The 55th anniversary approaches

[bigdog]

Thanksgiving Day will mark the 55th anniversary of the assassination of
JFK. In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever
surfaced. ALL the credible evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the
assassin. None of the credible evidence is incompatible with that
conclusion and there is no credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald
took part in the crime. Still, belief that there was a conspiracy and
subsequent cover up persists among a dwindling majority of Americans even
though most of them don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
day.

The hard core conspiracy hobbyists will tell us the reason for the state
of the evidence is proof of the effectiveness of the cover up. They of
course ignore the very real and far more likely reason for the state of
the evidence is that there was no conspiracy or cover up.

There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in
Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within
the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals
no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.

So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which
the assassination was the result of a grand scheme which has remained
unproven over the years because of a multi-generational cover up involving
at least three departments of the executive branch of the federal
government, local law enforcement investigators, and two independent crime
labs as well as complicity from most of the major news sources in the
United States. One explanation accepts the validity of the evidence and
the other requires us to believe most if not all of the available evidence
is fraudulent. For those who opt for the latter, no amount of reason or
logic will dissuade them from their beliefs. Widespread belief that JFK
was the victim of a conspiracy will continue to persist in this country
long after we are all dead and gone.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/20/2018 12:44 AM, bigdog wrote:
> Thanksgiving Day will mark the 55th anniversary of the assassination of
> JFK. In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever

Well, thanks for reminding us of that. No one else was smart enough to
figure that out? So, instead of Thanksgiving home coming shows and
Charlie Brown they are going to show JFK assassination programs? Remind
me tomorrow to set my DVR.

> surfaced. ALL the credible evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the
> assassin. None of the credible evidence is incompatible with that
> conclusion and there is no credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald
> took part in the crime. Still, belief that there was a conspiracy and
> subsequent cover up persists among a dwindling majority of Americans even
> though most of them don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
> assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
> day.
>
> The hard core conspiracy hobbyists will tell us the reason for the state
> of the evidence is proof of the effectiveness of the cover up. They of

Not that alone. Also the destruction of the evidence.

> course ignore the very real and far more likely reason for the state of
> the evidence is that there was no conspiracy or cover up.
>

That's what you guys said about Watergate and about Trump.

> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole

Are you claiming that no one else except Oswald could have had access to
the building? The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck in
the night before.

> access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in
> Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within

Of the 3 black men could have easily gone up to the sixth floor. Maybe
to recover his lunch or his cigarettes.

> the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
> and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
> exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals

Doesn't prove who pulled the trigger.

> no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
> behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
> Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
>
> So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
> incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
> was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which

How could Oswald shoot JFK in the forehead from the sniper's nest?

> the assassination was the result of a grand scheme which has remained
> unproven over the years because of a multi-generational cover up involving

How many years can a cover-up last?

> at least three departments of the executive branch of the federal
> government, local law enforcement investigators, and two independent crime

You need to separate the coverup from the crime. The actors may not be
the same. The motives might not be the same.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:55:31 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/20/2018 12:44 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > Thanksgiving Day will mark the 55th anniversary of the assassination of
> > JFK. In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever
>
> Well, thanks for reminding us of that. No one else was smart enough to
> figure that out?

A better question might be how Tony Marsh figured out that no credible evidence of conspiracy has surfaced.

> So, instead of Thanksgiving home coming shows and
> Charlie Brown they are going to show JFK assassination programs? Remind
> me tomorrow to set my DVR.
>
> > surfaced. ALL the credible evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the
> > assassin. None of the credible evidence is incompatible with that
> > conclusion and there is no credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald
> > took part in the crime. Still, belief that there was a conspiracy and
> > subsequent cover up persists among a dwindling majority of Americans even
> > though most of them don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
> > assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
> > day.
> >
> > The hard core conspiracy hobbyists will tell us the reason for the state
> > of the evidence is proof of the effectiveness of the cover up. They of
>
> Not that alone. Also the destruction of the evidence.

The dog ate my evidence.

> > course ignore the very real and far more likely reason for the state of
> > the evidence is that there was no conspiracy or cover up.
> >
>
> That's what you guys said about Watergate and about Trump.

Trump is a conspiracy?

> > There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
> > carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
> > to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
>
> Are you claiming that no one else except Oswald could have had access to
> the building?

Acme Strawman Company.

> The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck in
> the night before.

Everyone is a stranger to someone.

> > access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in
> > Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within
>
> Of the 3 black men could have easily gone up to the sixth floor. Maybe
> to recover his lunch or his cigarettes.

And maybe going back for his cigarettes ran into the assassin, Oswald.

> > the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
> > and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
> > exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals
>
> Doesn't prove who pulled the trigger.

There are many, many indications making it quite easy to figure out who
shot Kennedy. Alas, unless film surfaces of Oswald shooting Kennedy Tony
will remain stumped.

> > no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
> > behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
> > Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
> >
> > So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
> > incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
> > was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which
>
> How could Oswald shoot JFK in the forehead from the sniper's nest?

Or the big toe?

> > the assassination was the result of a grand scheme which has remained
> > unproven over the years because of a multi-generational cover up involving
>
> How many years can a cover-up last?

I suppose the conspiracy hobbyist will cover up Oswald`s guilt until the
day they die. In fact, Tom Rossley devised a way to cover up for Oswald`s
guilt long after he died, he paid in advance to have his website exist 6
years after his demise.

http://whokilledjfk.net/

> > at least three departments of the executive branch of the federal
> > government, local law enforcement investigators, and two independent crime
>
> You need to separate the coverup from the crime.

Tony would need to be able to differentiate between the real and the
imaginary.

[Mark]

I thought on this anniversary/Thanksgiving this article from 2013 would
be interesting to some folks on here.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/19/doug-clark-jfk-autopsy-photo-too-much-for-tabloid/

Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/22/2018 11:43 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:55:31 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/20/2018 12:44 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>> Thanksgiving Day will mark the 55th anniversary of the assassination of
>>> JFK. In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever
>>
>> Well, thanks for reminding us of that. No one else was smart enough to
>> figure that out?
>
> A better question might be how Tony Marsh figured out that no
> credible evidence of conspiracy has surfaced.
>

Silly. I have pointed out the evidence for conspiracy many times.

>> So, instead of Thanksgiving home coming shows and
>> Charlie Brown they are going to show JFK assassination programs? Remind
>> me tomorrow to set my DVR.
>>
>>> surfaced. ALL the credible evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the
>>> assassin. None of the credible evidence is incompatible with that
>>> conclusion and there is no credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald
>>> took part in the crime. Still, belief that there was a conspiracy and
>>> subsequent cover up persists among a dwindling majority of Americans even
>>> though most of them don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
>>> assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
>>> day.
>>>
>>> The hard core conspiracy hobbyists will tell us the reason for the state
>>> of the evidence is proof of the effectiveness of the cover up. They of
>>
>> Not that alone. Also the destruction of the evidence.
>
> The dog ate my evidence.

I thought it was Harris who used that excuse. Did the CIA try using that
excuse for its files on Oswald?

>
>>> course ignore the very real and far more likely reason for the state of
>>> the evidence is that there was no conspiracy or cover up.
>>>
>>
>> That's what you guys said about Watergate and about Trump.
>
> Trump is a conspiracy?
>

Watergate was a conspiracy. Can't you even admit that?
Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians.
Don't call it Collusion. There was no Collusion.
That's too big a word for you to understand.
The correct word is Treason. Can you say that word?

>>> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
>>> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
>>> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
>>
>> Are you claiming that no one else except Oswald could have had access to
>> the building?
>
> Acme Strawman Company.
>

As usual you can't answer my questions.

>> The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck in
>> the night before.
>
> Everyone is a stranger to someone.
>

I forget the name of that trick. We ae talking about a stranger sneaking
into the TSBD.

>>> access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in
>>> Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within
>>
>> Of the 3 black men could have easily gone up to the sixth floor. Maybe
>> to recover his lunch or his cigarettes.
>
> And maybe going back for his cigarettes ran into the assassin, Oswald.
>

And maybe he did much earlier and thought nothing of it.
If he ran into a stranger he might question that and remember it.
Oswald remembered that a stranger came in and asked where to find a phone.

>>> the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
>>> and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
>>> exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals
>>
>> Doesn't prove who pulled the trigger.
>
> There are many, many indications making it quite easy to figure out who
> shot Kennedy. Alas, unless film surfaces of Oswald shooting Kennedy Tony
> will remain stumped.
>

You always bluff.
I don't need no damn film.

>>> no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
>>> behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
>>> Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
>>>
>>> So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
>>> incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
>>> was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which
>>
>> How could Oswald shoot JFK in the forehead from the sniper's nest?
>
> Or the big toe?
>

Whose big toe? Do you believe that was the bullet that went through the
floor of the limo?

Again you can't answer my question. If Oswald couldn't fire that shot
then someone else did. Someone else shooting means conspiracy.

>>> the assassination was the result of a grand scheme which has remained
>>> unproven over the years because of a multi-generational cover up involving
>>
>> How many years can a cover-up last?
>
> I suppose the conspiracy hobbyist will cover up Oswald`s guilt until the
> day they die. In fact, Tom Rossley devised a way to cover up for Oswald`s
> guilt long after he died, he paid in advance to have his website exist 6
> years after his demise.
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/
>

Are you saying that Tom Rossley is dead and his web site has only 6
years left? Is that enough time to solve the case?

Do you really think the CIA will release the files by then?

>
>>> at least three departments of the executive branch of the federal
>>> government, local law enforcement investigators, and two independent crime
>>
>> You need to separate the coverup from the crime.
>
> Tony would need to be able to differentiate between the real and the
> imaginary.
>

Science is real. YOU are not.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nope. Just more CIA propaganda.
But maybe the autopsy photos should not be forced on everyone, but
everyone should have a right to see them.

[Mark]

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 11:44:36 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:

I'm sure there are many other anniversary articles I haven't seen, but I
just came across this one on the New York Post website.

https://nypost.com/2018/11/22/secret-service-agent-who-couldnt-save-jfk-says-guilt-haunted-him/

Mark

[claviger]

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 7:35:37 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/22/2018 11:43 AM, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:55:31 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2018 12:44 AM, bigdog wrote:
> >>> Thanksgiving Day will mark the 55th anniversary of the assassination of
> >>> JFK. In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever
> >> Well, thanks for reminding us of that. No one else was smart enough to
> >> figure that out?
> > A better question might be how Tony Marsh figured out that no
> > credible evidence of conspiracy has surfaced.
> Silly. I have pointed out the evidence for conspiracy many times.

After 55 years still no evidence of conspiracy. A Communist punk shot
the President of the United States and Leader of the Free World. He did
this hit as a gift to Fidel Castro.

> >> That's what you guys said about Watergate and about Trump.
> > Trump is a conspiracy?
> Watergate was a conspiracy. Can't you even admit that?
> Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians.
> Don't call it Collusion. There was no Collusion.
> That's too big a word for you to understand.
> The correct word is Treason. Can you say that word?

You are confused as usual. It was Hillary who approved selling
US uranium to the Russians not Trump. Did you know that the
Russians learned how to make bombs out of uranium? She also
accepted contributions from the Russians too. Hillary was a
pusillanimous puppet for the Russians.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 11/19/2018 11:44 PM, bigdog wrote:
> though most of [Americans] don't know the most rudimentary facts of the

> assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
> day.
>

Well, Mr. Person Who Goes By the Name of a Dog and subsequent
credibility, excuuuuuuse us.

For what, you ask? For having a freakin' life! At least the average
person is willing to entertain DIFFERENT positions (you Republicans, the
Missionary).

We pay attention to the case when there is something N-E-W (*) and
substantial.

-The American People

(*) Ollie Stone, Alec Baldwin, just to mention two who command attention
are on the reserve. Dr. Wecht can summon them anon IF AND WHEN the JFK
Community has something N-E-W to say to America.

Or, as I repeatedly told my former e-boss, Larry Schnapf (good riddance),
when I patiently waited for the Trial of Lee to be over, so we could
embark, in force, leading a Unified JFK Community, into the numerical
aspect. That will be THE definite solution, in whichever LN/CT direction.
It will take years and people are DYING.

[Ramon:] "So, Larry, what's next?"

[Schnapf:] "Oh, I am thinking another mock trial."

[Ramon:] "Larry: What do you think CAPA is? Your dating service? To
arrange tete-a-tetes with Alec Baldwin? Get a room, man!

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 11/19/2018 11:44 PM, LN's Best Friend wrote:
> and two independent crime
> labs

Whose files remain locked up, hidden from the top universities and
centers of scientific research -who have heretofore abstained from
entering the case- and from the real owners: The People.

Well, that was then, JFK Numbers is now.

http://www.dealey-plaza.org/this-government-as-promised/

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

#FreeTheFiles <-- MFF and "independent", "reputable" labs.

ps:
Number of Crime Labs: 2
Number of universities in America: 5,000
Number of them which have decided to enter the case: 2
Number which has remained silent: 4,998 [MIT being the best exponent]

[bigdog]

It must have been at least 30 years ago that 60 Minutes did a feature on
Clint Hill and he still believed he could have saved JFK if he had reacted
more quickly. I've read in recent years he has come to realize that there
was nothing he could have done and was more at peace with himself. I
believe he had bouts with both depression and alcoholism before finding
closure.

[Anthony Marsh]

I have a lot of respect for Clint Hill. He wasn't perfect, but he risked
his life and tried to do the right thing. He was not the only one who
wanted to jomp off the running board. The SS agent on the right running
board started to, but was called back. Clint Hill hesitated a split
second and blames himself. But the point is that he did the best he
could and bravely.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, November 24, 2018 at 11:10:39 AM UTC-5, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 11/19/2018 11:44 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > though most of [Americans] don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
> > assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
> > day.
> >
>
> Well, Mr. Person Who Goes By the Name of a Dog and subsequent
> credibility, excuuuuuuse us.
>
> For what, you ask? For having a freakin' life! At least the average
> person is willing to entertain DIFFERENT positions (you Republicans, the
> Missionary).
>

Where did you get the idea I am a Republican?

> We pay attention to the case when there is something N-E-W (*) and
> substantial.
>

When was the last time that happened.

> -The American People
>

Did "The American People" appoint you as their spokesman?

> (*) Ollie Stone, Alec Baldwin, just to mention two who command attention
> are on the reserve. Dr. Wecht can summon them anon IF AND WHEN the JFK
> Community has something N-E-W to say to America.
>

I have heard very little new in the 25+ years I have seriously studied the
assassination and the new stuff is of the way out kooky variety. Mostly I
see a rehashing of long discredited theories, such as Doug Horne recycling
David Lifton's body snatchers theory. Marsh or course refuses to let go of
the debunked acoustical "evidence". A once regular contributor who no
longer posts hear, Chris/mainframetech, kept trying to come up with new
and bizarre locations for a second (or third) shooter. He began of course
with one on the GK but moved on to postulate a shooter in a storm drain on
the south side of Elm and west of the underpass. His last contribution was
to put a shooter way over on the south knoll of Dealey Plaza. In short,
the only new stuff has to be really bizarre to be original because almost
all the only slightly kooky stuff had been taken.

> Or, as I repeatedly told my former e-boss, Larry Schnapf (good riddance),
> when I patiently waited for the Trial of Lee to be over, so we could
> embark, in force, leading a Unified JFK Community, into the numerical
> aspect. That will be THE definite solution, in whichever LN/CT direction.
> It will take years and people are DYING.
>

Are you speaking of your suspects or your fellow conspiracy hobbyists. The
JFK assassination is like two of my other hobbies, bowling and model
railroading. Neither are attracting very many young people. I won't go so
far as to say that no millennials are interested in the subject, but I see
very few of them. Most of the people who are still interested are old
fogies, myself included.

> [Ramon:] "So, Larry, what's next?"
>
> [Schnapf:] "Oh, I am thinking another mock trial."
>
> [Ramon:] "Larry: What do you think CAPA is? Your dating service? To
> arrange tete-a-tetes with Alec Baldwin? Get a room, man!

Mock trials are a waste of time. They prove nothing and people who don't
agree with the verdicts will simply dismiss them.

[Anthony Marsh]

I even pointed out that had Clint Hill jumped off the split second he
heard the shot he might have blocked a shot from behind, but he could
not have blocked the shot from the grassy knoll.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/24/2018 11:10 AM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 11/19/2018 11:44 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> though most of [Americans] don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
>> assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
>> day.
>>
>
> Well, Mr. Person Who Goes By the Name of a Dog and subsequent
> credibility, excuuuuuuse us.
>

McAdams says we are not allowed to make fun of other posters aliases.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I've always wondered why he didn't hear that first shot? What could be the
explanation?

From his 11/22 report: "The motorcade made a left hand turn from Elm
Street toward an underpass. We were traveling about 12 to 15 miles per
hour. On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered
along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning
these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The sound came
from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In
so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the
President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the
Follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second
firecracker type noise but it had a different sound-- like the sound of
shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more
toward his left.

I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs.
Kennedy shouted, "They've shot his head off".....

[bigdog]

Because there wasn't one

[bigdog]

It's a phenomenon I have noticed in other facets of my life, particularly
on athletic fields. Sometimes when a person is intently focused on
something sounds don't register with them. For example there were times I
would notice a defensive player out of position just before the ball was
snapped and I would yell at him at the top of my lungs to get him to move.
He might be less than 10 yards from where I was standing so there was no
question the sound of my voice was reaching him but he was so focused on
the ball about to be snapped that I wasn't getting through to him. I've
had similar experiences as a sports official trying to get through to a
fellow official and getting no response even though I know he could hear
me. The sound reaches the ears but not always the brain. As the limo
turned onto Elm St. It is likely Hill's attention was focused on the few
people in the grass median. That's where he seems to be looking in the
Altgens photo. I'm sure the sound of the first shot reached his ears but
apparently did not register with him.

> From his 11/22 report: "The motorcade made a left hand turn from Elm
> Street toward an underpass. We were traveling about 12 to 15 miles per
> hour. On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered
> along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning
> these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The sound came
> from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In
> so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the
> President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the
> Follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second
> firecracker type noise but it had a different sound-- like the sound of
> shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more
> toward his left.
>

I have little doubt that the first shot he remembered hearing was the
second shot he actually heard. The first one simply didn't register in his
consciousness.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 11/24/2018 5:25 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> I have heard very little new in the 25+ years I have seriously studied the
> assassination and the new stuff

So you have not heard about the numerical aspects, OPEN files?

You have not heard about the Notable Doctors initiative? Do you support
digitizing the 3 X-rays to preserve them forever?

You have not heard about the two most advanced 3D model (one done, the
other, in progress) authors working as a team?

If it were up to you, should Mr. McCormick and Mr. Herrera continue
their work toward the last, definite model (*), with computer
simulations, videos on demand?

Why do you figure Dale Myers (who boasted for years to be the reference)
has remained in utter silence about new technology? His model is
outdated and economically worthless. That teat has been squeezed dry.
Why are his files locked up?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

(*) How can we know that it would be THE last, definite computer
simulation and models? I pray to got that everybody knows the reason.

[Ramon F Herrera]

Subject: The 55th anniversary passed, the numerical solution is waiting
in the wings

On 11/24/2018 6:39 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
[lots of crepe, without ever bothering to address the main question]

Steve: What is your decision about supporting 3D, 21st. century science
and leading edge technology, open files, top universities working on the
numerical aspect?

How about digitizing the most famous, controversial X-rays in history.
Would you prefer them to see them destroyed?

Is our cause so worthless as to not merit this treatment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpc1XMupQ5I

I have answered EVERY SINGLE question that anybody has for me.

You people have not.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but those questions will NOT go
away. Even if I retired, died, whatever, the seed has been planted.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Anthony Marsh]

Could be. Many witnesses said the first sound they heard sounded like a
firecracker or a motorcycle back firing.

Sometimes the first shot fired that day has a lower than normal muzzle
velocity. This might also account for the first shot missing.

[CAMPBE...@yahoo.com]

Exactly Bigdog! Hill was so focussed on the people,the first shot simply
didn't register as a shot. If It had,he probably would've reacted in a
protective manner and would've reached the trunk of the car and shielded
JFK and kept him from being shot in the head. Thank you for being a
football official!

[Allan G. Johnson]

That's the recollection he believes and has been consistent with it
ever since he started talking about it. I heard him repeat it in person
at one of his personal appearances. I don't think he is covering up
anything, it's just the way it registered in his head. He remembers
seeing JFK raising his arms and leaning to the left and to him that was
the first shot.

The visual evidence does not support that as the way it happened. The
Altgens photo clearly shows JFK reaching for his throat (the second shot)
and Hill still riding on the running board, making no move. On the
Zapruder film, Kennedy is hit with the third shot at 313 and Hill is many
steps away. On the Nix film you can actually see he still has his right
arm on the followup car while in the act of jumping off just as Kennedy's
head exploded. The third shot didn't happen AFTER he jumped off the
followup car, but AS he was jumping off.

[Jason Burke]

Yeah, that last one probably isn't gonna make it...

[Jason Burke]

On 11/25/2018 5:00 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

Dale Myers probably thinks of you as most people do. A gnat that has no
use in the world other than to be smacked into the wall.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. How could Hill shield the President from the fatal head shot
fired from the grassy knoll?
How could he PREDICT that a shot would come from the grassy knoll?

[bigdog]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 8:00:18 PM UTC-5, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 11/24/2018 5:25 PM, bigdog wrote:
> >
> > I have heard very little new in the 25+ years I have seriously studied the
> > assassination and the new stuff
> So you have not heard about the numerical aspects, OPEN files?
>
> You have not heard about the Notable Doctors initiative? Do you support
> digitizing the 3 X-rays to preserve them forever?
>
> You have not heard about the two most advanced 3D model (one done, the
> other, in progress) authors working as a team?
>
> If it were up to you, should Mr. McCormick and Mr. Herrera continue
> their work toward the last, definite model (*), with computer
> simulations, videos on demand?
>
> Why do you figure Dale Myers (who boasted for years to be the reference)
> has remained in utter silence about new technology? His model is
> outdated and economically worthless. That teat has been squeezed dry.
> Why are his files locked up?
>

When you actually produce something, come talk to me.

[bigdog]

This is why ALL witness accounts should be taken with a grain of salt,
even SS agents. Becoming a cop or a federal agent doesn't endow someone
with greater powers of perception. These people are as fallible as anybody
else. Typically in and event like this, witnesses are going to correctly
remember some aspects and be incorrect about others. Some witnesses will
have better recall than others, but we shouldn't assume anybody got
everything right.

Connally seems to be one of the best witnesses because much of what he
recalled can be confirmed by the Z-film although he did get some elements
wrong. For example in his hospital interview with Martin Agronsky, he said
he turned to his left when he heard the first shot when the film shows he
turned to his right. In his later accounts he correctly says he turned to
his right, possibly because he had seen in the Z-film which way he turned.
I believe he also said on that initial turn he saw the president slumped.
The Z-film shows on his initial turn he didn't turn far enough to see JFK.
It showed he didn't make the full turn to the rear until after he had been
shot which was his second turn to the right. He remembered seeing JFK
slump but was wrong about the sequence of the events.

[bigdog]

It is possible that if the first shot had registered, he might have got to
JFK in time to save him. It's one of those things we will never know. Just
many of the what-ifs we have to ponder.

I reread what I wrote and I see I left out one element. The first
experience I talked about was from my days coaching football. As an
official, I would never be telling any player to move. Sometimes when we
see an offensive player in an illegal alignment we will let him know
either verbally or by hand signal but we wouldn't tell him where to move.
The reason for that is if I tell him to move and he is moving illegally at
the snap, he would be able to blame me for telling him to move. The most
common thing we see is a wide out who we know is supposed to be on the
line of scrimmage is too far off becoming a fifth back which is illegal. I
will signal with my arm that he is off the line. With the younger players
at the lower levels, I will not only signal but tell him he is off the
line. Most of the time they don't figure out they need to move forward to
get on the line and we end up flagging them for illegal formation.

[Bud]

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 8:35:37 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/22/2018 11:43 AM, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:55:31 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2018 12:44 AM, bigdog wrote:
> >>> Thanksgiving Day will mark the 55th anniversary of the assassination of
> >>> JFK. In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever
> >>
> >> Well, thanks for reminding us of that. No one else was smart enough to
> >> figure that out?
> >
> > A better question might be how Tony Marsh figured out that no
> > credible evidence of conspiracy has surfaced.
> >
>
> Silly. I have pointed out the evidence for conspiracy many times.

bigdog wrote...

"In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever

surfaced."

You replied...

"Well, thanks for reminding us of that."

This is you agreeing with the concept bigdog expressed.

> >> So, instead of Thanksgiving home coming shows and
> >> Charlie Brown they are going to show JFK assassination programs? Remind
> >> me tomorrow to set my DVR.
> >>
> >>> surfaced. ALL the credible evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the
> >>> assassin. None of the credible evidence is incompatible with that
> >>> conclusion and there is no credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald
> >>> took part in the crime. Still, belief that there was a conspiracy and
> >>> subsequent cover up persists among a dwindling majority of Americans even
> >>> though most of them don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
> >>> assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
> >>> day.
> >>>
> >>> The hard core conspiracy hobbyists will tell us the reason for the state
> >>> of the evidence is proof of the effectiveness of the cover up. They of
> >>
> >> Not that alone. Also the destruction of the evidence.
> >
> > The dog ate my evidence.
>
> I thought it was Harris who used that excuse.

No, you use it also.

> Did the CIA try using that
> excuse for its files on Oswald?
>
> >
> >>> course ignore the very real and far more likely reason for the state of
> >>> the evidence is that there was no conspiracy or cover up.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's what you guys said about Watergate and about Trump.
> >
> > Trump is a conspiracy?
> >
>
> Watergate was a conspiracy.

You mentioned two things. I questioned you on the one so you focus on
the other.

> Can't you even admit that?
> Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians.
> Don't call it Collusion. There was no Collusion.
> That's too big a word for you to understand.
> The correct word is Treason. Can you say that word?
>
> >>> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
> >>> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
> >>> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
> >>
> >> Are you claiming that no one else except Oswald could have had access to
> >> the building?
> >
> > Acme Strawman Company.
> >
>
> As usual you can't answer my questions.

As usual you ignore what the person you are replying to said and erect a
strawman and address that instead.

A typical tactic of leftists...

https://youtu.be/zmYvjt5lGX0

> >> The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck in
> >> the night before.
> >
> > Everyone is a stranger to someone.
> >
>
> I forget the name of that trick.

Defining terms.

> We ae talking about a stranger sneaking
> into the TSBD.

A stranger to who? Who saw someone "sneak" into the TSBD?

> >>> access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in
> >>> Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within
> >>
> >> Of the 3 black men could have easily gone up to the sixth floor. Maybe
> >> to recover his lunch or his cigarettes.
> >
> > And maybe going back for his cigarettes ran into the assassin, Oswald.
> >
>
> And maybe he did much earlier and thought nothing of it.

Earlier than what?

> If he ran into a stranger he might question that and remember it.
> Oswald remembered that a stranger came in and asked where to find a phone.
>
> >>> the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
> >>> and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
> >>> exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals
> >>
> >> Doesn't prove who pulled the trigger.
> >
> > There are many, many indications making it quite easy to figure out who
> > shot Kennedy. Alas, unless film surfaces of Oswald shooting Kennedy Tony
> > will remain stumped.
> >
>
> You always bluff.
> I don't need no damn film.

Your mind is made up.

> >>> no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
> >>> behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
> >>> Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
> >>>
> >>> So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
> >>> incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
> >>> was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which
> >>
> >> How could Oswald shoot JFK in the forehead from the sniper's nest?
> >
> > Or the big toe?
> >
>
> Whose big toe?

You should get yourself checked, you seem unable to follow a discussion.

> Do you believe that was the bullet that went through the
> floor of the limo?
>
> Again you can't answer my question. If Oswald couldn't fire that shot
> then someone else did.

Kennedy was shot in the forehead every bit as much as he was shot in the
big toe.

> Someone else shooting means conspiracy.
>
> >>> the assassination was the result of a grand scheme which has remained
> >>> unproven over the years because of a multi-generational cover up involving
> >>
> >> How many years can a cover-up last?
> >
> > I suppose the conspiracy hobbyist will cover up Oswald`s guilt until the
> > day they die. In fact, Tom Rossley devised a way to cover up for Oswald`s
> > guilt long after he died, he paid in advance to have his website exist 6
> > years after his demise.
> >
> > http://whokilledjfk.net/
> >
>
> Are you saying that Tom Rossley is dead and his web site has only 6
> years left? Is that enough time to solve the case?

Tom was out to obscure Oswald`s guilt, not solve the case. His website
reflects that.

> Do you really think the CIA will release the files by then?
>
> >
> >>> at least three departments of the executive branch of the federal
> >>> government, local law enforcement investigators, and two independent crime
> >>
> >> You need to separate the coverup from the crime.
> >
> > Tony would need to be able to differentiate between the real and the
> > imaginary.
> >
>
> Science is real. YOU are not.

I think, therefore I am.

[Jason Burke]

Uh, I think BD did baseball...

[Jason Burke]

Thinkin' maybe the 12th of never.

[bigdog]

The thing that amused me about Tom is he titled his website
whokilledjfk.net yet he never tried to answer that question. His mission,
as you said, was to obscure the evidence of Oswald's guilt. When I debated
him on the radio, I asked him numerous times if he had any evidence that
anyone other than Oswald was involved in the crime and near the end he
admitted he didn't.

Tom's fate will be shared by most of the hardcore conspiracy hobbyists.
After a lifetime of trying to prove a conspiracy, they will go to their
graves with nothing to show for their efforts except maybe a silly website
which will disappear into cyber dust as soon as the payments have run out.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I think that's the source/cause of his remorse, his guilt. He completely
missed hearing that first shot -he later realized it - and he believes -
probably correctly - that had he responded at that point he would have
saved JFK.

Watching young Rosemary Willis respond to hearing, she said, that first
shot in the Z film while all of the adults around her are completely
oblivious to it is stunning. I think it provided further evidence to your
belief that people were so focused on other events - seeing JFK, watching
the crowd, et cetera - that they blocked out the sound of the shot.

Here's a closeup:
http://www.jfk-online.com/rosemary-willis-stop-dunckel-2.gif

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 1:32:53 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

Also keep in mind that Hill was there to protect Jackie and was on the
opposite side of the followup car from JFK. He had to hop on the left
rear of the car, otherwise it would have taken off without him if he tried
for the right side. JFK would still be a clear target.

Also, Jack Ready, on the front right side of the followup car, was
ready to jump off after the second shot but Agent Emory Roberts, riding in
the passenger seat, told him not to. He said later he was concerned for
ROBERTS safety because the car was swerving to the right to avoid hitting
Hill.

Interesting take on the events can be found in The Kennedy Detail, by
Agent Gerald Blaine and Lisa McCubbin. When describing the events passing
through Deally Plaza, ALL accounts of the agents when describing their
actions are from the assumption that the first shot hit Kennedy, the
second shot hit Connally and the third shot hit Kennedy. It provides an
excuse to explain why no one reacted at the first shot.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you questioning Watergate?
You can't even admit that Watergate was a conspiracy?

>> Can't you even admit that?
>> Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians.
>> Don't call it Collusion. There was no Collusion.
>> That's too big a word for you to understand.
>> The correct word is Treason. Can you say that word?
>>
>>>>> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
>>>>> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
>>>>> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming that no one else except Oswald could have had access to
>>>> the building?
>>>
>>> Acme Strawman Company.
>>>
>>
>> As usual you can't answer my questions.
>
> As usual you ignore what the person you are replying to said and erect a
> strawman and address that instead.
>

Maybe you weren't coherent.

> A typical tactic of leftists...
>
> https://youtu.be/zmYvjt5lGX0
>
>>>> The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck in
>>>> the night before.
>>>
>>> Everyone is a stranger to someone.
>>>
>>
>> I forget the name of that trick.
>
> Defining terms.
>

Avoiding Questions. The Trump dodge and weave.

>> We ae talking about a stranger sneaking
>> into the TSBD.
>
> A stranger to who? Who saw someone "sneak" into the TSBD?

To WHOM. To the regular workers in the TSBD.

>
>>>>> access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in
>>>>> Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within
>>>>
>>>> Of the 3 black men could have easily gone up to the sixth floor. Maybe
>>>> to recover his lunch or his cigarettes.
>>>
>>> And maybe going back for his cigarettes ran into the assassin, Oswald.
>>>
>>
>> And maybe he did much earlier and thought nothing of it.
>
> Earlier than what?
>

Than the shooting.

>> If he ran into a stranger he might question that and remember it.
>> Oswald remembered that a stranger came in and asked where to find a phone.
>>
>>>>> the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
>>>>> and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
>>>>> exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't prove who pulled the trigger.
>>>
>>> There are many, many indications making it quite easy to figure out who
>>> shot Kennedy. Alas, unless film surfaces of Oswald shooting Kennedy Tony
>>> will remain stumped.
>>>
>>
>> You always bluff.
>> I don't need no damn film.
>
> Your mind is made up.
>

No. I have always said it is possible, not probable.

>>>>> no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
>>>>> behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
>>>>> Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
>>>>>
>>>>> So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
>>>>> incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
>>>>> was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which
>>>>
>>>> How could Oswald shoot JFK in the forehead from the sniper's nest?
>>>
>>> Or the big toe?
>>>
>>
>> Whose big toe?
>
> You should get yourself checked, you seem unable to follow a discussion.
>

You make personal attacks, because you are not man enough to answer my
questions.

>> Do you believe that was the bullet that went through the
>> floor of the limo?
>>
>> Again you can't answer my question. If Oswald couldn't fire that shot
>> then someone else did.
>
> Kennedy was shot in the forehead every bit as much as he was shot in the
> big toe.
>

So now you're claiming that it was JFK who was shot in the toe.
I doubt it. There was no clear path.

>> Someone else shooting means conspiracy.
>>
>>>>> the assassination was the result of a grand scheme which has remained
>>>>> unproven over the years because of a multi-generational cover up involving
>>>>
>>>> How many years can a cover-up last?
>>>
>>> I suppose the conspiracy hobbyist will cover up Oswald`s guilt until the
>>> day they die. In fact, Tom Rossley devised a way to cover up for Oswald`s
>>> guilt long after he died, he paid in advance to have his website exist 6
>>> years after his demise.
>>>
>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying that Tom Rossley is dead and his web site has only 6
>> years left? Is that enough time to solve the case?
>
> Tom was out to obscure Oswald`s guilt, not solve the case. His website
> reflects that.
>
>> Do you really think the CIA will release the files by then?
>>
>>>
>>>>> at least three departments of the executive branch of the federal
>>>>> government, local law enforcement investigators, and two independent crime
>>>>
>>>> You need to separate the coverup from the crime.
>>>
>>> Tony would need to be able to differentiate between the real and the
>>> imaginary.
>>>
>>
>> Science is real. YOU are not.
>
> I think, therefore I am.
>

You only think you are.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/27/2018 1:32 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 10:29:52 AM UTC-5, CAMPBE...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Exactly Bigdog! Hill was so focussed on the people,the first shot simply
>> didn't register as a shot. If It had,he probably would've reacted in a
>> protective manner and would've reached the trunk of the car and shielded
>> JFK and kept him from being shot in the head. Thank you for being a
>> football official!
>
> It is possible that if the first shot had registered, he might have got to
> JFK in time to save him. It's one of those things we will never know. Just
> many of the what-ifs we have to ponder.
>

Maybe shield him from shots from behind, but how could he know about the
shot from the front?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/27/2018 1:32 AM, bigdog wrote:

Yes, and he saw the Zapruder film when most people did not. And he did
not believe in the Single Bullet Theory.

> wrong. For example in his hospital interview with Martin Agronsky, he said
> he turned to his left when he heard the first shot when the film shows he
> turned to his right. In his later accounts he correctly says he turned to
> his right, possibly because he had seen in the Z-film which way he turned.
> I believe he also said on that initial turn he saw the president slumped.
> The Z-film shows on his initial turn he didn't turn far enough to see JFK.
> It showed he didn't make the full turn to the rear until after he had been
> shot which was his second turn to the right. He remembered seeing JFK
> slump but was wrong about the sequence of the events.
>

Yes, but some have misquoted it, as I pointed out in my article:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm


Did Connally turn left or right?
One of the problems with the book Assassination Science is that some
authors misuse or misquote eyewitness testimony. It is bad enough that
eyewitness testimony is already acknowledged to be the most unreliable
form of evidence. But it is made worse when sloppy researchers misquote
eyewitness testimony to support insupportable conclusions. But it is even
worse when a researcher simply makes up an eyewitness statement from his
imagination in order to support his pre-conceived conclusion. On page 214
Jack White lists his observations of the Zapruder film which he thinks
prove that the film is a fake. In Observation 5, Jack White states that,
"Connally said he turned to his left to look at the President, then turned
to his right. The film does not show this." Jack White does not provide
any footnotes for his chapter, so the reader can not find out where this
statement came from. After repeated questioning Jack finally admitted that
he had based that on an article by Milicent Cranor. He did not bother to
fact check it himself.
Throughout his life John Connally had always testified consistently
that he heard a shot, turned to his right to look at the President, then
started to turn to his left when he was hit facing approximately forward.
The only account that differs from that is his bedside interview from
November 27, 1963. Milicent Cranor, one of Jack's defenders, points out in
her article in The Fourth Decade (July 1994, pages 3839) that CBS and
later NOVA cut several words out of the rebroadcast of Connally's
statement, specifically Connally's reference to turning left. She points
out that Martin Agronsky of the New York Times preserved the reference to
the left turn in his November 28, 1963 report. But does she faithfully
quote what the New York Times wrote? I doubt it. Here is what she wrote:

We heard a shot. I turned to my left and the President had slumped.

He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned I was hit . . .

But according to the account in Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds in
Dallas on page 65, the New York Times quote was longer.
Compare that to the NOVA version:

So, can we then rely on Josiah Thompson's version? Not exactly. Look at
the second sentence. Does it make any sense for Connally to say, "I turned
to my left in the back seat." when Connally was not in the back seat, but
was in the jump seat? Hardly. It appears that Josiah Thompson made a
copying error and left out the words, "to look". I really doubt that he
would have done so in order to bolster the SBT as CBS and NOVA did. If we
can't rely on other researchers for the authoritative version, then on
whom can we rely? We need to go back to the original source. Not just the
New York Times, but also the original recording of Connally's statement.
Here is how the New York Times transcribed Connally's statement on page 23
of the November 23, 1963 edition:

New York Times, November 28, 1963, p. 23, col. 1.

This scan from a microfilm copy is hard to read so I will type in the
text below:

We had just turned the cor-
ner. we heard a shot. I turned
to my left, and the President
had slumped. He said noth-
ing. As I turned, I was hit,
and I knew I had been hit
badly.

But can we even rely on this official transcript provided by the New
York Times? Not exactly.
As Cranor had pointed out, both CBS and NOVA used edited versions of
Connally's bedside interview in an attempt to preserve the SBT.
Fortunately, other researchers have pointed out that this segment of the
original statement was preserved in toto on other videotapes, such as the
Italian documentary "The Two Kennedys" and "Kennedy in Texas." "The Two
Kennedys" is rare and hard to find now, but I was able to find a copy at a
small video store called Hollywood Express. I was going to record that
segment into my computer, but I found that someone had already done so and
posted it to the Web as a . WAV file. "Kennedy in Texas" can be ordered
from JFK Lancer. I transcribed verbatim the original Connally bedside
statement. And you can also listen to the original statement to compare it
to my transcription:


We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump
seat --

I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was
slumped.

Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was
hit,

and I knew I'd been hit badly.

So, where is the left, then right turn which Jack White cites? Nowhere to
be found. It is always best to go back to the original statement of an
eyewitness, but it does no good when the researcher misquotes the original
statement. Never in his life did Connally say that he first turned to his
left and then turned to his right. Jack simply made it up from his
imagination. Many of the researchers who are promoting bizarre theories
feel that they need to claim that the Zapruder film is a fake and will do
anything, including making up fictitious eyewitness statements, to bolster
their claims.
In every other statement Connally made, he consistently reported
that he turned to his right and then started to turn to his left. In his
Warren Commission testimony , Connally stated:

Governor Connally.

We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how
far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to
go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the
crowds had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating that we were
going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned
on Elm Street.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I
heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I
instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because
once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an
assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the
left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.

In his testimony before the HSCA , Connally repeated essentially the
same sequence of events:


Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, very much. Governor, let me ask you the same
question. What is your memory of the
events? What did you see and hear? What happened after the limousine
started down Elm Street and passed underneath the Texas School Book
Depository?
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, we had just turned to Elm. We had gone, I
suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what I thought was a rifle shot
and I thought it came from--I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat
right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on
them so I was sitting up fairly erect. I thought the shot came from back
over my right shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the
President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly,
had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.
I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't
see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of,
at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to
see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About
the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the
way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over
by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about
2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet
drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could
see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been badly hit and I
more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly reached over and
pulled me down into her lap.

Connally was interviewed for the 1992 CBS episode of "48 Hours" entitled
"Who Killed JFK?: Facts Not Fiction," but CBS intertwined the interview
with a previous interview, circa 1963. In the transcription below I have
used normal text for the 1992 portion and italicized text for the
flashback interview:

"I heard the shot and I turned, thinking that the shot had come
from back over my right shoulder. And I turned to look in that direction.
And I was in the process of turning to the left to look in the back
seat and I had no more than straightened up and I felt a blow, as if
someone had just hit me in the back, a sharp blow, with a doubled-up fist.
Again, I heard the first shot. I had time to try to see what had happened.
I was in the process of turning again before I felt the impact of a
bullet. And I was lying there and heard the third shot. I assume that it
hit the President."

Again, Connally was consistent in testifying that he heard a shot,
turned to his right to look at the President, then started to turn to his
left when he was hit. This may seem like a minor point, but it is
important for three reasons. First, every author must be willing to defend
what he writes and back up his statements with sources and references.
Second, this is how myths are generated and perpetuated when no one
challenges unproved statements. Third, no researcher should rely on
eyewitness testimony to impeach physical evidence. Eyewitness testimony is
the most unreliable form of evidence. It is even worse when the sloppy
researcher simply makes up fictitious quotes to support his pre-conceived
conclusion that the Zapruder film is a fake. More likely the researcher is
a fake.

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean the 2-foot wall that Trump built with Lego Blocks?

[Anthony Marsh]

There's not enough room in the URL to name all the conspirators.

[bigdog]

I was a three sport official although I only dabbled in basketball. I
worked baseball at both the pro and collegiate levels for over 30 years. I
worked football at the high school level for about 25 seasons. Prior to
officiating football I coached it for about a dozen years, mostly at the
youth level although I did a one year gig as an assistant coach of a
semi-pro team. I also coached youth baseball off and on for about 10
years. Lots of great experiences and a few not so great but all in all it
was a great ride. In baseball I worked for a number of future major league
stars when they were still in the low minor leagues. Mark "The Bird"
Fidrych probably being the most famous. Almost all the players I umpired
for are now out of the game completely although Ned Yost who I worked
behind when he was a catcher in the New York Mets organization is still
managing the Kansas City Royals, winning the World Series a few years ago.
That was all the way back in 1975.

[bigdog]

When they did they special on The Kennedy Detail a few years ago, a TV
program based of the book of the same name, it didn't sound as if he
thought he missed the sound of the first shot. He remembers hearing the
sound of the shot that first hit JFK and of course he remembers the head
shot which he said had a metallic sound to it, probably from the fragments
hitting various metal parts in the limo. If I remember correctly, he said
that they (other agents) told him there was another shot while he was
running toward the limo but he didn't remember hearing that one. Of course
I think most of us believe that to be inaccurate. I am almost certain the
one he didn't remember hearing was the first shot, possibly because his
focus was elsewhere and/or the motorcycles roaring alongside the limos.

> Watching young Rosemary Willis respond to hearing, she said, that first
> shot in the Z film while all of the adults around her are completely
> oblivious to it is stunning. I think it provided further evidence to your
> belief that people were so focused on other events - seeing JFK, watching
> the crowd, et cetera - that they blocked out the sound of the shot.
>
> Here's a closeup:
> http://www.jfk-online.com/rosemary-willis-stop-dunckel-2.gif

I put more faith in the observed reactions of witnesses than I do their
recollections. What is amazing is how few people did react to that first
shot. Some, like Brehm, in the median didn't seem to have reacted to the
second shot even though that was the one which caused JFK to suddenly
bring his arms in front of him. Brehm can be seen continuing to clap
despite JFK having been obviously wounded. Of course he vividly remembers
the head shot which he described in a same day interview. I remember
seeing that the day of the assassination and him breaking down in tears as
he described that last shot.

[Jason Burke]

Sadly, you seem to figure out how to get over it. Or maybe under it?

[Jason Burke]

On 11/27/2018 8:48 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/27/2018 1:32 AM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 10:29:52 AM UTC-5, CAMPBE...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>> Exactly Bigdog! Hill was so focussed on the people,the first shot simply
>>> didn't register as a shot. If It had,he probably would've reacted in a
>>> protective manner and would've reached the trunk of the car and shielded
>>> JFK and kept him from being shot in the head. Thank you for being a
>>> football official!
>>
>> It is possible that if the first shot had registered, he might have
>> got to
>> JFK in time to save him. It's one of those things we will never know.
>> Just
>> many of the what-ifs we have to ponder.
>>
>
> Maybe shield him from shots from behind, but how could he know about the
> shot from the front?

Good thing there wasn't a shot from the front, eh, Anthony Anthony?

[Bud]

Are you saying that`s what you thought I said?

> You can't even admit that Watergate was a conspiracy?
>
> >> Can't you even admit that?
> >> Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians.
> >> Don't call it Collusion. There was no Collusion.
> >> That's too big a word for you to understand.
> >> The correct word is Treason. Can you say that word?
> >>
> >>>>> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
> >>>>> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
> >>>>> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you claiming that no one else except Oswald could have had access to
> >>>> the building?
> >>>
> >>> Acme Strawman Company.
> >>>
> >>
> >> As usual you can't answer my questions.
> >
> > As usual you ignore what the person you are replying to said and erect a
> > strawman and address that instead.
> >
>
> Maybe you weren't coherent.

Are you saying what you wrote spoke to what the person said that you
replied to?

> > A typical tactic of leftists...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/zmYvjt5lGX0
> >
> >>>> The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck in
> >>>> the night before.
> >>>
> >>> Everyone is a stranger to someone.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I forget the name of that trick.
> >
> > Defining terms.
> >
>
> Avoiding Questions.

Are you saying a person can`t be known to some people and be a stranger
to other people?

> The Trump dodge and weave.
>
> >> We ae talking about a stranger sneaking
> >> into the TSBD.
> >
> > A stranger to who? Who saw someone "sneak" into the TSBD?
>
> To WHOM. To the regular workers in the TSBD.

Are you saying those workers worked there all night?

> >
> >>>>> access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in
> >>>>> Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within
> >>>>
> >>>> Of the 3 black men could have easily gone up to the sixth floor. Maybe
> >>>> to recover his lunch or his cigarettes.
> >>>
> >>> And maybe going back for his cigarettes ran into the assassin, Oswald.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And maybe he did much earlier and thought nothing of it.
> >
> > Earlier than what?
> >
>
> Than the shooting.

Are you saying that it is strange for the people who worked in the
building to move around the building in times previous to the shooting?

> >> If he ran into a stranger he might question that and remember it.
> >> Oswald remembered that a stranger came in and asked where to find a phone.
> >>
> >>>>> the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
> >>>>> and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
> >>>>> exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals
> >>>>
> >>>> Doesn't prove who pulled the trigger.
> >>>
> >>> There are many, many indications making it quite easy to figure out who
> >>> shot Kennedy. Alas, unless film surfaces of Oswald shooting Kennedy Tony
> >>> will remain stumped.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You always bluff.
> >> I don't need no damn film.
> >
> > Your mind is made up.
> >
>
> No. I have always said it is possible, not probable.

Are you saying film of Oswald shooting wouldn`t help you decide?

>
> >>>>> no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
> >>>>> behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
> >>>>> Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
> >>>>> incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
> >>>>> was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which
> >>>>
> >>>> How could Oswald shoot JFK in the forehead from the sniper's nest?
> >>>
> >>> Or the big toe?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Whose big toe?
> >
> > You should get yourself checked, you seem unable to follow a discussion.
> >
>
>
> You make personal attacks, because you are not man enough to answer my
> questions.

Are you saying you didn`t know we we discussing JFK?

> >> Do you believe that was the bullet that went through the
> >> floor of the limo?
> >>
> >> Again you can't answer my question. If Oswald couldn't fire that shot
> >> then someone else did.
> >
> > Kennedy was shot in the forehead every bit as much as he was shot in the
> > big toe.
> >
>
> So now you're claiming that it was JFK who was shot in the toe.

Are you saying you think that is what I was saying?

> I doubt it. There was no clear path.
>
> >> Someone else shooting means conspiracy.
> >>
> >>>>> the assassination was the result of a grand scheme which has remained
> >>>>> unproven over the years because of a multi-generational cover up involving
> >>>>
> >>>> How many years can a cover-up last?
> >>>
> >>> I suppose the conspiracy hobbyist will cover up Oswald`s guilt until the
> >>> day they die. In fact, Tom Rossley devised a way to cover up for Oswald`s
> >>> guilt long after he died, he paid in advance to have his website exist 6
> >>> years after his demise.
> >>>
> >>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
> >>>
> >>
> >> Are you saying that Tom Rossley is dead and his web site has only 6
> >> years left? Is that enough time to solve the case?
> >
> > Tom was out to obscure Oswald`s guilt, not solve the case. His website
> > reflects that.
> >
> >> Do you really think the CIA will release the files by then?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>> at least three departments of the executive branch of the federal
> >>>>> government, local law enforcement investigators, and two independent crime
> >>>>
> >>>> You need to separate the coverup from the crime.
> >>>
> >>> Tony would need to be able to differentiate between the real and the
> >>> imaginary.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Science is real. YOU are not.
> >
> > I think, therefore I am.
> >
>
> You only think you are.

Are you saying there is a better way of determining my existence?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/20/2018 12:44 AM, bigdog wrote:
> Thanksgiving Day will mark the 55th anniversary of the assassination of
> JFK. In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever

> surfaced. ALL the credible evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the
> assassin. None of the credible evidence is incompatible with that
> conclusion and there is no credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald
> took part in the crime. Still, belief that there was a conspiracy and

OK, wise guy, explain how Oswald in the TSBD could have shot JFK in the
forehead?

> subsequent cover up persists among a dwindling majority of Americans even

For the record a cover-up does not have to know the details of the
conspiracy, just that there is a National Security need to cover up the
conspiracy.

> though most of them don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
> assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
> day.
>

Oh, give us a break. Every day we see that you WC defenders don't know
anything about the JFK assassination, but merely repeat what lies you've
heard.

> The hard core conspiracy hobbyists will tell us the reason for the state
> of the evidence is proof of the effectiveness of the cover up. They of

I told you before so pay attention. The cover-up is falling apart.

> course ignore the very real and far more likely reason for the state of
> the evidence is that there was no conspiracy or cover up.
>

Then explain the evidence. You can't even explain the dent in the chrome
topping. Neither could your beloved cover-up.
Where did your miss go? What frame is YOUR SBT?

> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means

There is no reason why the assassination could not have been carried out
by a consirator using Oswald's rifle.

> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole

> access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in

Not quite. Anyone could have walked in on the shooter.

> Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within

But you make them difficult when you can't admit simple facts.

> the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
> and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the

There you go again spreading disinformation for the millionth time.
Get this through your thick skull.
ONLY ONE BULLET WAS RECOVERED.
And even that could have been planted.

> exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals

> no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
> behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
> Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
>
> So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
> incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
> was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which

> the assassination was the result of a grand scheme which has remained
> unproven over the years because of a multi-generational cover up involving

> at least three departments of the executive branch of the federal
> government, local law enforcement investigators, and two independent crime

> labs as well as complicity from most of the major news sources in the
> United States. One explanation accepts the validity of the evidence and
> the other requires us to believe most if not all of the available evidence
> is fraudulent. For those who opt for the latter, no amount of reason or
> logic will dissuade them from their beliefs. Widespread belief that JFK
> was the victim of a conspiracy will continue to persist in this country
> long after we are all dead and gone.
>

Again, a false choice. Some WC defenders think Oswald was the lone
shooter, but working for someone else like Castro or Russia. That also
makes it a conspiracy, but you would never know that when you refuse to
look at the evidence.

[bigdog]

It's easy to second guess some of the decisions the protection detail made
from the luxury of numerous replays but those men had to make split second
decisions. That's interesting because from Zapruder's perspective, the
follow up limo is out of the picture by the time Hill made his mad dash
and so we can't see that swerve the Roberts spoke of. It would be the
natural reaction for the follow up driver to not only swerve but slow down
once Hill approached the back of JFK's limo. I can understand Roberts'
concern.

> Interesting take on the events can be found in The Kennedy Detail, by
> Agent Gerald Blaine and Lisa McCubbin. When describing the events passing
> through Deally Plaza, ALL accounts of the agents when describing their
> actions are from the assumption that the first shot hit Kennedy, the
> second shot hit Connally and the third shot hit Kennedy. It provides an
> excuse to explain why no one reacted at the first shot.

I didn't read the book but saw the TV program based on that book. I found
that interesting too. That seemed to be the consensus among the detail.
They don't seem to be proponents of the SBT even though it is essential to
believing there was a lone assassin. I didn't read it as an excuse but
simply faulty memories although it's possible it could be a CYA story.
Only they would know. I wonder how closely any of them looked at the
Z-film. Their impressions simply don't make sense in when compared with
what the Z-film shows. As I mentioned in another reply, Hill said that the
other agents told him there was a shot fired as he was racing toward the
limo that Hill didn't remember hearing. In reality, the shot he didn't
hear was the first one. The only one I know of who recalled hearing the
first shot was Bennett. He recalled hearing the first shot as he was
scanning the crowd on the north side of Elm and he immediately looked to
JFK in time to see the second shot strike him. Bennett's recollections are
especially compelling given that he wrote his notes on AF1 during the
flight back to Washington at a time when nobody else seemed to even know
JFK had been hit in the back. It gives credence to a first shot miss and a
second shot strike. It fits well with Connally's recollection that he was
hit by the second shot also. Simply put, if JFK was hit by the second shot
and Connally was hit by the second shot, the SBT is valid.

[bigdog]

He didn't believe in the SBT because he had been led to believe JFK was
hit by the first shot and Connally knew the second shot was the one that
struck him. JFK was not hit by the first shot but the second one, the same
one Connally remembered hitting him. We see them react at the same instant
in a very similar manner. Both suddenly jerk their arms upward at exactly
Z226.

The Z-film shows his initial turn was to his right so we can discount the
account he gave Agronsky in from his hospital bed. Whether he was still
groggy from the anesthesia or he needed to see the Z-film to clarify his
memories we can't say, but all of his later accounts are compatible with
the Z-film and are also compatible with a second shot SBT.

[Anthony Marsh]

You always deny all conspiracies out of habit.

>
>> You can't even admit that Watergate was a conspiracy?
>>
>>>> Can't you even admit that?
>>>> Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians.
>>>> Don't call it Collusion. There was no Collusion.
>>>> That's too big a word for you to understand.
>>>> The correct word is Treason. Can you say that word?
>>>>
>>>>>>> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
>>>>>>> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
>>>>>>> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you claiming that no one else except Oswald could have had access to
>>>>>> the building?
>>>>>
>>>>> Acme Strawman Company.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As usual you can't answer my questions.
>>>
>>> As usual you ignore what the person you are replying to said and erect a
>>> strawman and address that instead.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you weren't coherent.
>
> Are you saying what you wrote spoke to what the person said that you
> replied to?

Huh? I'm talking to you.

>
>>> A typical tactic of leftists...
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/zmYvjt5lGX0
>>>
>>>>>> The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck in
>>>>>> the night before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone is a stranger to someone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I forget the name of that trick.
>>>
>>> Defining terms.
>>>
>>
>> Avoiding Questions.
>
> Are you saying a person can`t be known to some people and be a stranger
> to other people?

What? A strabger is someone you don't know. He may be known to other
people.

>
>> The Trump dodge and weave.
>>
>>>> We ae talking about a stranger sneaking
>>>> into the TSBD.
>>>
>>> A stranger to who? Who saw someone "sneak" into the TSBD?
>>
>> To WHOM. To the regular workers in the TSBD.
>
> Are you saying those workers worked there all night?

No, that's the point that the police made. A stranger could have snuck
in during the night.

>
>>>
>>>>>>> access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in
>>>>>>> Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of the 3 black men could have easily gone up to the sixth floor. Maybe
>>>>>> to recover his lunch or his cigarettes.
>>>>>
>>>>> And maybe going back for his cigarettes ran into the assassin, Oswald.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And maybe he did much earlier and thought nothing of it.
>>>
>>> Earlier than what?
>>>
>>
>> Than the shooting.
>
> Are you saying that it is strange for the people who worked in the
> building to move around the building in times previous to the shooting?
>
>>>> If he ran into a stranger he might question that and remember it.
>>>> Oswald remembered that a stranger came in and asked where to find a phone.
>>>>
>>>>>>> the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
>>>>>>> and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
>>>>>>> exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't prove who pulled the trigger.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many, many indications making it quite easy to figure out who
>>>>> shot Kennedy. Alas, unless film surfaces of Oswald shooting Kennedy Tony
>>>>> will remain stumped.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You always bluff.
>>>> I don't need no damn film.
>>>
>>> Your mind is made up.
>>>
>>
>> No. I have always said it is possible, not probable.
>
> Are you saying film of Oswald shooting wouldn`t help you decide?

No. I am saying there is no film of whoever shot.

>
>>
>>>>>>> no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
>>>>>>> behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
>>>>>>> Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
>>>>>>> incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
>>>>>>> was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could Oswald shoot JFK in the forehead from the sniper's nest?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or the big toe?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whose big toe?
>>>
>>> You should get yourself checked, you seem unable to follow a discussion.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You make personal attacks, because you are not man enough to answer my
>> questions.
>
> Are you saying you didn`t know we we discussing JFK?

I am comparing the cover-up of the JFK assassination to other cover-ups
that you may know.

>
>>>> Do you believe that was the bullet that went through the
>>>> floor of the limo?
>>>>
>>>> Again you can't answer my question. If Oswald couldn't fire that shot
>>>> then someone else did.
>>>
>>> Kennedy was shot in the forehead every bit as much as he was shot in the
>>> big toe.
>>>
>>
>> So now you're claiming that it was JFK who was shot in the toe.
>
> Are you saying you think that is what I was saying?

You made a false equivalency. You learned that from Trump.

>
>> I doubt it. There was no clear path.
>>
>>>> Someone else shooting means conspiracy.
>>>>
>>>>>>> the assassination was the result of a grand scheme which has remained
>>>>>>> unproven over the years because of a multi-generational cover up involving
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many years can a cover-up last?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose the conspiracy hobbyist will cover up Oswald`s guilt until the
>>>>> day they die. In fact, Tom Rossley devised a way to cover up for Oswald`s
>>>>> guilt long after he died, he paid in advance to have his website exist 6
>>>>> years after his demise.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that Tom Rossley is dead and his web site has only 6
>>>> years left? Is that enough time to solve the case?
>>>
>>> Tom was out to obscure Oswald`s guilt, not solve the case. His website
>>> reflects that.
>>>
>>>> Do you really think the CIA will release the files by then?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> at least three departments of the executive branch of the federal
>>>>>>> government, local law enforcement investigators, and two independent crime
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to separate the coverup from the crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony would need to be able to differentiate between the real and the
>>>>> imaginary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Science is real. YOU are not.
>>>
>>> I think, therefore I am.
>>>
>>
>> You only think you are.
>
> Are you saying there is a better way of determining my existence?

Are you saying there is no such thing as objective facts?
That's a Trump trick.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/28/2018 2:53 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 11/27/2018 8:48 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/27/2018 1:32 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 10:29:52 AM UTC-5,
>>> CAMPBE...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Exactly Bigdog! Hill was so focussed on the people,the first shot
>>>> simply
>>>> didn't register as a shot. If It had,he probably would've reacted in a
>>>> protective manner and would've reached the trunk of the car and
>>>> shielded
>>>> JFK and kept him from being shot in the head. Thank you for being a
>>>> football official!
>>>
>>> It is possible that if the first shot had registered, he might have
>>> got to
>>> JFK in time to save him. It's one of those things we will never know.
>>> Just
>>> many of the what-ifs we have to ponder.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe shield him from shots from behind, but how could he know about
>> the shot from the front?
>
> Good thing there wasn't a shot from the front, eh, Anthony Anthony?
>

You're evading the issue just to prove that you are a WC defender.

[Anthony Marsh]

When Trump closes the border, Americans can't get back in and goods
can't be shipped in.

[CAMPBE...@yahoo.com]

Since we're talking about people's reactions i.e. Hill,Connally,Willis
etc., how about Kennedy himself? A few frames (Don't have the Image Of An
Assassination DVD in front of me at this moment) after the limo
appears,Kennedy goes from looking to his left to looking to the crowd on
his side of Elm. Is this just him noticing the crowd or has he heard
something a few frames earlier and is reacting to that sound? If Connally
and Jackie can be seen doing a quick head turn in reaction to hearing a
sound(or what some thought to be a motorcycle backfire) wouldn't that mean
JFK heard it too and is reacting to it too? I always wondered,why with
JFK's Navy experience,he didn't recognize the sound as a shot and didn't
react accordingly. Of course,with his back brace holding him up
straight,he would've had a difficult time just ducking down without having
someone else such as a secret service man pushing him down into the floor
of the limo. Also,Kennedy stops waving and appears to have his hand up
near his face or forehead right before passing behind the sign. Maybe
That's his visual action of pausing slightly and thinking "Whew! Glad that
wasn't a shot I heard".

[Anthony Marsh]

Why? Oswald's rifle could be fired quickly enough to wound both men
separately.

> simply faulty memories although it's possible it could be a CYA story.
> Only they would know. I wonder how closely any of them looked at the
> Z-film. Their impressions simply don't make sense in when compared with
> what the Z-film shows. As I mentioned in another reply, Hill said that the
> other agents told him there was a shot fired as he was racing toward the
> limo that Hill didn't remember hearing. In reality, the shot he didn't
> hear was the first one. The only one I know of who recalled hearing the
> first shot was Bennett. He recalled hearing the first shot as he was
> scanning the crowd on the north side of Elm and he immediately looked to
> JFK in time to see the second shot strike him. Bennett's recollections are
> especially compelling given that he wrote his notes on AF1 during the
> flight back to Washington at a time when nobody else seemed to even know
> JFK had been hit in the back. It gives credence to a first shot miss and a
> second shot strike. It fits well with Connally's recollection that he was
> hit by the second shot also. Simply put, if JFK was hit by the second shot
> and Connally was hit by the second shot, the SBT is valid.
>

Connally did not accept the SBT. He said he had time enough to see that
JFK HAD BEEN HIT before he himself was hit.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. JFK did not jerk at frame 226, he was hit before frame 226 and both
the WC in it's early finding and Connally think he wasn't hit until
frame 230.

I like that. So you aren't man enough to outright call him a liar so you
blame it on drugs or something. Not even realizing or researching WHEN he
was interviewed and how long that was after his surgey. I didn't see an IV
in his arm during the interview.

Can you use the same excuse for Trump? Just say that he hasn't been caught
lying, although his buddy was, but was groggy from drugs?

> memories we can't say, but all of his later accounts are compatible with
> the Z-film and are also compatible with a second shot SBT.
>

NO.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:07:09 PM UTC-5, CAMPBE...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Since we're talking about people's reactions i.e. Hill,Connally,Willis
> etc., how about Kennedy himself? A few frames (Don't have the Image Of An
> Assassination DVD in front of me at this moment) after the limo
> appears,Kennedy goes from looking to his left to looking to the crowd on
> his side of Elm. Is this just him noticing the crowd or has he heard
> something a few frames earlier and is reacting to that sound?

Some people have said they think JFK reacted to the first shot but I just
don't see it. What I see is him calmly turning to wave to the spectators
to his right. He had just completed the wave and was beginning to lower
his right arm as he disappeared behind the sign. He had continued to lower
it for one frame after reappearing when both arms suddenly jerked upward.
A reaction that soon after reappearing indicates he was likely hit a few
frames before reappearing.

> If Connally
> and Jackie can be seen doing a quick head turn in reaction to hearing a
> sound(or what some thought to be a motorcycle backfire) wouldn't that mean
> JFK heard it too and is reacting to it too? I always wondered,why with
> JFK's Navy experience,he didn't recognize the sound as a shot and didn't
> react accordingly. Of course,with his back brace holding him up
> straight,he would've had a difficult time just ducking down without having
> someone else such as a secret service man pushing him down into the floor
> of the limo. Also,Kennedy stops waving and appears to have his hand up
> near his face or forehead right before passing behind the sign. Maybe
> That's his visual action of pausing slightly and thinking "Whew! Glad that
> wasn't a shot I heard".

He began lowering his hand just before he disappeared and it was still
moving downward for one frame after he reappeared. It's anyone's guess as
to why some people recognized the first blast was a rifle shot while
others did not but that is clearly the case. Perhaps it was the proximity
of the motorcycles, perhaps the blast was thought to be a motorcycle
backfire or as some described it, a firecracker. We see some spectators
hadn't reacted even after the second shot.

[Ramon F Herrera]

Scared Shitless, immersed in deep denial, whistling across the

graveyard, on 11/26/2018 2:32 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
>
> Dale Myers probably thinks of you as most people do. A gnat that has no
> use in the world other than to be smacked into the wall.
>
>

Indeed, and he would be right. But what youse are witness here is just
choir practice, dress rehearsal, I am opening for The Stones. What will
your hero do when caught naked, challenged by Dr. Cyril Wecht and others
of that gravitas? In the friendly media?

But the best exponents caught between the proverbial rock and the hard
place will be Drs. Peter Cummings, Michael Baden, Vince DiMaio, et al.
Will they claim that my Notable Doctors are not their peers?

Wecht is bosom buddies with Baden.

-Ramon The One Who Received a Cyber Award from Haaaavahd Yesterday.
JFK Numbers

The Four Groups of the Apocalypse:
ps:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/GmQby7bnhmI/FktpjLbSAQAJ

[Allan G. Johnson]

I read The Kennedy Detail and what stood out to me was that the first
half of the book, just before the Deally Plaza description, seems to be
setting up excuses for why they failed to protect the President. It is
full of descriptions of how overworked they are, not getting enough sleep
or time to eat, how they go from one Presidential visit venue to another
without even time to spend time at home, how Kennedy always preferred an
open top limo motorcade and didn't like them hanging on the rear of the
car during motorcades and never passed up an opportunity to greet crowds
in person, that they didn't always have their most experienced agents with
the President at all times, many were out of town setting up the security
for the next visit.

I think they can be held somewhat responsible for what happened, they
did fail to protect him from harm. Personally, I think Greer and
Kellerman are most responsible. After hearing the first shot, and
definitely after the second, after turning around and seeing Kennedy hit,
Greer should have floored it, or Kellerman should have told him.
Instead, the limo SLOWED DOWN and they were turning around again to look
back at Kennedy, they didn't take off until after the third shot, you can
see Greer looking at Kennedy on the Z film just as his head exploded.
Too late.

[Anthony Marsh]

JFK's ARMS flew up in a defensive reaction in front of his throat.
At about frame 222. So the bullet had hit him a few frame before that.

[David Von Pein]

W. ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

ONLY ONE BULLET WAS RECOVERED.

DAVID R. VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong (of course). And Anthony knows it's dead wrong, but he said it
anyway. One whole bullet (CE399) and two large fragments from the
head-shot bullet (CE567 and CE569) were recovered.

Why aren't you counting CE567/569, Tony? Just because they were fragments
and not an intact bullet? Is that why you deliberately decided to mislead
people by saying "ONLY ONE BULLET WAS RECOVERED", which is a blatant
misrepresentation of the ballistics facts?

[bigdog]

But that didn't happen. The reason the SBT is essential is the visual
evidence of the Z-film show both men reacting to being hit at the same
time (Z226) which would make it impossible for them to have been hit by
separate shots from the same bolt action rifle.

> > simply faulty memories although it's possible it could be a CYA story.
> > Only they would know. I wonder how closely any of them looked at the
> > Z-film. Their impressions simply don't make sense in when compared with
> > what the Z-film shows. As I mentioned in another reply, Hill said that the
> > other agents told him there was a shot fired as he was racing toward the
> > limo that Hill didn't remember hearing. In reality, the shot he didn't
> > hear was the first one. The only one I know of who recalled hearing the
> > first shot was Bennett. He recalled hearing the first shot as he was
> > scanning the crowd on the north side of Elm and he immediately looked to
> > JFK in time to see the second shot strike him. Bennett's recollections are
> > especially compelling given that he wrote his notes on AF1 during the
> > flight back to Washington at a time when nobody else seemed to even know
> > JFK had been hit in the back. It gives credence to a first shot miss and a
> > second shot strike. It fits well with Connally's recollection that he was
> > hit by the second shot also. Simply put, if JFK was hit by the second shot
> > and Connally was hit by the second shot, the SBT is valid.
> >
>
> Connally did not accept the SBT. He said he had time enough to see that
> JFK HAD BEEN HIT before he himself was hit.

He only said that in his initial hospital interview which has been
demonstrated to be riddled with errors. In all subsequent accounts, he
said he did not see JFK prior to being hit. He was certain he was hit by
the second shot and he was correct about that. It follows that if JFK was
hit by the second shot, and he was, then both men were hit by the same
shot.

[bigdog]

You seem to not be able to comprehend that the instant JFK was hit and the
instant he reacted were not one and the same. He reacted at Z226. He was
hit a few frames earlier. So was Connally and he also reacted at Z226.
Nowhere did the WC ever say JBC was hit at Z230. That was Connally's best
guess and not a bad one. Less than a half second off.

You can play all the semantical games you want. That won't change the fact
that JFK and JBC are both seen to suddenly jerk their arms upward at the
same instant, Z226. You can deny that either or both are reacting to being
shot, but you can't get around the fact both jerked their arms upward at
exactly the same frame.

I would never call someone a liar unless I believed they knew what they
are saying is not true.

> Not even realizing or researching WHEN he
> was interviewed and how long that was after his surgey. I didn't see an IV
> in his arm during the interview.
>

I didn't see where I wrote that he did, Mr. Strawman.

> Can you use the same excuse for Trump? Just say that he hasn't been caught
> lying, although his buddy was, but was groggy from drugs?
>

Try to stay focused and quit looking for excuses to bash Trump.

> > memories we can't say, but all of his later accounts are compatible with
> > the Z-film and are also compatible with a second shot SBT.
> >
>
>
>
> NO.

YES.

[Bud]

You cling to every conspiracy theory that comes along. You love false
narratives and hate the truth.

> >> You can't even admit that Watergate was a conspiracy?
> >>
> >>>> Can't you even admit that?
> >>>> Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians.
> >>>> Don't call it Collusion. There was no Collusion.
> >>>> That's too big a word for you to understand.
> >>>> The correct word is Treason. Can you say that word?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
> >>>>>>> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
> >>>>>>> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you claiming that no one else except Oswald could have had access to
> >>>>>> the building?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Acme Strawman Company.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As usual you can't answer my questions.
> >>>
> >>> As usual you ignore what the person you are replying to said and erect a
> >>> strawman and address that instead.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Maybe you weren't coherent.
> >
> > Are you saying what you wrote spoke to what the person said that you
> > replied to?
>
> Huh? I'm talking to you.

Are you saying you don`t know that you replied to what someone else
said, and you have no idea what you replied to?

> >
> >>> A typical tactic of leftists...
> >>>
> >>> https://youtu.be/zmYvjt5lGX0
> >>>
> >>>>>> The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck in
> >>>>>> the night before.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Everyone is a stranger to someone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I forget the name of that trick.
> >>>
> >>> Defining terms.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Avoiding Questions.
> >
> > Are you saying a person can`t be known to some people and be a stranger
> > to other people?
>
> What? A strabger is someone you don't know. He may be known to other
> people.

So where do you get off calling this person a stranger?

> >> The Trump dodge and weave.
> >>
> >>>> We ae talking about a stranger sneaking
> >>>> into the TSBD.
> >>>
> >>> A stranger to who? Who saw someone "sneak" into the TSBD?
> >>
> >> To WHOM. To the regular workers in the TSBD.
> >
> > Are you saying those workers worked there all night?
>
> No, that's the point that the police made. A stranger could have snuck
> in during the night.

You wrote...

"The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck the night before."

I asked "A stranger to who?", not being the pretentious type that uses
"whom".

What I asked was whether film of Oswald shooting would help you make a
determination, you seem impaled on the fence.

> >>
> >>>>>>> no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
> >>>>>>> behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
> >>>>>>> Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
> >>>>>>> incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
> >>>>>>> was carried out by one man with no assistance from anyone and one in which
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How could Oswald shoot JFK in the forehead from the sniper's nest?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or the big toe?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Whose big toe?
> >>>
> >>> You should get yourself checked, you seem unable to follow a discussion.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> You make personal attacks, because you are not man enough to answer my
> >> questions.
> >
> > Are you saying you didn`t know we we discussing JFK?
>
> I am comparing the cover-up of the JFK assassination to other cover-ups
> that you may know.

Then you should definitely get yourself checked.

> >>>> Do you believe that was the bullet that went through the
> >>>> floor of the limo?
> >>>>
> >>>> Again you can't answer my question. If Oswald couldn't fire that shot
> >>>> then someone else did.
> >>>
> >>> Kennedy was shot in the forehead every bit as much as he was shot in the
> >>> big toe.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So now you're claiming that it was JFK who was shot in the toe.
> >
> > Are you saying you think that is what I was saying?
>
> You made a false equivalency.

You made a false claim. I countered with another.

> You learned that from Trump.

You pay much, much more attention to that man than I do.

Are you saying my existence is not an objective fact?

> That's a Trump trick.

Misdirecting everything to Trump is a Marsh trick.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think his foot slipped off the gas. I call it his Rosemary Wood moment.
I don't think he hit the brakes. With a car that heavy, just taking your
foot off the gas pedal will cause it slow down.

[bigdog]

The observations about the work load do sound a bit like excuses but JFK's
preference for motorcades in open top cars without agents hovering near
him is not an excuse, it is the primary reason he made such an easy
target. There is no way Oswald could have succeeded in killing him had he
been riding in the type of limo our presidents now ride in. The are
armored cars made to look like stretch limos. There really was no need for
a motorcade. It's about a 5 minute ride from Love Field to the Trade Mart
if you take the most direct route, about half of which would have been on
southbound I-35. JFK wanted to be seen up close by as many people in
Dallas as was possible. He thought the political benefit of that was worth
the risk. He gambled with his life and lost.

> I think they can be held somewhat responsible for what happened, they
> did fail to protect him from harm. Personally, I think Greer and
> Kellerman are most responsible. After hearing the first shot, and
> definitely after the second, after turning around and seeing Kennedy hit,
> Greer should have floored it, or Kellerman should have told him.
> Instead, the limo SLOWED DOWN and they were turning around again to look
> back at Kennedy, they didn't take off until after the third shot, you can
> see Greer looking at Kennedy on the Z film just as his head exploded.
> Too late.

It's easy to second guess in hindsight the decisions made. True, Greer
could have gotten JFK out of harm's way if he reacted immediately to the
first shot but that's easy to say knowing what we know now. He didn't know
the first sound was a gun shot. Jackie said it was not unusual to hear
motorcycles backfire. Should Greer have been expected to hit the gas every
time he heard a backfire? It wouldn't have been until the second shot that
he could have known there was gunfire and he didn't know where it was
coming from. If it was from the overpass, continuing forward would have
driven JFK right into the ambush.

We can say the SS could have done this or that, but the primary reason
Oswald was able to kill JFK was the latter's willingness to expose himself
to risk for political benefit.

[bigdog]

Nonsense. If you look at DVP's website with the enhanced and stabilized
frames at that critical time, it is very easy to see that between frames
224 and 225 JFK's right arm was still moving DOWNWARD at 225. His arms
didn't start upward until 226, the same frame JBC's injured right arm
flipped upward.

[Allan G. Johnson]

Also in The Kennedy Detail there is another interesting incident that
happened during the motorcade I wasn't aware of before. At some point
along the motorcade route, just before arriving at Houston St., Jack Ready
saw a teenager emerge from the crowd and come toward the JFK limo shouting
slow down, slow down. He immediately jumped off and shoved the kid back
into the crowd causing a few more spectators to fall. So he wasn't
adverse to reacting to a security threat, yet he was told not to jump off
the limo by Emory Roberts after the second shot was fired because he was
concerned with Ready's safety. The number one job of a SS agent is to
protect the President, even putting your own life on the line. Emory was
wrong in holding him back.

[Allan G. Johnson]

I think so too. I think the best reaction should have been to step on
it after hearing the first shot, definitely by the second. Even though it
wasn't known where the shots came from, he should know that a moving
target is much more difficult to hit than a stationary or slower target.
Instinctively, stopping to turn around or slowing down are not justifiable
options. Also, the overpass just in front of him offered the best and
closest cover. At least one of them should have turned around and yelled
at the passengers to get down.

[Anthony Marsh]

Let me remind you again: I am the only one here fighting the
Alterationists because you are either too lazy or don't have the
documents and facts.

>>>> You can't even admit that Watergate was a conspiracy?
>>>>
>>>>>> Can't you even admit that?
>>>>>> Trump engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians.
>>>>>> Don't call it Collusion. There was no Collusion.
>>>>>> That's too big a word for you to understand.
>>>>>> The correct word is Treason. Can you say that word?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
>>>>>>>>> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
>>>>>>>>> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you claiming that no one else except Oswald could have had access to
>>>>>>>> the building?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acme Strawman Company.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual you can't answer my questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual you ignore what the person you are replying to said and erect a
>>>>> strawman and address that instead.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you weren't coherent.
>>>
>>> Are you saying what you wrote spoke to what the person said that you
>>> replied to?
>>
>> Huh? I'm talking to you.
>
> Are you saying you don`t know that you replied to what someone else
> said, and you have no idea what you replied to?
>

No, I am replying to you. Whoever you are.

>>>
>>>>> A typical tactic of leftists...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/zmYvjt5lGX0
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck in
>>>>>>>> the night before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone is a stranger to someone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I forget the name of that trick.
>>>>>
>>>>> Defining terms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Avoiding Questions.
>>>
>>> Are you saying a person can`t be known to some people and be a stranger
>>> to other people?
>>
>> What? A strabger is someone you don't know. He may be known to other
>> people.
>
> So where do you get off calling this person a stranger?
>

The police and the TSBD workers called him a stranger. I call him Emilio.

>>>> The Trump dodge and weave.
>>>>
>>>>>> We ae talking about a stranger sneaking
>>>>>> into the TSBD.
>>>>>
>>>>> A stranger to who? Who saw someone "sneak" into the TSBD?
>>>>
>>>> To WHOM. To the regular workers in the TSBD.
>>>
>>> Are you saying those workers worked there all night?
>>
>> No, that's the point that the police made. A stranger could have snuck
>> in during the night.
>
> You wrote...
>
> "The earliest reports suggested that a stranger snuck the night before."
>
> I asked "A stranger to who?", not being the pretentious type that uses
> "whom".
>

A stranger to everyone in the TSBD.

Trump is your example, your model..

[Anthony Marsh]

They don't both react at the same time. We can see and Connally said
that JFK was hit before he was.

Is your Z226 when you say they reacted or when you say they were hit?

>>> simply faulty memories although it's possible it could be a CYA story.

Why would Connally be engaging in a CYA story just days after being hit?
Go ahead, try again to blame it on the drugs.

When YOU say something silly I'll do the same.

>>> Only they would know. I wonder how closely any of them looked at the

Well, I'm pretty sure that JFK did not look at the Zapruder film, but
Connally studied very high resolution slides that the public never got
to see.


http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/connallyexam.gif

Before the WC got to see the Zapruder film their working conclusion was 3
shots, 3 hits, no misses. After Specter and others saw it they changed
that to the SBT. One reason was because they ran tests of the rifle and
found that the fastest it could be reloaded was 2.24 seconds.

They could SEE that JFK was not hit before frame 210, but Connally was hit
by frame 241. 241-210= 31 frames. 31 frames at 18.3 frames per second
gives only 1.7 seconds. They did not think the Carcano could be fired that
quickly hence the SBT. The HSCA was able to fire the rifle twice in 1.7
seconds, but they also opted for a SBT.

The problem they had was that the acoustical evidence would make their
Single Bullet Theory land at frame 190 when we can clearly see that JFK
was not yet hit.

>>> Z-film. Their impressions simply don't make sense in when compared with
>>> what the Z-film shows. As I mentioned in another reply, Hill said that the
>>> other agents told him there was a shot fired as he was racing toward the
>>> limo that Hill didn't remember hearing. In reality, the shot he didn't
>>> hear was the first one. The only one I know of who recalled hearing the
>>> first shot was Bennett. He recalled hearing the first shot as he was
>>> scanning the crowd on the north side of Elm and he immediately looked to
>>> JFK in time to see the second shot strike him. Bennett's recollections are
>>> especially compelling given that he wrote his notes on AF1 during the
>>> flight back to Washington at a time when nobody else seemed to even know
>>> JFK had been hit in the back. It gives credence to a first shot miss and a
>>> second shot strike. It fits well with Connally's recollection that he was
>>> hit by the second shot also. Simply put, if JFK was hit by the second shot
>>> and Connally was hit by the second shot, the SBT is valid.
>>>
>>
>> Connally did not accept the SBT. He said he had time enough to see that
>> JFK HAD BEEN HIT before he himself was hit.
>
> He only said that in his initial hospital interview which has been
> demonstrated to be riddled with errors. In all subsequent accounts, he

No, it hasn't. Alterationists have misquoted it. Do you want to be known
as an alterationist because you constantly misquote?

> said he did not see JFK prior to being hit. He was certain he was hit by

He said that he could SEE that JFK HAD been hit before he was hit.
Stop making up crap.

> the second shot and he was correct about that. It follows that if JFK was
> hit by the second shot, and he was, then both men were hit by the same
> shot.
>
>

False conclusion based on false assumptions.

[Anthony Marsh]

YOu can't pay attentiion for more than 2 seconds.
That was exactly what I said. I did not specify how many frames.
But we know that JFK was reacting by frame 224 so you need to count back
from 224, not 226. 226 is just when YOU realize that he was reacting.

> hit a few frames earlier. So was Connally and he also reacted at Z226.
> Nowhere did the WC ever say JBC was hit at Z230. That was Connally's best
> guess and not a bad one. Less than a half second off.
>
> You can play all the semantical games you want. That won't change the fact
> that JFK and JBC are both seen to suddenly jerk their arms upward at the
> same instant, Z226. You can deny that either or both are reacting to being
> shot, but you can't get around the fact both jerked their arms upward at
> exactly the same frame.
>

No. Connally is not seen jerking at frame 224. He appears normal.

We are not allowed to call another poster here a liar. McAdams wouldn't
even let me call his favorite politicians a liar. Everyone around Trump
had pleaded guilty to lying when Trump said exactly the same things.
I even questioned if we would be allowed to call Judyth a liar because
she no longer posts here.

>> Not even realizing or researching WHEN he
>> was interviewed and how long that was after his surgey. I didn't see an IV
>> in his arm during the interview.
>>
>
> I didn't see where I wrote that he did, Mr. Strawman.
>
>> Can you use the same excuse for Trump? Just say that he hasn't been caught
>> lying, although his buddy was, but was groggy from drugs?
>>
>
> Try to stay focused and quit looking for excuses to bash Trump.

Well, if you are going to bash Connally, I am going to bash Trump.

[bigdog]

The car was not that heavy. It had no armor. It was stretched 3 1/2 feet
and had some features a factory car would not have but none added that
much weight. In addition, any additional weight would actually result in
more forward momentum since the car was going downhill. Seems you just
made another one of the knee jerk responses you are so well known for
without thinking this one out.

[bigdog]

With the limo swerving to the right to avoid Hill, it is unlikely Roberts
could have got there in time. He would have had to run around the front
end of the follow up car. Since Hill was already out in front and he
didn't get there in time, what reason is there to believe Roberts would
have?

[Allan G. Johnson]

But what other options did Greer have not knowing where the shots came
from? Stopping to look around? going in reverse? turning around to go
back? pulling off onto the grass? getting out of the car to ask questions?
Not knowing where the shots were coming from, under the overpass was the
quickest and best option to provide cover. SS Agents take special
training in responding to gunfire, they didn't use it in this case. I
understand and agree with the hesitation after the first shot, but not
after the second or third.

[Mark]

Ready made two written statements which are included in the WCR. You
can find them here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-ready.htm

Bugliosi says this about Ready's attempt to reach the limo:

"Agent John Ready, who had jumped off the running board of the Secret
Service follow-up car when the limousine had slowed and had started to run
across the asphalt for the president's car, doesn't make it in time as the
limousine speeds up, and Special Agent Emory Roberts orders Agent Ready
back to the follow-up car. As soon as he's aboard, Halfback's driver,
Agent Sam Kinney, hits the accelerator and releases the car's siren as
they shoot after the presidential limousine." (RECLAIMING HISTORY, P. 42)

Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

It was JFK who ordered the SS to stay off the limo and the motorcycles
to stay back behind the limo. But again, nothing could have blocked the
shot from the grassy knoll.

But the SS was understaffed for that trip.

> first shot but that's easy to say knowing what we know now. He didn't know
> the first sound was a gun shot. Jackie said it was not unusual to hear
> motorcycles backfire. Should Greer have been expected to hit the gas every
> time he heard a backfire? It wouldn't have been until the second shot that

I LIKE your thinking. So even when Greer could SEE that JFK had been
hit, maybe he wasn't dead yet so there was no reason to hit the gas.

> he could have known there was gunfire and he didn't know where it was
> coming from. If it was from the overpass, continuing forward would have
> driven JFK right into the ambush.
>

What choice did he have? Pull a Uie in the middle of the street?
This is another reason why the shooting team waited until the limo was
on Elm Strret, The Killing Zone.

> We can say the SS could have done this or that, but the primary reason
> Oswald was able to kill JFK was the latter's willingness to expose himself
> to risk for political benefit.
>

Oh, they why didn't he shoot out in the open? Why did he hide behind a
fence to shoot at Walker. There's a name for your trick, but I forget
what it is called in Latin.

[Anthony Marsh]

And I think he made the right decision. Ready probably would have been
run over and killed. It was the Ready character that Clint Eastwood
borrowed for his movie, "In the Line of Fire".

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/1/2018 11:38 PM, bigdog wrote:

After his arms had flown up several frames earlier.

> didn't start upward until 226, the same frame JBC's injured right arm
> flipped upward.
>

Why don't you tell us about the lapel flip?

[Allan G. Johnson]

It was Ready that jumped off, Roberts was sitting in the passenger seat
and told him to stop. Ready wouldn't have got there on time, but at the
time these events were happening, who knew that for sure? There were
other people in the limo that needed protection and the SS is there to
respond to these incidents. They didn't in this case.

[Allan G. Johnson]

Also, we already know what Greer would have done if he realized the
first or second shots were gunfire. It's exactly what he did after
hearing the third shot and seeing the results of it, he floored the limo
and headed directly under the overpass, to get out of harms way asap, he
wasn't concerned about shots from the overpass. It's what he should have
done sooner, but hesitated.

[Allan G. Johnson]

Agent Ready is always referred to as Jack Ready, never John, in The
Kennedy Detail. Is Jack just a nickname, like the President?

[Allan G. Johnson]

I don't think his foot slipped off the gas pedal, but was lifted off in
a natural reaction to turning around. Any car, no matter what the weight,
will slow down when you do that. Is there any definitive film that shows
the brake lights coming on (it's hard to tell on the Nix film) that would
show he intentionally hit the brakes?.

[CAMPBE...@yahoo.com]

Something we'll never know but,I wonder what Kennedy was thinking right
before he was hit? Another thing we'll never know is did he realize what
was happening or did his mind go into some sort of shock as he's reacting
to being hit? There weren't but just a few seconds until the head
shot,which killed him instantly,as far as being a functioning human even
though he had a faint pulse when he arrived at Parkland. Fortunately,he
didn't suffer a long time. Kellerman said Kennedy said "I'm hit" but,no
one else said Kennedy said anything.

[bigdog]

The earlier movement was simply a wave to the spectators on Elm St.
Nothing like the rapid upward movement by both JFK and JBC at 326. You
simply refuse to accept what the Z-film clearly shows, a simultaneous
reaction by the two men.

> > didn't start upward until 226, the same frame JBC's injured right arm
> > flipped upward.
> >
>
>
> Why don't you tell us about the lapel flip?

Sure, change the subject.

[Anthony Marsh]

Jeez, I never thought of that excuse. Most WC defenders claim there
could have been a shooter on the overpass.
BTW, JFK couldn't get down.

[Anthony Marsh]

It was heavier than a regular limo because of the mechanism to raise the
rear seat and the bubbletop storied in the trunk. I can look up the exact
figure some time, but I estimate it would be about 1 ton heavier than the
stock model by 1963. Pamela probably remembers the exact numbers.

Wiki says: It was first delivered to the White House on June 15, 1961 and
measured 255 inches (6.5 m) long, had a wheelbase of 156 inches (4.0 m),
was 78.6 inches (2.00 m) wide, and 57 inches (1.4 m) high. It weighed
7,800 pounds (3,500 kg), up 1,585 pounds (719 kg) from factory weight, and
was powered by a hand-built 350-horsepower 430-cubic-inch (7,000 cm3) Ford
MEL engine.

> and had some features a factory car would not have but none added that
> much weight. In addition, any additional weight would actually result in
> more forward momentum since the car was going downhill. Seems you just
> made another one of the knee jerk responses you are so well known for
> without thinking this one out.
>

So you deny that the limo slowed down? You think Alavarez was wrong?
You think the Zapruder film was tampered with? Are you an alterationist?

[Anthony Marsh]

That's a more polite way to phrase it.

> a natural reaction to turning around. Any car, no matter what the weight,
> will slow down when you do that. Is there any definitive film that shows
> the brake lights coming on (it's hard to tell on the Nix film) that would
> show he intentionally hit the brakes?.
>

Nope, not both of them.

[Anthony Marsh]

Clint Hill did and risked his life.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not much different from Hill's path. Roberts would be aiming for the
RIGHT handlebar.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, but the SS car was only 5 feet behind the limo so they could not hit
the gas until the car in front of them hit the gas.

Hill almost fell of the limo and would surely have been run over and
killed.

>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

He knew he was hit, but he couldn't speak because the bullet had torn
his trachea. He tried to lean over but his back brace prevented that and
the jump seat gave him no room to get down.

[bigdog]

He had about five seconds of WTF which isn't much to contemplate what was
happening. He obviously would have realized something was suddenly
terribly wrong but I'm not even sure he figured out it was because he had
been shot before that last bullet turned out the lights for good. Having
never been shot I wouldn't know what it's like but there's a saying that
you don't hear the bullet that hits you. Clearly Connally did not.

[bigdog]

So of course you ignore the primary point that any additional weight would
give the vehicle more forward momentum going downhill, not less. Instead
you make your typical straw man argument claiming I denied the vehicle
slowed down which anyone who is interested can see I never even suggested.
You can just never admit you are wrong even when you obviously are.

[Allan G. Johnson]

I was referring to the OTHER passengers. JFK with the back brace would
prevent him from getting down but I don't think Greer or Kellerman would
take the time to say "everybody get down, except you Jack because you are
restricted by your back brace so you're on your own". Yelling at everyone
to get down would have at least made an attempt to protect the passengers
and show that they recognized the seriousness of the situation at the time
it was happening. Unfortunately, they didn't.

[Allan G. Johnson]

And he should be recognized for making the attempt, even though it was
too late.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/20/2018 12:44 AM, bigdog wrote:
> Thanksgiving Day will mark the 55th anniversary of the assassination of
> JFK. In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever
> surfaced. ALL the credible evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the
> assassin. None of the credible evidence is incompatible with that
> conclusion and there is no credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald
> took part in the crime. Still, belief that there was a conspiracy and
> subsequent cover up persists among a dwindling majority of Americans even
> though most of them don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
> assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
> day.
>
> The hard core conspiracy hobbyists will tell us the reason for the state
> of the evidence is proof of the effectiveness of the cover up. They of
> course ignore the very real and far more likely reason for the state of
> the evidence is that there was no conspiracy or cover up.
>
> There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
> carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means

Except that the Carcano has a tendency to miss and to jam. Again, for
the millionth time, tell me how Oswald could shot both from the TSBD and
the grassy knoll at the same time. You have no answers. You just repeat
the same old crap every day.

> to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
> access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in

If Givens was still smoking on the 6th floor, the shooter could have
gone to the 7th floor. Why not the roof if you don't want to be
interrupted? If the men on the fifth floor heard shot why didn't they
rush up to the 6th floor?

> Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within
> the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets

Stop misrepresenting the evidence. Only one bullet was recovered.

> and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
> exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals
> no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
> behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
> Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
>

Again, for the millionth time, how could a shooter from above and behind
hit JFK in the forehead? Do you claim that happened when JFK turned
around to see who was shooting at him. 5 seconds is time enough to turn
around and look.

> So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
> incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination

False choice based on faulty assumptions.

[Anthony Marsh]

false, it was a reflex reaction to being hit. Can you see JFK waving to
the spectators at frame 210? What do you smoke to get these visions?

[bigdog]

JFK's movements were somewhat restricted by the back brace but he could
have gotten down. He could have simply fallen to his left the way he did
after the head shot. The back brace didn't prevent him from falling to his
left.

The problem was nobody in the limo with the, exception of Connally, seemed
to have recognized the first blast as a rifle shot. It was only after the
second shot struck JFK and Greer took a couple looks behind him that he
realized it was an assassination attempt. He then had just seconds to
decide his course of action. Too late.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 8:35:54 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/20/2018 12:44 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > Thanksgiving Day will mark the 55th anniversary of the assassination of
> > JFK. In those 55 years, no credible evidence of a conspiracy has ever
> > surfaced. ALL the credible evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the
> > assassin. None of the credible evidence is incompatible with that
> > conclusion and there is no credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald
> > took part in the crime. Still, belief that there was a conspiracy and
> > subsequent cover up persists among a dwindling majority of Americans even
> > though most of them don't know the most rudimentary facts of the
> > assassination and barely give it a thought during the course of a normal
> > day.
> >
> > The hard core conspiracy hobbyists will tell us the reason for the state
> > of the evidence is proof of the effectiveness of the cover up. They of
> > course ignore the very real and far more likely reason for the state of
> > the evidence is that there was no conspiracy or cover up.
> >
> > There is absolutely no reason why the assassination could not have been
> > carried out by one disgruntled loner with a cheap rifle. He had the means
>
> Except that the Carcano has a tendency to miss and to jam.

Which doesn't mean it jams all the time, only occasionally. You have
offered no evidence that the rifle jammed, just your opinion. We don't
know how many seconds elapsed between the first and second shots but there
was just under 5 seconds between the second and third shots which makes it
unlikely it jammed even briefly after the second shot.

> Again, for
> the millionth time, tell me how Oswald could shot both from the TSBD and
> the grassy knoll at the same time. You have no answers. You just repeat
> the same old crap every day.
>

You keep asking a question based on the false premise there was a shot
from the GK and you expect the rest of us to play along and answer your
silly question.

>
> > to smuggle that rifle into work. Circumstances allowed him to have sole
> > access to the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the motorcade arrived in
>
> If Givens was still smoking on the 6th floor, the shooter could have
> gone to the 7th floor. Why not the roof if you don't want to be
> interrupted? If the men on the fifth floor heard shot why didn't they
> rush up to the 6th floor?
>

You can dream up 101 ifs and they won't amount to a hill of beans. There
was one reality and it was that circumstances allowed Oswald sole access
to the 6th floor at the time the motorcade arrived. You can play the
what-if game until the cows come home and it won't change what did happen.

> > Dealey Plaza. The shots were not terribly difficult. They were well within
> > the capabilities of both Oswald and his rifle. All the recovered bullets
>
> Stop misrepresenting the evidence. Only one bullet was recovered.
>

One WHOLE bullet was recovered. Multiple fragments were found from another
bullet. While ballistics can't tell us the fragments came from the same
bullet, common sense should. In any case, there were AT LEAST two
recovered bullets. If you want to postulate the fragments came from
multiple bullets, you are saying there were more than two recovered
bullets.

> > and all the recovered shells were matched to Oswald's rifle to the
> > exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The medical evidence reveals
> > no wounds which could not have been inflicted by a shot from above and
> > behind JFK. There is ample forensic evidence and an eyewitness that puts
> > Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination.
> >
>
> Again, for the millionth time, how could a shooter from above and behind
> hit JFK in the forehead?

Back to your another of your false premises that there was an entry wound
in the forehead, something no forensic pathologist has ever concluded.

> Do you claim that happened when JFK turned
> around to see who was shooting at him. 5 seconds is time enough to turn
> around and look.
>

I claim that didn't happen at all because there is no evidence it did. You
are free to imagine anything you like.

> > So that's what we are faced with. A choice of two distinct and
> > incompatible explanations for the crime. One in which the assassination
>
> False choice based on faulty assumptions.
>

Faulty assumptions seems to be your area of expertise.

[bigdog]

I know this is a futile gesture since you will just ignore what I write
and respond to your own straw man instead, but I'll do this for anyone
else following along. Of course we can't see JFK waving at 210 because his
arm is hidden by the sign. JFK is looking to his right and begins to raise
his right arm to wave at 172. By 180, his right forearm has become
vertical as he waves to the few spectator to his right. At 190 he begins
to lower his right arm and it continues downward until 206, the last frame
his right hand is visible before it is completely hidden by the sign. We
next see his right hand even lower at 224 and at 225 it is even lower
indicating that while behind the sign, he had continued to slowly lower
his right arm while he was obscured by the sign. His right arm/hand was
out of sight for one second and when it reappeared, it was still moving in
the same direction it had been moving when he disappeared. Then at 226
there was a sudden change. His right hand/arm suddenly jerked upward along
with his left arm. That is also the same frame JBC suddenly flipped his
right arm upward. A simultaneous reaction and the conspiracy hobbyists
want us to believe they were hit by separate shots.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think I remember someone here who said that Kellerman could not jump
into the back seat to cover JFK because there was a privacy window in the
way. Well, Connally was in the way too, but be couldn't help because he
was also wounded.

Jackie tried to help AFTER the head shot.