>
> "LHO was probably aiming at the back center of the president's head and
> the fatal head shot actually struck him at the top of the head." -- The
> Griz
>
> Although WHY you seem to believe that the entry wound on JFK's head was
> somehow at the "top" of the head...is anybody's guess. Beats me why you
> seem to think this (even via your Hickey theory).
All right, "top" was a poor choice of words. It was "high" on the
head. It was still higher than the region at which he would have been
aiming.
> >>> "Obviously, dickwad, he would aim for the CENTER of his target and not for his target's edge." <<<
>
>
> So what? Again...how does the "aim" = "the place the bullet hit". Do
> you think Oswald was THAT good a shot? (I think Ozzie was a fair shot,
> yes...but he did miss the head twice in three tries.)
It doesn't matter because YOU'RE the one complaining that Hickey's shot
was too accurate.
> And does your "dickwad" remark give me the right-of-way to call you a
> "kook" a couple more times here? Just curious. (I think 1 "dickwad"
> should entitle me to 2 "kooks" any day of the week...don't you?)
It doesn't matter. You have called me a "kook" several times. You
didn't wait to be called a "dickwad". You're going to employ that term
whenever you want to. You're not going to wait for an occasion. I
don't have to wait either.
> >>> "And I also see no reason to get bogged down in this shit about whether
> the head shot hit Oswald's "exact" target." <<<
>
>
> LOL! The irony of it all.
>
>
> >>> "And you're the one that has to live with your head planted firmly inside your worthless ass." <<<
>
>
> Oh boy! That allows me to have a minimum of three more "kook"
> references. Because one "worthless ass" = at least 3 "kooks".
It doesn't matter. You didn't wait for an occasion, and you're not
going to wait in the future. I'm not either.
> >>> "By your reasoning, that would have to mean that everyone else in the car was mute. Otherwise, you're just engaging in a kooky pick-and-choose
> fishing expedition." <<<
>
>
> Where did I hear that exact phrase before? Oh, yeah.
>
> But my "picking & choosing" is more logical. With your fishing trip,
> you've got only ONE passenger out of 5 (not counting JFK of course,
> because he couldn't be polled) claiming to hear JFK say anything. My
> trip to catch some bass and/or trout has way more people hearing other
> people's comments -- EXCEPT that ALL of them missed hearing JFK's
> words.
Except that it makes no sense that Kellerman would just fabricate that.
You haven't explained where you think his "confusion" came from. It
makes far more sense that JFK did say it and that the others just
didn't hear it for some reason than it does to suppose that Kellerman
was imagining it.
And again, it's consistent with the physical evidence.
> Odd, huh? Well maybe not to a Donahue bootlicker, it isn't.
You see? You didn't wait.
> >>> "But they're on film and the film doesn't show them shooting JFK. You really are poaching onto Rossley territory with this Mongoloid idiocy." <<<
>
>
> LOL! And my "Mongoloid Idiocy" is considered far more crazy and out in
> left field, it seems, than Grizzlie's proven-to-be-nutty
> Hickey-Shot-The-President tripe???
There's no camera on Hickey while the shooting is going on so your
analogies -- involving people who WERE on film -- make no sense.
> Is that about the size of your latest comment, Griz-Kook?
>
> Oh...and I get 1 more "kook" besides that last one (your "Mongoloid"
> thingy in there permitted me that. Thanks.)
>
>
> >>> "I doubt that he was aiming at Connally, but he would have withheld fire against his target -- whoever his target was -- until the car was on Elm Street because he would have assumed that a frontal shot would render HIM - Oswald - more visible to the Secret Service." <<<
>
>
> At last! Something we can agree on!
>
> With the above paragraph, I completely concur. Well-stated too. And
> concise. Nice. (And that is something I've continually fought CTers
> about too, using the exact same logic you've used here, Griz, when
> battling the ever-popular "Why Didn't Oswald Take The Easiest Shot On
> Houston St.?" inquiry that CT-Kooks love to ask every now and again.)
>
> ~~taking back one "kook" reference because of a mutual agreement re.
> above statement~~
>
>
> >>> "But no one claimed to have seen {him; Brehm} wield a firearm, and a number of people saw Hickey holding the AR-15 at the operative time." <<<
>
>
> I forgot who those "number of people" were again, Griz. Can you remind
> me, and the masses?
Just about all the other SSA's. S.M. Holland. Austin Miller. This is
not a complete list.
> >>> "I assume that Connally's presence would have been announced in the papers and/or that he {Oswald} could comfortably assume that the Governor would be in the same motorcade as the President." <<<
>
>
> Two "agreements" in one post! Somebody call Ripley's!
>
> Although this one's really only half of an agreement. I've never heard
> it stated that Oswald could (or did) know for sure what people (besides
> JFK and probably Jackie) would be riding in the Dallas motorcade.
>
> But, maybe the papers did print that information prior to November
> 22nd. (For the "He Was Shooting At Connally" brigade, let's hope so
> anyway. Otherwise that particular strange theory is out on a very shaky
> limb. As if it weren't anyhow.)
If my only target was the governor and I had no grudge or political
motivation against the President, I'd be scared shitless of hitting the
President by accident. But maybe Oz was extremely confident of his
marksmanship. Or was indifferent to the risk against the President
even if not overtly hostile to him.
While I still think that it's unlikely that Connally was his target, I
don't think that it can be ruled out entirely. In addition to the
grudge that he had against Connally, the fact that he was wearing his
Marine ring on that day might be of some significance. He apparently
used to be in the habit of wearing his brother's Marine ring.
Then too was his attempt to reconcile with Marina the night before.
The offer to buy her a washing machine. If he was a dedicated Marxist
intending to guide history by killing Kennedy in order to further the
cause of the Cuban Revolution, then it seems a little strange that he
would allow domestic matters to interfere with that. But maybe he
would accept reconciliation from his wife as compensation for honor
lost as a result of his undesirable discharge from the Marines.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >>> "It doesn't matter. Obviously, Kellerman heard JFK say what he said. If the women didn't hear it, there must be a reason for it. I'm speculating on what the reason was." <<<
>
>
> Nice to be able to "speculate" when you're in the vast minority, isn't
> it?
>
> And, of course, it's not JUST "the women". Nobody else in the car heard
> any JFK comments either. But, there must be a GR ("Griz Reason") for
> them missing it too. Probably the same as the female excuse, right?
Greer didn't hear ANYONE talk other than Kellerman. Does this mean
that everyone else might have been mute?
> You'll just ignore, or explain away, how 100% of the non-Kellerman
> passengers in that car somehow failed to hear JFK say a word. (Try the
> Z-Film for "proof", Griz. That might help. Although JFK's hands are
> over his mouth just after Z224, so I doubt it will help. But you could
> try and read the lips anyway.)
Those words were likely spoken while the Stemmons Freeway sign blocked
Zapruder's view of the limo and its passengers.
> And, while on this subject, Jean Hill didn't hear JFK either....but she
> DID hear Jackie talking after the shooting. Hmmmm. Odd that SHE, too,
> missed the voice of Jack. (Yeah, I know, I'm propping up a "CT" witness
> as one of my own. But, what the hell. Just this once, OK?)
Jean Hill was under the impression that the Secret Service agents were
"shooting back", and I don't believe that she was anywhere near the
limousine at the time that the first shot was fired. The limousine had
moved closer to her by the time the shooting had stopped.
> Of course, I can't really figure out why in the world JFK's saying
> anything is so important to Mr. Donahue and his Hickey theory. It seems
> rather immaterial and meaningless to me, even from the Hickey POV.
It actually is not a crucial point.
> Oh,
> well. Kooks sometimes like to ramble about unimportant shit...perhaps
> this is one of those times.
How long have you been rambling about this particular shit?
> ~~girds loins for next retort -- Griz's standard "Read a book"~~
>
> Don't let me down, Griz-Kook.
>
>
> >>> "But it doesn't matter. Kellerman's testimony is unshakable. Obviously, it's considerably more likely that he heard what he heard and others missed it than it is that he only fancied that he heard it." <<<
>
>
> Two "doesn't matters" in a row. Nice.
>
> And two "obviouslys" (-lies?) to boot. Great. (Bud made a reference to
> kooks using "obviously" a lot. Had something to do with them being
> kooky, I think. Seems to fit here anyway.)
You can't shake Kellerman's testimony, and it fits with the physical
evidence, and I will say "doesn't matter" when you make an argument
that doesn't matter and I will say "obviously" when something is
obvious, and I won't worry about whether you like it or not.
> >>> "Why don't you visit some singles club and see if you can maneuver your way to kissing a girl for the first time in your life?" <<<
>
>
> How do you know I even like girls, Griz? "Speculating" again
> perhaps....like with many other things today?
On this one issue, your point is well taken. How do I know indeed?
David VP
This is becoming the Griz Mantra, it would appear. Wonder what DOES
matter. (Only Donahue-speculated items, I would surmise.)
>>> "...because YOU'RE the one complaining that Hickey's shot was too accurate." <<<
~~can only stare in blank dismay at this comment and its lunacy~~
>>> "It doesn't matter..." <<<
He's doing it on purpose now. To run up a tally, so they'll all "blend"
together...like a salad or something. :)
>>> "You're not going to wait for an occasion {to call Griz a kook}. I don't have to wait either." <<<
I'm busted on this one. I will fess up.
~~tosses away the now-unneeded "5 Free Kooks" tokens~~
>>> "Austin Miller..." <<<
Let's see...Austin's the guy who said shots came from "right inside the
car" (the President's car, that is).
Well...that's a good witness to prop up. At least you're getting closer
to somebody who says they heard a shot from the SS vehicle.
Only problem there is...Austin said ALL the shots came from "inside the
car". Not just one.
Wanna start again?
Or is Miller supposedly an "I Saw Hickey With The AR15 Before The Head
Shot" witness? I just looked over his brief WC testimony, and saw
nothing that would indicate that. Did I miss it? Or not?
David VP
OK. That makes it 3 against 1 in the JFK-Talking regard. Do you still
like THOSE odds?
>>> "Jean Hill was under the impression that the Secret Service agents were "shooting back", and I don't believe that she was anywhere near the limousine at the time that the first shot was fired." <<<
Well, she was fairly close when the SBT shot struck at Z224. But your
point is taken here re. Jean Hill. I only dredged her up to have a bit
of a giggle on your behalf, Griz. I thought that was "obvious" (one of
your new favorite terms now). I guess not.
>>> "You can't shake Kellerman's testimony..." <<<
I don't really need to, actually. Because this whole issue re. JFK
talking (as we both agreed) is pretty much a moot and needless one.
But it's still 3 passengers against 1. Holy smokes, a .750 batting
average in baseball would put me in the record books! But in the
Kellerman Game, I'm told to go sit on the bench. I'll be French-dipped!
That doesn't seem fair at all! ~grin~
Grizzlie Antagonist
> >>> "It doesn't matter..." <<<
>
> This is becoming the Griz Mantra, it would appear. Wonder what DOES
> matter. (Only Donahue-speculated items, I would surmise.)
Your own mantra is becoming a Faggot Mantra. I don't care if that
sounds like tomnln to you. You hinted that you were gay, and while
that might not otherwise matter to me for the purpose of this
discussion, your personality is that of a bitchy queen. I'm getting
tired of the way you posture yourself, and this might be my last
contribution to the discussion.
> >>> "...because YOU'RE the one complaining that Hickey's shot was too accurate." <<<
>
> ~~can only stare in blank dismay at this comment and its lunacy~~
>
>
> >>> "It doesn't matter..." <<<
>
>
> He's doing it on purpose now. To run up a tally, so they'll all "blend"
> together...like a salad or something. :)
>
>
> >>> "You're not going to wait for an occasion {to call Griz a kook}. I don't have to wait either." <<<
>
> I'm busted on this one. I will fess up.
>
> ~~tosses away the now-unneeded "5 Free Kooks" tokens~~
>
>
> >>> "Austin Miller..." <<<
>
>
> Let's see...Austin's the guy who said shots came from "right inside the
> car" (the President's car, that is).
Oh no, he didn't. He specifically declined to state that the shots
came from the President's car. He said or implied that the shots
seemed to come from the car where he saw the guy holding the rifle.
> Well...that's a good witness to prop up. At least you're getting closer
> to somebody who says they heard a shot from the SS vehicle.
No, I didn't get closer. I'm right there.
> Only problem there is...Austin said ALL the shots came from "inside the
> car". Not just one.
So? The last guided his impression on where all the shots came from.
> Wanna start again?
>
> Or is Miller supposedly an "I Saw Hickey With The AR15 Before The Head
> Shot" witness? I just looked over his brief WC testimony, and saw
> nothing that would indicate that. Did I miss it? Or not?
Mr. MILLER - ...So I turned right straight back just in time to see the
convertible take off fast.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the convertible in which the President was riding?
Mr. MILLER - I wouldn't want to say it was the President. It was a
convertible, but I saw a man fall over. I don't know whose convertible
it was.
Mr. BELIN - Where did the shots sound like they came from?
Mr. MILLER - Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would
say from right there in the car. Would be to my left, the way I was
looking at him toward that incline.
Only one man fell over, and that was Hickey. Miller must have seen
Hickey fall over because Hickey is the only one who fell over and
Miller specifically declined to say that the man who fell over was in
the President's car.
This dovetails with Holland's affidavit to the effect that "After the
first shot the Secret Service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat."
Miller and Holland both saw Hickey with the "machine gun" fall over.
Hickey was the only agent armed with such a weapon.
Later on, in a pro-WC book, Holland would give the following interview:
Interviewer: After the second time he was hit, what did the Secret
Service men do?
Holland: Well, I noticed that this Secret Service man stood up in the
car, in the President's car.
Interviewer: When did he stand up in the car?
Holland: Just about the same time the President was shot the second
time. He jumped up in the seat and was standing up in the, on the
seat. Now I actually thought when they started up, I actually thought
he was shot, too, because he fell backwards just like he was shot, but
it jerked him down when they started off.
- Post WC interview with Holland, The Scavengers and Critics of
the Warren Report (Dell Publishing, 1967)
Grizzlie Antagonist
Faggot!
David VP
"Obviously" you don't.
>>> "You hinted that you were gay..." <<<
Only to give you kooks something else to chew on and spit out. (Ooh,
that hurt! Don't bite so hard, Tom & Griz! I've only got one of 'em, ya
know!)
>>> "...and while that might not otherwise matter to me for the purpose of this discussion, your personality is that of a bitchy queen." <<<
And exactly how does that quality NOT fit the prerequisite here in the
Kook-Nuthouse??
And, btw, your personality has been oh-so-rosy in this thread, too.
(Full of "dickwads" and "worthless asses" and all. But I guess you're
allowed to say those things and be a "bitchy queen", because you're a
kook....which is oh so "obvious" to me now.)
>>> "I'm getting tired of the way you posture yourself..." <<<
I've been taking classes to improve my posture. Think that'll help me
any?
Martha "I Was Nowhere Near DP On November 22 No Matter What Griz Says"
Stewart is teaching that class. Wanna join?
>>> "...and this might be my last contribution to the discussion." <<<
Threats like THAT will get you everywhere!
Post-Script......
And your propping up Skinny Holland and (esp.) Austin Miller is a howl!
You're actually prepared to do a little pickin' and choosin' of
witnesses, and you decide on those guys....despite the very ambiguous
nature of both of those witness' words.
"Man falling over" couldn't = "President falling over" to you, Griz?
And you've completely invented Miller's testimony about him positively
(or so it seems) seeing a SS man with a rifle at the proper "operative
time" to shoot JFK with it.
That whole thing is mighty weak. Better check with Mr. Donahue again.
Surely he can figure a way out of this mess by coming up with a FEW
more witnesses who can state something completely fuzzy, hazy, and
totally-ambiguous in nature enough to make you stomp your feet some
more and cry "Hickey's Guilty"!
Right?
Hope so. Because your case is a pathetically-crappy one to date.
"Man falling over" = "Hickey Must Have Shot JFK With His AR15"!!!!!
ROFL!!
Make him stop! Please!
BTW -- Austin Miller twice uses the words "man" and "fall" during his
testimony, but it's fairly clear to me that BOTH of these references
are referring to one person (JFK) "falling over". In one of those
references, in fact, he was positively referring to JFK, because he
mentions a "women" [sic] (woman} grabbing the "man". It therefore
stands to reason that Miller's OTHER "man" reference also equates to
JFK as well. .....
~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. MILLER -- "I wouldn't want to say it was the President. It was a
convertible, but I saw a man fall over. I don't know whose convertible
it was."
~~~~~~~~~~
Again -- "I DON'T KNOW WHOSE CONVERTIBLE IT WAS." --- And this quote
here is the only "man" reference that Griz can prop up for his "Hickey
Did It" purposes.
Boy, that's a great hunk of testimony to build your theory around (even
partially), huh?? The witness doesn't even know if it's the President's
car or the SS car....but that's good enough for Griz evidently.
Holy Mackerel, the gall of it.
David VP
Unless we choose to count the man who was being assassinated at that
precise moment along that section of Elm Street....right?
But why would the assassination victim count in this scenario you're
painting, right?
After all, JFK only did, in fact, "fall" over in the car, and he was a
"man", and he was riding in a "convertible" with a "woman" next to him
(who "grabbed" him).
Yep, sure sounds like Hickey alright.
LOL!
>>> "Miller must have seen Hickey fall over because Hickey is the only one who fell over and Miller specifically declined to say that the man who fell over was in the President's car." <<<
KL (Kook Logic) at its finest!
Miller "declining" to say whether or not it was JFK equates to (via KL)
the "falling man" positively being George Hickey, Jr. of the United
States Secret Service.
In-cred-ible!
Miller wasn't SURE which car had the "falling man" in it. But we don't
need him to specifically SAY "It Was Kennedy Falling" -- because Miller
said this (which is just as good as saying it was JFK falling):
"And it was after that I saw some man in the car fall forward, and a
women [sic] next to him grab him and hollered..."
Did Hickey have a woman next to him in the SS car too.
And your likely retort of --- "Miller's SECOND 'man falling' reference
doesn't refer to JFK in any way" --- is pretty weak, because Miller
then claims he had no idea which "convertible" it was.
Common sense dictates that BOTH "falling man" references = JFK. The
first one definitely does. The second one does too, IMO. And even if it
doesn't, Griz is on a shaky limb when trying to prop Miller's account
up to support the Hickey nonsense (via just Miller's "I don't know
whose convertible it was" comment all by itself).
Not to mention the fact that the words "rifle" and "gun" never appear
even once in Miller's testimony transcript. And he supposedly is being
propped up for use in the "Hickey-Did-It" club??
The gall of some kooks is simply astounding, huh?
David VP
>>> "Faggot!" <<<
Success!
I baited that 'gay' thing just right....and brought the true disgusting
qualities out of the beast (as planned).
Nice job. Now I'm 100% certain what type of person I'm dealing with
here. Thank you.
(Now, if Rossley joins the gay parade, I'll be battin' a thousand.)
David VP
{S.M.} Holland: Well, I noticed that this Secret Service man stood up
in the car, in the President's car.
Interviewer: When did he stand up in the car?
Holland: Just about the same time the President was shot the second
time. He jumped up in the seat and was standing up in the, on the
seat. Now I actually thought when they started up, I actually thought
he was shot, too, because he fell backwards just like he was shot, but
it jerked him down when they started off." <<<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grizzlie is ACTUALLY using the above words of Skinny Holland to support
the idea that Holland was referring to HICKEY in the above
interview??????!!!!!!
You've GOT to be kidding me!
EVERY scrap of that interview tells us Holland was talking about CLINT
HILL and no one else.
Holland said -- "Well, I noticed that this Secret Service man stood up
in the car, IN THE PRESIDENT'S CAR." (Emphasis mine.)
This obviously means Clint Hill. It cannot possibly indicate anyone
other than Clinton Hill.
Then we have this from Mr. Holland -- "He jumped up in the seat and was
standing up in the, on the seat. Now I actually thought when they
started up, I actually thought he was shot, too, because he fell
backwards just like he was shot, but it jerked him down when they
started off."
The above portion of Holland's interview is also referring to Clint
Hill (based on the fact that Mr. Holland is STILL REFERRING TO THE
PRESIDENT'S CAR HERE, if for no other reason)!
The remark about the SS Agent being "jerked down when they started off"
is perfectly-consistent with what happened to Clint Hill after the
fatal shot, when he slipped trying to get up on the back step of X-100.
Maybe Griz was just trying to "trap" me here, ya think? (In order to
get me to actually AGREE with stuff that a pro-CT witness said.)
Because there's no way Griz (or anyone) can possibly be silly enough to
equate Holland's "President's car" remarks with Holland actually
meaning it was Hickey in the follow-up SS car.
Holy smokes. This must have been some kind of trick.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, onward to the Griz misrepresentations re. Holland's WC testimony
(which is actually taken directly from Holland's 11/22/63 affidavit,
because Holland was asked to read the verbatim affidavit for the
WC).........
"After the first shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy
jumped up and tried to get over in the back seat to him and then the
second shot rang out. After the first shot the Secret Service man
raised up in the seat with a machine gun and then dropped back down. in
the seat." -- S.M. Holland
Now, there's a pretty fair-sized problem with Mr. Holland being able to
support the Hickey-Did-It theory via those above remarks (as anyone
should easily be able to determine).
I.E.:
Holland claims that Mrs. Kennedy "jumped up and tried to get over in
the back seat to him" AFTER THE FIRST SHOT -- which is quite clearly in
error re. the timeline of the shots. (And this wording here from
Holland sure sounds to me an awful lot like he's describing Jackie's
action that she took after the LAST SHOT, not the "first shot". She
never "jumped up" until a few seconds AFTER THE FINAL SHOT WAS FIRED.)
Therefore, when Holland says that the SS man who "raised up in the seat
with a machine gun" AFTER the "FIRST" shot also -- when we put these
two supposedly "first-shot" observations together, where are we?
It seems fairly obvious that Holland's "first shot" reference wouldn't
differ in "Holland-Perceived Time" re. when he thought the first shot
occurred....therefore, in Holland's mind, Hickey and Jackie are doing
these "after the first shot" things at the very same point in time.
Which would mean that Hickey didn't "raise up" with the "machine gun"
until (in reality) after the last shot was already fired and when
Holland was seeing Mrs. Kennedy crawling along the back of the car
after she "jumps up" for the ONLY time during the shooting sequence.
David VP
interview with Holland and Holland's 1963-1964 statements.*
* = Griz surely knew of this inconsistency before he posted that....how
could he not? Or did he? The '67 thing wasn't followed by a Griz
statement saying: See how Holland changed his testimony conveniently
for a pro-WC interviewer? Which made me initially think Griz thought
the two Holland items (affidavit & '67 interview) were meant to
(together as a unit) bolster the Hickey-did-it theory. I'm not so sure
Griz doesn't still somehow think that those two Holland statements
corroborate each other in some crazy fashion to both support Griz's
belief in the Hickey theory.
~shrugs~
And, in point of (another) fact, if it was Griz's intention (by posting
what he deems conflicting statements by Skinny Holland) to show that
Holland told the truth in 1963, but was lying in that circa '67
interview -- that's not a valid contention either, I do not believe.
Holland was talking about two completely-different points in time in
those two statements -- therefore he is probably correct (to a degree)
in BOTH statements. He did see Hickey raise up in the SS car, and he
did see Clint Hill climb onto X-100.
So, Holland, via these statements, cannot be made out to be a
story-changer or a WC butt-kisser of any kind via his '67 statement,
IMO.
Odd, huh, an LNer promoting the testimony of a CT star witness?? Odd,
indeed. But for the purposes of this particular debate, it's a valid
and worthy exercise.
Well, anyway, on the basis that anyone could possibly think those two
Holland items in any way are in-sync to bolster the Hickey-Did-It
theory ----- In Holland's WC account, he
said the SS man (in the SS car) "raised up" after the FIRST shot. But
in the '67 interview -- we find this:
~~~~~~
Interviewer: "When did he stand up in the car?"
Holland: "Just about the same time the President was shot the second
time."
~~~~~~
Clearly, Holland is talking about TWO different things, and TWO
different points in "Holland Time". (Doesn't matter if it's "real" time
or not...because it's all based on what Holland THOUGHT was happening,
of course, when assessing his remarks for these purposes.)
And, of course, as previously mentioned, Holland is actually talking
about two different SS agents in these two statements, given his
"President's car" reference in that '67 interview supplied by Grizzlie.
The crucial point about it being two different SS agents can also be
easily determined simply by reading the first question asked by the
interviewer during that '67 Holland interview...when the interviewer
asked:
~~~~~~~
"After the second time he {obviously meaning JFK} was hit, what did the
Secret Service men do?"
~~~~~~~
Clearly, given the question there, Holland isn't going to start talking
about what happened in the motorcade after the "first shot" (or what
Mr. Holland perceived to be the "first" shot, would be a better and
more-accurate way to phrase it).
Also.....
Another thing that (at least partially) tends to debunk the
Hickey-Did-It notion is the Jim Altgens (#6) photo, which shows the
President's limo and the SS follow-up car at approximately a point in
time that equates to Z255. (If not exactly then, it's certainly a
picture that was snapped AFTER at least one shot had been fired, and
probably two.)
And where's Agent Hickey "raising up" with the AR15 rifle? .....
www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
The Altgens photo isn't the best piece of evidence to try to debunk the
Hickey theory with -- but it is one more piece of the "This Theory Is
Pretty Much Impossible" puzzle that should be weighed, assessed, and
considered.
cdddraftsman
Grizzlie Antagonist wrote :
David VP
I don't blame you. There's no real need to, since that theory has been
trashed seven ways to Sunday.
Perhaps Griz won't ever bring it up again either.
One leftover "Hickey Theory" thought --- I'm wondering how Donahue/Griz
account for the two large bullet fragments found in the front seat of
JFK's limo (within the confines of the "Hickey Shot Kennedy" theory)?
Planted fragments maybe?? That's always a good option when you're stuck
with no real evidence to support a theory.
boogerq...@gmail.com
I guess the bullet shrunk on the way from the gun.
tom...@cox.net
==== IT'S MOST LIKELY AN EXIT WOUND FROM A SHOT FROM THE FRONT CAUSING AN
ENTRANCE WOUND IN HIS THROAT WITNESS VIRGIE RACKLEY SAW THE BULLET HIT THE
STREET BEHIND THE LIMO.
===========================================================================
====
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
gggg gggg
> Bingo, Tom.
> And that's just exactly what I have said in the past, too, re. the
> unbelievably-silly "Hickey Did It" theory.
> Plus -- On top of the incredible IMPROBABILITY of an accident like that
> having actually occurred, with the bullet ending up in just the place
> Oswald was aiming too....there are the many other things that tell us
> it never could have happened (or, at the very least, tell us that it
> couldn't have been COVERED UP with the skill and all-encompassing
> precision with which certain folks think it must have been covered up).
> You'd have to believe that all of the SS agents (including Hickey)
> desired to cover up the real truth. (Plus Kenny O'Donnell and Dave
> Powers, to boot.) Likely?
> You'd also have to believe that, incredibly, a third Oswald bullet
> shell was either "planted" in the TSBD just after the shooting (great
> fast footwork by the plotters there...how did they even KNOW that
> Hickey had accidentally killed JFK by the time of this planting?) -- or
> -- that a third bullet shell from a PREVIOUS pre-11/22 LHO shot just
> happened to be expelled by LHO in the SN, alongside the two shots from
> the 11/22 shooting. Likely? Either version?
> Then there's the fact that MC/WCC bullet remnants were found in JFK's
> head....proving the Hickey theory wrong yet again.
> Then there's the two large fragments from C2766 in the limo -- both to
> the front of JFK -- which almost HAD to have come from the head shot.
> (If not -- then from which shot?)
> So many reasons to know the Hickey theory is hogwash.
> But some people thrive on wallowing in the wash of hogs. Evidently. (I
> wonder why?)
(Youtube upload):
"George Hickey killed JFK"