Book including Oswald

[Richard Ferguson]

Hi, I'm new here. The single thing that seems to me most solid to prove
that there was a conspiracy in the assassination is the man on the grassy
knoll who flashed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service
Agent. For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.

I had a friend who was an operative in the CIA at the time of the
assassination. Afterwards, I asked him point-blank if the CIA could have
been involved. His reply, as best I remember it, went like this:

"Yes, it's very possible. They have the talent. They're so
compartmentalized that a group could have done it and no one else would
know. It's ancient history, though. Forget it." He was doing what he
did in Texas at the time, by the way.

I also had the opportunity to hear Dr. Red Duke answer a question about
the assassination. He was one of the doctors at Parkland Hospital when
JFK was taken there. I expected him to say something backing up the
Warren Commission. Instead, he said (and this is my best recollection of
the words), "I don't think we'll ever know in our lifetime what really
happened that day."

I've written a novel which includes a theory that I've often wondered about.

My book is selling pretty well. It's a spy thriller titled "Oiorpata."
While I was writing it, since it was set in the Soviet Union in the time
of the Kennedy assassination, it just seemed to come naturally to include
Lee Harvey Oswald in the story. I gave him a different name, but anyone
who knows much about Oswald will recognize him in the story and see what
the theory is. I've always thought that Marina Oswald knows a lot more
than has been revealed.

People might enjoy it. The book itself has gotten good reviews and has
been ranked as high as number five on the Amazon best-sellers list.

You can find it either in Kindle or paperback form at:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=oiorpata

Richard Ferguson

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/26/2012 9:53 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:
> Hi, I'm new here. The single thing that seems to me most solid to prove
> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination is the man on the grassy
> knoll who flashed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service
> Agent. For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.
>
> I had a friend who was an operative in the CIA at the time of the
> assassination. Afterwards, I asked him point-blank if the CIA could have
> been involved. His reply, as best I remember it, went like this:
>
> "Yes, it's very possible. They have the talent. They're so
> compartmentalized that a group could have done it and no one else would
> know. It's ancient history, though. Forget it." He was doing what he
> did in Texas at the time, by the way.
>
> I also had the opportunity to hear Dr. Red Duke answer a question about
> the assassination. He was one of the doctors at Parkland Hospital when
> JFK was taken there. I expected him to say something backing up the
> Warren Commission. Instead, he said (and this is my best recollection of
> the words), "I don't think we'll ever know in our lifetime what really
> happened that day."
>
> I've written a novel which includes a theory that I've often wondered about.
>
> My book is selling pretty well. It's a spy thriller titled "Oiorpata."

Good idea, but I think the your title is too complicated.

[timstter]

> You can find it either in Kindle or paperback form at:http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbook...
>
> Richard Ferguson

There is one problem with your reasoning. Kennedy is actually driven
forward when the bullet first hits him in the head. Even conspiracy
theorists like David Lifton concede this. He documents it in his book Best
Evidence.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

Tink disproved that.

[Richard Ferguson]

Hi,

I can see I'm going to have to be careful not to get caught up in this
board or I'll never have time to write. I'll attempt to answer your
questions (objections) though. First, I am not an expert on the Kennedy
assassination. I haven't read all of the books written on the subject or
even kept up on the internet. I have to depend on what I remember.

Not really on the subject, but I chose the title "Oiorpata" because, in
the book, I describe in a group of women who were taken from their parents
at an early age and trained in the arts of assassination and tradecraft
along with a general education. I got the idea for them from a book I
read by the man who first designed the gadgets and toys of the trade for
the OSS and then the CIA. In the book, he mentioned women who were taken
when young by the KGB and trained in sometimes brutal ways to be female
operatives. Now I think about it, I also have read that the KGB had a
pool of women who had been trained to be wives of members of the KGB and
they could choose among the women for a wife.

Oiopata is what the Scythians called the Amazons. The Amazons were
considered to be a myth until ancient graves were recently found in Russia
of women in full battle dress which has caused historians to rethink the
possibility of Amazons having actually existed. I liked the sound of
Oiorpata better than Amazons so I went with it.

As I remember it, the Zapruder film first went to Time Magazine. I'm
foggy on this and could be wrong. I'm not foggy on the first time a
version of it was shown to the public though. It showed Kennedy jolting
forward for one frame, then going back. It then came out that ITEK was
the firm that had actually developed the film. ITEK was either owned or
controlled by the CIA. ITEK developed film for the CIA. Sharp-eyed
people noticed that the background in the two frames was reversed.
Someone at Time (if it was Time) or at ITEK then said that they had
"inadvertently" reversed the two frames. I think they corrected that bu,
if they did that, what else did they manipulate?

If you are willing to suppose that the CIA was involved, it seems to me
that you have to assume that many of the books and internet sites out
there contain misinformation, misdirection that is embedded in sites or
books that present themselves as trying to prove a conspiracy.

I have wondered how it would be possible to get to the truth of the
Kennedy assassination given that there are so many opposing theories out
there. The only way I can think of would be to have a site where only
provable facts could be presented. It is a fact that a police officer
testified that a man flashed a badge at him and said he was a Secret
Service agent. It's a fact that Kennedy was shot at least twice. It's a
fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
after the shot. I tried measuring using the distance to stable things in
the car and still couldn't find it. If I can't see it in the Zapruder
film, I'm not going to believe it no matter how many times anyone says it.

Is it even possible to inadvertently switch the frames in the middle of a
film?

[John Reagor King]

In article <563b28fe-49e4-4b51...@googlegroups.com>,

Richard Ferguson <senorc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, I'm new here. The single thing that seems to me most solid to prove
> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination is the man on the grassy
> knoll who flashed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service
> Agent. For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained,

Some researchers have suggested that was in fact an ATF agent, and the
officer who said it was an SS agent may have simply been mistaken.
There are images online of both ATF and SS badges from that era, and
they look quite similar.

> that and the
> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.

I do not agree that that is "incontrovertible." The majority of the
matter that explodes out of his head clearly explodes forward, and that
alone might be enough to push his head backward; one can also quite
clearly see that the vast majority of exit damage is forward of his right
ear. If the shot had really come from the right front the exit damage
should be on the left side of his head where we can't see it in the film.
Also with the very sudden and extreme trauma of the brain, it would not be
at all unusual for there to be a sudden violent spasm of various muscles
in the body, before they all go limp, and that also can account for such a
movement. He also quite obviously falls to his left because he's already
leaning far to the left anyway before the head shot, so while the "back"
part of "back and to the left" (the famous line from "JFK") might be one
thing, the "left" part quite obviously is another.

> I had a friend who was an operative in the CIA at the time of the
> assassination. Afterwards, I asked him point-blank if the CIA could have
> been involved. His reply, as best I remember it, went like this:
>
> "Yes, it's very possible. They have the talent. They're so
> compartmentalized that a group could have done it and no one else would
> know. It's ancient history, though. Forget it." He was doing what he
> did in Texas at the time, by the way.
>
> I also had the opportunity to hear Dr. Red Duke answer a question about
> the assassination. He was one of the doctors at Parkland Hospital when
> JFK was taken there. I expected him to say something backing up the
> Warren Commission. Instead, he said (and this is my best recollection of
> the words), "I don't think we'll ever know in our lifetime what really
> happened that day."

I don't think we'll ever know everything that happened that day either,
but that does not automatically mean that the *overall* conclusion of
shots fired only from the rear is incorrect; the things we'll never know
may simply be other aspects of the assassination. Also Dr. Duke may have
been laboring under the same misimpression that some of the other Parkland
docs were, and millions of other people too, that the only possible cause
of the hole in the right rear of JFK's head was the exiting of a frontal
shot and that this was covered up by the autopsy, when in fact there are
other plausible causes for that hole besides a bullet exiting, which few
people ever seem to consider.

> I've written a novel which includes a theory that I've often wondered about.
>
> My book is selling pretty well. It's a spy thriller titled "Oiorpata."
> While I was writing it, since it was set in the Soviet Union in the time
> of the Kennedy assassination, it just seemed to come naturally to include
> Lee Harvey Oswald in the story. I gave him a different name, but anyone
> who knows much about Oswald will recognize him in the story and see what
> the theory is. I've always thought that Marina Oswald knows a lot more
> than has been revealed.
>
> People might enjoy it. The book itself has gotten good reviews and has
> been ranked as high as number five on the Amazon best-sellers list.
>
> You can find it either in Kindle or paperback form at:
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-k
> eywords=oiorpata

Well, at least from the reviews it looks to me like it might be a good
read.

[timstter]

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Citation, Marsh?

You need to support your assertions with evidence, Marsh.

That is the normal procedure.

[Bud]

On Sep 26, 9:53 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I'm new here.  The single thing that seems to me most solid to prove
> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination is the man on the grassy
> knoll who flashed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service
> Agent.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/franzen.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2090.htm

>  For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.

Bullets don`t do that.

> I had a friend who was an operative in the CIA at the time of the
> assassination.  Afterwards, I asked him point-blank if the CIA could have
> been involved.  His reply, as best I remember it, went like this:
>
> "Yes, it's very possible.  They have the talent.  They're so
> compartmentalized that a group could have done it and no one else would
> know.  It's ancient history, though.  Forget it."  He was doing what he
> did in Texas at the time, by the way.
>
> I also had the opportunity to hear Dr. Red Duke answer a question about
> the assassination.  He was one of the doctors at Parkland Hospital when
> JFK was taken there.  I expected him to say something backing up the
> Warren Commission.  Instead, he said (and this is my best recollection of
> the words), "I don't think we'll ever know in our lifetime what really
> happened that day."
>
> I've written a novel which includes a theory that I've often wondered about.
>
> My book is selling pretty well.  It's a spy thriller titled "Oiorpata."
> While I was writing it, since it was set in the Soviet Union in the time
> of the Kennedy assassination, it just seemed to come naturally to include
> Lee Harvey Oswald in the story.  I gave him a different name, but anyone
> who knows much about Oswald will recognize him in the story and see what
> the theory is.  I've always thought that Marina Oswald knows a lot more
> than has been revealed.
>
> People might enjoy it.  The book itself has gotten good reviews and has
> been ranked as high as number five on the Amazon best-sellers list.
>

> You can find it either in Kindle or paperback form at:http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbook...
>
> Richard Ferguson

[claviger]

On Sep 28, 3:33 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can see I'm going to have to be careful not to get caught up in this
> board or I'll never have time to write.  I'll attempt to answer your
> questions (objections) though.  First, I am not an expert on the Kennedy
> assassination.  I haven't read all of the books written on the subject or
> even kept up on the internet.  I have to depend on what I remember.
>
> Not really on the subject, but I chose the title "Oiorpata" because, in
> the book, I describe in a group of women who were taken from their parents
> at an early age and trained in the arts of assassination and tradecraft
> along with a general education.  I got the idea for them from a book I
> read by the man who first designed the gadgets and toys of the trade for
> the OSS and then the CIA.  In the book, he mentioned women who were taken
> when young by the KGB and trained in sometimes brutal ways to be female
> operatives.  Now I think about it, I also have read that the KGB had a
> pool of women who had been trained to be wives of members of the KGB and
> they could choose among the women for a wife.

I read that too. Could Marina be an Oiopata agent?

> Oiopata is what the Scythians called the Amazons.  The Amazons were
> considered to be a myth until ancient graves were recently found in Russia
> of women in full battle dress which has caused historians to rethink the
> possibility of Amazons having actually existed.  I liked the sound of
> Oiorpata better than Amazons so I went with it.

One ancient Greek historian claimed Amazons had one breast removed to
make it easier to use a bow and arrow.

> As I remember it, the Zapruder film first went to Time Magazine.  I'm
> foggy on this and could be wrong.  I'm not foggy on the first time a
> version of it was shown to the public though.  It showed Kennedy jolting
> forward for one frame, then going back.  It then came out that ITEK was
> the firm that had actually developed the film.  ITEK was either owned or
> controlled by the CIA.  ITEK developed film for the CIA.  Sharp-eyed
> people noticed that the background in the two frames was reversed.
> Someone at Time (if it was Time) or at ITEK then said that they had
> "inadvertently" reversed the two frames.  I think they corrected that bu,
> if they did that, what else did they manipulate?
>
> If you are willing to suppose that the CIA was involved, it seems to me
> that you have to assume that many of the books and internet sites out
> there contain misinformation, misdirection that is embedded in sites or
> books that present themselves as trying to prove a conspiracy.

I've often wondered if the CIA could be involved in any number of CT
websites or books to make CT's look silly. If so, they are doing a
good job.

> I have wondered how it would be possible to get to the truth of the
> Kennedy assassination given that there are so many opposing theories out
> there.  The only way I can think of would be to have a site where only
> provable facts could be presented.  It is a fact that a police officer
> testified that a man flashed a badge at him and said he was a Secret
> Service agent.

It is a fact a police officer testified that a man flashed an ID and said
he was a SS Agent. It is not a proven fact the man was a SS Agent. He
could have been SSA Lem Johns who was left behind in Dealey Plaza, but
more likely it was Army MI Capt James Powell who took photos of the TSBD
immediately after shots were fired. He helped local police search the
parking lot before going inside the TSBD. Another possibility is WFAA TV
reporter Pierce Allman who also carried ID. He was on the scene soon
after shots were fired. See topics:

Secret Service Agents in Dealey Plaza?
Joe Marshall Smith: "Agent" encounter

> It's a fact that Kennedy was shot at least twice.  It's a fact that Kennedy
> bounced off the back seat after he was shot.  I tried looking at the film
> frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward after the shot.
> I tried measuring using the distance to stable things in the car and still
> couldn't find it.  If I can't see it in the Zapruder film, I'm not going to
> believe it no matter how many times anyone says it.

It is quite obvious in the movie "JFK" in which Oliver Stone used
extreme close-ups of the Zapruder film for shock value. Watching that
movie is the first time I noticed it.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, Powell did not have official SS identification. And he was busy
taking pictures.
And he would have had the camera in his hands and Smith did not see the
"SS agent" with a camera in his hands.

> parking lot before going inside the TSBD. Another possibility is WFAA TV
> reporter Pierce Allman who also carried ID. He was on the scene soon
> after shots were fired. See topics:
>

Why don't you keep making up different people it could be?
Try Nixon, or Helms, or Dulles.

> Secret Service Agents in Dealey Plaza?
> Joe Marshall Smith: "Agent" encounter
>
>> It's a fact that Kennedy was shot at least twice. It's a fact that Kennedy
>> bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried looking at the film
>> frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward after the shot.
>> I tried measuring using the distance to stable things in the car and still
>> couldn't find it. If I can't see it in the Zapruder film, I'm not going to
>> believe it no matter how many times anyone says it.
>
> It is quite obvious in the movie "JFK" in which Oliver Stone used
> extreme close-ups of the Zapruder film for shock value. Watching that
> movie is the first time I noticed it.
>
>

Maybe because the government withheld the film for 25 years.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/28/2012 10:31 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Sep 26, 9:53 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi, I'm new here. The single thing that seems to me most solid to prove
>> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination is the man on the grassy
>> knoll who flashed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service
>> Agent.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/franzen.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2090.htm
>
>> For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
>> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
>> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.
>
> Bullets don`t do that.
>

You know nothing about bullets.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/28/2012 4:33 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can see I'm going to have to be careful not to get caught up in this
> board or I'll never have time to write. I'll attempt to answer your

Well, do you know what a quagmire is?

> questions (objections) though. First, I am not an expert on the Kennedy
> assassination. I haven't read all of the books written on the subject or
> even kept up on the internet. I have to depend on what I remember.
>
> Not really on the subject, but I chose the title "Oiorpata" because, in
> the book, I describe in a group of women who were taken from their parents
> at an early age and trained in the arts of assassination and tradecraft
> along with a general education. I got the idea for them from a book I
> read by the man who first designed the gadgets and toys of the trade for
> the OSS and then the CIA. In the book, he mentioned women who were taken
> when young by the KGB and trained in sometimes brutal ways to be female
> operatives. Now I think about it, I also have read that the KGB had a
> pool of women who had been trained to be wives of members of the KGB and
> they could choose among the women for a wife.
>
> Oiopata is what the Scythians called the Amazons. The Amazons were
> considered to be a myth until ancient graves were recently found in Russia
> of women in full battle dress which has caused historians to rethink the
> possibility of Amazons having actually existed. I liked the sound of
> Oiorpata better than Amazons so I went with it.
>

I've never heard that the Amazons were from Russia. Is this anything
like the Nazis looking for the original land of the Aryans?
Do you have a source or a map?
Photos?

> As I remember it, the Zapruder film first went to Time Magazine. I'm

Yes. Time-LIFE.

> foggy on this and could be wrong. I'm not foggy on the first time a
> version of it was shown to the public though. It showed Kennedy jolting
> forward for one frame, then going back. It then came out that ITEK was

No, that was Dan Rather's lie.

> the firm that had actually developed the film. ITEK was either owned or

Itek did not develop the film. A local Dallas lab did. Itek analyzed it.
Itek was an a major contractor for the CIA and Defense.

> controlled by the CIA. ITEK developed film for the CIA. Sharp-eyed

Itek analyzed images for the CIA such as the reconnaissance photos.

> people noticed that the background in the two frames was reversed.

As published by the Warren Commission. Hoover called it an innocent
printing error.

> Someone at Time (if it was Time) or at ITEK then said that they had
> "inadvertently" reversed the two frames. I think they corrected that bu,
> if they did that, what else did they manipulate?
>

Itek didn't manipulate anything.

> If you are willing to suppose that the CIA was involved, it seems to me
> that you have to assume that many of the books and internet sites out

I never say it was an official CIA project, just a rogue operation.

> there contain misinformation, misdirection that is embedded in sites or
> books that present themselves as trying to prove a conspiracy.
>

Sure, why not. Helms ordered his agents to counter the WC critics.

> I have wondered how it would be possible to get to the truth of the
> Kennedy assassination given that there are so many opposing theories out
> there. The only way I can think of would be to have a site where only

It ain't easy. People power. We got the HSCA and they found conspiracy.

> provable facts could be presented. It is a fact that a police officer
> testified that a man flashed a badge at him and said he was a Secret

No, that is not a provable fact. Smith only said the man SHOWED him that
he was a Secret Service agent. Could be a badge. Could be official ID.
Could be the lapel pin of the day.

> Service agent. It's a fact that Kennedy was shot at least twice. It's a
> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
> after the shot. I tried measuring using the distance to stable things in
> the car and still couldn't find it. If I can't see it in the Zapruder
> film, I'm not going to believe it no matter how many times anyone says it.
>

You need to read the articles on my Web site. I point out that everyone
was moving forward even before the shot. Because the limo suddenly
slowed down.

> Is it even possible to inadvertently switch the frames in the middle of a
> film?
>

They were not switched on the original film. Just printed in a book in
the wrong order. Happens all the time.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 9/28/12 4:33 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:

>snip<

> It's a
> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
> after the shot.

You need to compare frame 312, just before he was shot, to frame 313,
right after he was shot. He has continued to move forward. Whether any
added impetus to his already commenced forward motion can be attributed to
the bullet may harder to determine, but what is clear is that the impact
of the bullet did not move him backward (not that the mere impact of a
bullet could have done that anyway).

/sandy
k

[John Reagor King]

In article <8126f75d-0966-416b...@googlegroups.com>,

Richard Ferguson <senorc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I can see I'm going to have to be careful not to get caught up in this
> board or I'll never have time to write. I'll attempt to answer your
> questions (objections) though. First, I am not an expert on the Kennedy
> assassination. I haven't read all of the books written on the subject or
> even kept up on the internet. I have to depend on what I remember.

If you don't mind me making a suggestion, reading books *about* the
assassination is not at all a good way to do research. If that's all
you do, then you will be forced to rely on the extremely selective
quotes taken from the original documents by the authors. I have read
many books about the assassination, both those taking the point of view
that Oswald did it alone, and those taking the point of view that there
was a conspiracy, and without a single exception I found many examples
in every one of these books of the authors grossly misrepresenting what
the original documents actually say. Some of these examples included
instances in which, had the author only quoted the next several
sentences from the document, it would have instantly demolished the
entire argument the author was making. Never trust what any author of
any book tells you about any original document, such as a witness
testimony to the Warren Commission. Read the document for yourself, in
its entirety, complete and unabridged, from first word to last word.

Every page of all 26 Warren Commission volumes has been online for more
than a decade. That's a good place to start. You'll quickly find that,
although the investigation was indeed quite flawed, those flaws are
rather different than what most of the authors of books claim.

My recommendation? Start with the complete WC testimony of Jack Ruby.
Every word of it is here:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ruby_j1.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ruby_j2.htm

If you've ever read even one book about the assassination in which Mr.
Ruby is mentioned at all, and especially if the book contains even a
single quotation from this testimony, chances are that the book grossly
distorted what he actually said by leaving out certain very crucial
passages from this testimony. These authors almost always quote only
passages such as this:

"I would like to request that I go to Washington... It is very
important."

"Gentlemen, unless you get me to Washington, you can't get a fair shake
out of me. If you understand my way of talking, you have got to bring me
to Washington..."

"Gentleman, if you want to hear any further testimony, you will have to
get me to Washington soon..."

"If you request me to go back to Washington with you right now, that
couldn't be done, could it?"

"There is only one thing. If you don't take me back to Washington
tonight...then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen.
And if you don't have the power to take me back, I won't be around to be
able to prove my innocence or guilt."

"I want to tell the truth, and I can't tell it here. I can't tell it
here."

"I may not live tomorrow to give any further testimony. The reason why I
add this to this, since you assure me that I have been speaking sense by
then, I might be speaking sense by following what I have said, and the
only thing I want to get out to the public, and I can't say it here, is
with authenticity, with sincerity of the truth of everything and why my
act was committed, but it can't be said here."

Mr. Ruby was at this time giving his testimony to Earl Warren in the
Dallas County Jail. See how often he asked Warren to be taken to
Washington? See where he said that if he wasn't taken back, he might
not be around much longer? Does it seem as if he might have been
hinting that, if only he could be taken to Washington, he might be able
to tell more of what he knew about the assassination of JFK than he felt
safe telling in the Dallas County Jail? Doesn't it seem as if, since he
was never taken out of Dallas for the rest of his life, he left it a
mystery as to exactly what he would have revealed had he been taken to
Washington?

That's certainly what almost all of these authors want you to believe,
and many of them even specifically say so in their commentaries on this
testimony. Naturally that is why they never, ever, ever quote this,
from the very same testimony:

**********

Mr. RUBY. There is an organization here, Chief Justice Warren, if it
takes my life at this moment to say it, and Bill Decker said be a man
and say it, there is a John Birch Society right now in activity, and
Edwin Walker is one of the top men of this organization--take it for
what it is worth, Chief Justice Warren.
Unfortunately for me, for me giving the people the opportunity to get in
power, because of the act I committed, has put a lot of people in
jeopardy with their lives.
Don't register with you, does it?
Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don't understand that.
Mr. RUBY. Would you rather I just delete what I said and just pretend
that nothing is going on?
Chief Justice WARREN. I would not indeed. I am only interested in what
you want to tell this Commission.That is all I am interested in.
Mr. RUBY. Well, I said my life, I won't be living long now. I know that.
My family's lives will be gone.

**********

Or this:

**********

Mr. RUBY. No; because I will say this. You don't know if there is
anything to disprove, but at this moment, there is a certain
organization in this area that has been indoctrinated, that I am the one
that was in the plot to assassinate our President.
Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell us what that is?
Mr. RUBY. The John Birch Society.

**********

Or this:

**********

Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I will make this additional statement to
you, that if any witness should testify before the Commission that you
were, to their knowledge, a party to any conspiracy to assassinate the
President, I assure you that we will give you the opportunity to deny it
and to take any tests that you may desire to so disprove it.
I don't anticipate that there will be any such testimony, but should
there be, we will give you that opportunity.
Does that seem fair?
Mr. RUBY. No; that isn't going to save my family.
Chief Justice WARREN. Well, we can't do everything at once.
Mr. RUBY. I am in a tough spot, and I don't know what the solution can
be to save me.
And I know our wonderful President, Lyndon Johnson, as soon as he was
the President of his country, he appointed you as head of this group.
But through certain falsehoods that have been said about me to other
people, the John Birch Society, I am as good as guilty as the accused
assassin of President Kennedy.
How can you remedy that, Mr. Warren? Do any of you men have any ways of
remedying that?
Mr. Bill Decker said be a man and speak up. I am making a statement now
that I may not live the next hour when I walk out of this room.
Now it is the most fantastic story you have ever heard in a lifetime. I
did something out of the goodness of my heart. Unfortunately, Chief Earl
Warren, had you been around 5 or 6 months ago, and I know your hands
were tied, you couldn't do it, and immediately the President would have
gotten ahold of my true story, or whatever would have been said about
me, a certain organization wouldn't have so completely formed now, so
powerfully, to use me because I am of the Jewish extraction, Jewish
faith, to commit the most dastardly crime that has ever been committed.
Can you understand now in visualizing what happened, what powers, what
momentum has been carried on to create this feeling of mass feeling
against my people, against certain people that were against them prior
to their power? That goes over your head, doesn't it?
Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I don't quite get the full significance of
it, Mr. Ruby. I know what you feel about the John Birch Society.
Mr. RUBY. Very powerful.
Chief Justice WARREN. I think it is powerful, yes I do. Of course, I
don't have all the information that you feel you have on that subject.

**********

Or this:

**********

Mr. RANKIN. It isn't entirely clear how you feel that your family and
you yourself are threatened by your telling what you have to the
Commission.
How do you come to the conclusion that they might be killed? Will you
tell us a little bit more about that, if you can?
Mr. RUBY. Well, assuming that, as I stated before, some persons are
accusing me falsely of being part of the plot naturally, in all the time
from over months ago, my family has been so interested in helping me.
Mr. RANKIN. By that, you mean a party to the plot of Oswald?
Mr. RUBY. That I was party to a plot to silence Oswald.

**********

Can you see now why these authors almost never quote any of that?
Because it plainly shows that INSTEAD of hinting that he knew MORE about
the assassination of JFK, he said precisely the opposite of that, that
the extreme right-wing John Birch Society of Dallas, including Edwin
Walker, was trying to FALSELY IMPLICATE him as being part of a plot to
assassinate JFK and a plot to silence Oswald. And he did not leave it
as even slightly a mystery as to why he wanted to be taken to Washington.

I would strongly suggest you watch this entire video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVafiaW4AdY

It dispels many myths that have cropped up over the decades about the
Zapruder film, including some that you may be articulating above.

> If you are willing to suppose that the CIA was involved, it seems to me
> that you have to assume that many of the books and internet sites out
> there contain misinformation, misdirection that is embedded in sites or
> books that present themselves as trying to prove a conspiracy.

The books and websites that I have looked at that are by far the worst
in misdirection are the ones that almost certainly are NOT associated
with the CIA, most especially the ones which claim the CIA was directly
involved in the assassination. Again I'd recommend reading the original
documents, not what books or websites say about those documents.

> I have wondered how it would be possible to get to the truth of the
> Kennedy assassination given that there are so many opposing theories out
> there.

Ignore the theories and read the documents.

> The only way I can think of would be to have a site where only
> provable facts could be presented. It is a fact that a police officer
> testified that a man flashed a badge at him and said he was a Secret
> Service agent. It's a fact that Kennedy was shot at least twice. It's a
> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
> after the shot. I tried measuring using the distance to stable things in
> the car and still couldn't find it. If I can't see it in the Zapruder
> film, I'm not going to believe it no matter how many times anyone says it.
>
> Is it even possible to inadvertently switch the frames in the middle of a
> film?

If the frames are switched then you will see the limousine jump back
from one frame to the next and then will proceed forward again. It
would not only affect the image of Kennedy himself, it would affect
everything in view.

[timstter]

You know nothing about providing citations Marsh.

Where is your citation to back up your Tink claim?

The HSCA's Cecil Kirk stated he was moving forward too.

Informative Regards,

[Anthony Marsh]

This was in the day before witness protection where the Mob would
routinely kill informants and their whole families. Obviously Warren does
not want to protect Ruby so that he can be killed before he spills the
beans.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, you need to compare all the frames from Z-300 to Z-320.

You are committing the Fallacy of False Cause by only looking at two
frames and assuming they are the only ones relevant to what caused the
motion.
No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
backward. That is a straw man argument.
And yet some WC defenders try to argue that just the IMPACT of a bullet
threw his head forward violently.
Hypocrisy, thy name is WC defender.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 9/29/12 9:54 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/29/2012 4:32 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 9/28/12 4:33 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> >snip<
>>
>>> It's a
>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move
>>> forward
>>> after the shot.
>>
>> You need to compare frame 312, just before he was shot, to frame 313,
>> right after he was shot. He has continued to move forward. Whether any
>> added impetus to his already commenced forward motion can be attributed
>> to the bullet may harder to determine, but what is clear is that the
>> impact of the bullet did not move him backward (not that the mere impact
>> of a bullet could have done that anyway).
>>
>> /sandy
>
>
> No, you need to compare all the frames from Z-300 to Z-320.
>

Frames 312 and 313 are quite sufficient to show that the bullet's
striking between them did not move JFK backward.

If the impact of the bullet (or its explosion "a nanosecond" after
impact, in your wacky theory) was ever going to reverse JFK's forward
motion, it would have done it already.

> You are committing the Fallacy of False Cause by only looking at two
> frames and assuming they are the only ones relevant to what caused the
> motion.
> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
> backward. That is a straw man argument.

Utter bullshit.
That was the "back and to the left" mantra in a nutshell, that the
direction the body moved indicated the direction of the bullet.

Now, a neuromuscular reaction caused by the bullet, or some such internal
after-effect, could move the body, and in fact I believe that's what
happened. But the motion of the body as a result of a spasm indicates
*nothing* about the direction of the bullet.

> And yet some WC defenders try to argue that just the IMPACT of a bullet
> threw his head forward violently.

The two motions are quite different: a perceptible increase in momentum of
the head's motion (how "violent" is that?) versus the whole upper body's
jerking backward. To say that accepting the possibility of the former
entails accepting the possibility of the latter is a gross fallacy indeed.

It bespeaks desperation.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Which claim? I already cited his remarks at the Cyril Wecht conference.
You have no way to see them.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > timstter,

> > There is one problem with your reasoning. Kennedy is actually driven
> > forward when the bullet first hits him in the head. Even conspiracy
> > theorists like David Lifton concede this. He documents it in his book Best
> > Evidence.
>
> Tink disproved that.

Yeah, just like he disproved the Carcano rifle bolt action was fast
enough to get off all 3 shots.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#tink

[claviger]

A lead bullet striking hard bone will deliver more energy than the same
bullet passing through soft tissue. Basic ballistics. CTs claim a bullet
from the GK caused the President to go "back and to the left". If true
then the sudden forward movement of the head must have been caused by a
bullet too. Even your hero Dr Wecht agrees a bullet made the head move
forward first, and a second bullet from the GK made it go backwards.
Only problem is there was no bullet fired from the GK. So by process of
elimination the head shot came from behind the Limousine.

[curtjester1]

On Sep 28, 4:33 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can see I'm going to have to be careful not to get caught up in this
> board or I'll never have time to write.  I'll attempt to answer your
> questions (objections) though.  First, I am not an expert on the Kennedy
> assassination.  I haven't read all of the books written on the subject or
> even kept up on the internet.  I have to depend on what I remember.
>
> Not really on the subject, but I chose the title "Oiorpata" because, in
> the book, I describe in a group of women who were taken from their parents
> at an early age and trained in the arts of assassination and tradecraft
> along with a general education.  I got the idea for them from a book I
> read by the man who first designed the gadgets and toys of the trade for
> the OSS and then the CIA.  In the book, he mentioned women who were taken
> when young by the KGB and trained in sometimes brutal ways to be female
> operatives.  Now I think about it, I also have read that the KGB had a
> pool of women who had been trained to be wives of members of the KGB and
> they could choose among the women for a wife.
>

Marina Prusakova who purported was part of a prostitution ring, hung
out with foreigner and dignataries, and was raised by a KJB uncle,
might be a good model.

http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

> Oiopata is what the Scythians called the Amazons.  The Amazons were
> considered to be a myth until ancient graves were recently found in Russia
> of women in full battle dress which has caused historians to rethink the
> possibility of Amazons having actually existed.  I liked the sound of
> Oiorpata better than Amazons so I went with it.
>
> As I remember it, the Zapruder film first went to Time Magazine.  I'm
> foggy on this and could be wrong.  I'm not foggy on the first time a
> version of it was shown to the public though.  It showed Kennedy jolting
> forward for one frame, then going back.  It then came out that ITEK was
> the firm that had actually developed the film.  ITEK was either owned or
> controlled by the CIA.  ITEK developed film for the CIA.  Sharp-eyed
> people noticed that the background in the two frames was reversed.
> Someone at Time (if it was Time) or at ITEK then said that they had

> "inadvertently" reversed the two frames.  I think they corrected that but,

> if they did that, what else did they manipulate?
>

One can read the account of Homer McMahon who claimed he worked on the
film very early and saw different than what we saw today in his HSCA
testimony.

> If you are willing to suppose that the CIA was involved, it seems to me
> that you have to assume that many of the books and internet sites out
> there contain misinformation, misdirection that is embedded in sites or
> books that present themselves as trying to prove a conspiracy.
>

It's said that is their job to do, to infilltrate and cause a stir.

> I have wondered how it would be possible to get to the truth of the
> Kennedy assassination given that there are so many opposing theories out
> there.  The only way I can think of would be to have a site where only
> provable facts could be presented.  It is a fact that a police officer
> testified that a man flashed a badge at him and said he was a Secret
> Service agent.  It's a fact that Kennedy was shot at least twice.  It's a
> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot.  I tried
> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
> after the shot.  I tried measuring using the distance to stable things in
> the car and still couldn't find it.  If I can't see it in the Zapruder
> film, I'm not going to believe it no matter how many times anyone says it.
>
> Is it even possible to inadvertently switch the frames in the middle of a
> film?

The Great Zapruder Film Hoax will say how they think it was done on
many technical scales.

CJ

[John Reagor King]

In article <50667740$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/28/2012 10:31 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 9:53 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> >> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
> >> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.
> >
> > Bullets don`t do that.
>
> You know nothing about bullets.

There you go again with your silly claims to other posters that start with
"You know nothing about..." You told me the other day that I knew nothing
about this assassination, when I have been demonstrating otherwise for
nearly a decade. If the previous poster even knows what a bullet *is*,
then that person does indeed know *something* about bullets, Anthony. If
the person knows that a bullet can be fired from a gun, then that person
knows something more about bullets. If that person knows that a bullet
fired from a gun can injure or kill a person, then that person knows even
more about bullets. ;-)

[John Reagor King]

In article <5067871c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

And yet, "strangely," Anthony, Ruby's testimony here, where he *did*
spill the beans, was printed anyway, and long before Ruby's death as
well.

[Bud]

On Sep 29, 1:00 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/28/2012 10:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 9:53 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi, I'm new here.  The single thing that seems to me most solid to prove
> >> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination is the man on the grassy
> >> knoll who flashed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service
> >> Agent.
>
> >    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/franzen.htm
>
> >    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2090.htm
>
> >>   For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> >> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
> >> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.
>
> >    Bullets don`t do that.
>
> You know nothing about bullets.

I know they don`t do what this poster suggested was done by a
bullet.

[Bud]

On Sep 29, 9:54 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/29/2012 4:32 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/28/12 4:33 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:
>
> >  >snip<
>
> >> It's a
> >> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot.  I tried
> >> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
> >> after the shot.
>
> > You need to compare frame 312, just before he was shot, to frame 313,
> > right after he was shot. He has continued to move forward. Whether any
> > added impetus to his already commenced forward motion can be attributed
> > to the bullet may harder to determine, but what is clear is that the
> > impact of the bullet did not move him backward (not that the mere impact
> > of a bullet could have done that anyway).
>
> > /sandy
>
> No, you need to compare all the frames from Z-300 to Z-320.

Why not z-170?

> You are committing the Fallacy of False Cause by only looking at two
> frames and assuming they are the only ones relevant to what caused the
> motion.

They are the only two relevant to how Kennedy`s position changed
when hit by the bullet.

> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
> backward.

You should familiarize yourself with the discussions you enter. the
original poster wrote...

"For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot

hard enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion."

> That is a straw man argument.

An actual position someone took is the opposite of a strawman.

> And yet some WC defenders try to argue that just the IMPACT of a bullet
> threw his head forward violently.

Yes, the impact of the bullet pushed Kennedy`s head forward
slightly. Equal and opposite reaction means that Kennedy`s head was
pushed forward by as much force as was exerted on Oswald when he shot.

> Hypocrisy, thy name is WC defender.

Misrepresentation, your name is Marsh.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2012 6:45 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Sep 28, 4:33 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can see I'm going to have to be careful not to get caught up in this
>> board or I'll never have time to write. I'll attempt to answer your
>> questions (objections) though. First, I am not an expert on the Kennedy
>> assassination. I haven't read all of the books written on the subject or
>> even kept up on the internet. I have to depend on what I remember.
>>
>> Not really on the subject, but I chose the title "Oiorpata" because, in
>> the book, I describe in a group of women who were taken from their parents
>> at an early age and trained in the arts of assassination and tradecraft
>> along with a general education. I got the idea for them from a book I
>> read by the man who first designed the gadgets and toys of the trade for
>> the OSS and then the CIA. In the book, he mentioned women who were taken
>> when young by the KGB and trained in sometimes brutal ways to be female
>> operatives. Now I think about it, I also have read that the KGB had a
>> pool of women who had been trained to be wives of members of the KGB and
>> they could choose among the women for a wife.
>>
> Marina Prusakova who purported was part of a prostitution ring, hung
> out with foreigner and dignataries, and was raised by a KJB uncle,
> might be a good model.
>

Any chance you'll ever learn anything about this case, John? Marina was
not a prostitute. I think the word you need to use is "allegedly" but even
that is a stretch when you consider the source. Her uncle was not a KJB
officer. Maybe the acronym you are trying to remember is KGB, but he was
not KGB. He was MVD. Like getting confused about the difference between
the FBI and the CIA.

[Anthony Marsh]

Who said it was a lead bullet? Is that your theory? Many people think it
was FMJ bullet.

> bullet passing through soft tissue. Basic ballistics. CTs claim a bullet
> from the GK caused the President to go "back and to the left". If true

Learn the difference between the head and the hole body.

> then the sudden forward movement of the head must have been caused by a
> bullet too. Even your hero Dr Wecht agrees a bullet made the head move
> forward first, and a second bullet from the GK made it go backwards.

No. Fallacy of false causation.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is not what he said. He was criticizing the WC assumptions.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2012 4:01 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 9/29/12 9:54 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/29/2012 4:32 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> On 9/28/12 4:33 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:
>>>
>>> >snip<
>>>
>>>> It's a
>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move
>>>> forward
>>>> after the shot.
>>>
>>> You need to compare frame 312, just before he was shot, to frame 313,
>>> right after he was shot. He has continued to move forward. Whether any
>>> added impetus to his already commenced forward motion can be attributed
>>> to the bullet may harder to determine, but what is clear is that the
>>> impact of the bullet did not move him backward (not that the mere impact
>>> of a bullet could have done that anyway).
>>>
>>> /sandy
>>
>>
>> No, you need to compare all the frames from Z-300 to Z-320.
>>
>
> Frames 312 and 313 are quite sufficient to show that the bullet's
> striking between them did not move JFK backward.
>
> If the impact of the bullet (or its explosion "a nanosecond" after
> impact, in your wacky theory) was ever going to reverse JFK's forward
> motion, it would have done it already.
>

Ok, Mr. Ballistics expert, tell me exactly how many milliseconds it
takes for an explosive bullet to explode.

>
>> You are committing the Fallacy of False Cause by only looking at two
>> frames and assuming they are the only ones relevant to what caused the
>> motion.
>> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
>> backward. That is a straw man argument.
>
> Utter bullshit.
> That was the "back and to the left" mantra in a nutshell, that the
> direction the body moved indicated the direction of the bullet.
>

No. Straw Man Argument.

[curtjester1]

Your right about the MVD. As far as being a prostitute, it just
stands to reason. Being arrested (for that)
with the sentence to a Labor camp is nothing light, and she was
purported to be a targeter of defectors and had one before she met
Oswald, and was known to have the means to travel to where they
were.

CJ

[claviger]

Anthony,

> Who said it was a lead bullet? Is that your theory? Many people think it
> was FMJ bullet.

A bullet striking hard bone will deliver more energy than the same

bullet passing through soft tissue. Basic ballistics. CTs claim a
bullet
from the GK caused the President to go "back and to the left". If
true

then the sudden forward movement of the head must have been caused by
a
bullet too. Even your hero Dr Wecht agrees a bullet made the head
move
forward first, and a second bullet from the GK made it go
backwards.

Only problem is there was no bullet fired from the GK. So by process
of
elimination the head shot came from behind the Limousine.

> > bullet passing through soft tissue.  Basic ballistics.  CTs claim a bullet
> > from the GK caused the President to go "back and to the left".  If true
> Learn the difference between the head and the hole body.

Did you mean whole body or a hole in the body?

> > then the sudden forward movement of the head must have been caused by a
> > bullet too.  Even your hero Dr Wecht agrees a bullet made the head move
> > forward first, and a second bullet from the GK made it go backwards.
> No. Fallacy of false causation.

When did you respond to Wecht with the same comment? It was his
theory of instant simultaneous bullets from opposite directions.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2012 10:57 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Sep 29, 9:54 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/29/2012 4:32 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 9/28/12 4:33 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>> >snip<
>>
>>>> It's a
>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
>>>> after the shot.
>>
>>> You need to compare frame 312, just before he was shot, to frame 313,
>>> right after he was shot. He has continued to move forward. Whether any
>>> added impetus to his already commenced forward motion can be attributed
>>> to the bullet may harder to determine, but what is clear is that the
>>> impact of the bullet did not move him backward (not that the mere impact
>>> of a bullet could have done that anyway).
>>
>>> /sandy
>>
>> No, you need to compare all the frames from Z-300 to Z-320.
>
> Why not z-170?
>

Because the limo did not start slowing down until after Z-300.

>> You are committing the Fallacy of False Cause by only looking at two
>> frames and assuming they are the only ones relevant to what caused the
>> motion.
>
> They are the only two relevant to how Kennedy`s position changed
> when hit by the bullet.
>

CAUSE. The cause does not have to be what you assumed.

>> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
>> backward.
>
> You should familiarize yourself with the discussions you enter. the
> original poster wrote...
>
> "For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot
> hard enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion."
>

He never mentions the word IMPACT.

>> That is a straw man argument.
>
> An actual position someone took is the opposite of a strawman.
>

No one took that actual position. That is what a straw man argument is.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2012 10:57 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Sep 29, 1:00 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 10:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 26, 9:53 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi, I'm new here. The single thing that seems to me most solid to prove
>>>> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination is the man on the grassy
>>>> knoll who flashed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service
>>>> Agent.
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/franzen.htm
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2090.htm
>>
>>>> For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
>>>> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
>>>> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.
>>
>>> Bullets don`t do that.
>>
>> You know nothing about bullets.
>
> I know they don`t do what this poster suggested was done by a
> bullet.
>

You couldn't possibly know that because you know nothing about bullets.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5068e195$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/30/2012 6:45 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 4:33 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I can see I'm going to have to be careful not to get caught up in this
> >> board or I'll never have time to write. I'll attempt to answer your
> >> questions (objections) though. First, I am not an expert on the Kennedy
> >> assassination. I haven't read all of the books written on the subject or
> >> even kept up on the internet. I have to depend on what I remember.
> >>
> >> Not really on the subject, but I chose the title "Oiorpata" because, in
> >> the book, I describe in a group of women who were taken from their parents
> >> at an early age and trained in the arts of assassination and tradecraft
> >> along with a general education. I got the idea for them from a book I
> >> read by the man who first designed the gadgets and toys of the trade for
> >> the OSS and then the CIA. In the book, he mentioned women who were taken
> >> when young by the KGB and trained in sometimes brutal ways to be female
> >> operatives. Now I think about it, I also have read that the KGB had a
> >> pool of women who had been trained to be wives of members of the KGB and
> >> they could choose among the women for a wife.
> >>
> > Marina Prusakova who purported was part of a prostitution ring, hung
> > out with foreigner and dignataries, and was raised by a KJB uncle,
> > might be a good model.
>
> Any chance you'll ever learn anything about this case, John?

I thought his name was Curt.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, Ruby was killed before he could spill the beans, just like Oswald.
Don't you believe Ralph Salerno?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2012 10:55 PM, John Reagor King wrote:

> In article <50667740$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/28/2012 10:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Sep 26, 9:53 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
>>>> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
>>>> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.
>>>
>>> Bullets don`t do that.
>>
>> You know nothing about bullets.
>
> There you go again with your silly claims to other posters that start with
> "You know nothing about..." You told me the other day that I knew nothing
> about this assassination, when I have been demonstrating otherwise for
> nearly a decade. If the previous poster even knows what a bullet *is*,
> then that person does indeed know *something* about bullets, Anthony. If

So by your logic if a person knows what a violin is that makes him an
expert, a virtuoso?

> the person knows that a bullet can be fired from a gun, then that person
> knows something more about bullets. If that person knows that a bullet
> fired from a gun can injure or kill a person, then that person knows even
> more about bullets. ;-)
>

He doesn't even know that the caliber of the bullet must match the
caliber of the gun, or the exceptions to that rule.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Ruby had no beans to spill.
He was rather soft in the old bean by the time he expired.

/sm

[Bud]

On Oct 1, 1:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/30/2012 10:57 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 1:00 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/28/2012 10:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 26, 9:53 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Hi, I'm new here.  The single thing that seems to me most solid to prove
> >>>> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination is the man on the grassy
> >>>> knoll who flashed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service
> >>>> Agent.
>
> >>>    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/franzen.htm
>
> >>>    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2090.htm
>
> >>>>    For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> >>>> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
> >>>> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.
>
> >>>     Bullets don`t do that.
>
> >> You know nothing about bullets.
>
> >    I know they don`t do what this poster suggested was done by a
> > bullet.
>
> You couldn't possibly know that because you know nothing about bullets.

Not only don`t I know this much about them I`ve schooled you on this
much about them.

[Bud]

Then you should show that Kennedy`s head was going forward at
generally the same rate every frame leading up to the headshot.

> >> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
> >> backward.
>
> >    You should familiarize yourself with the discussions you enter. the
> > original poster wrote...
>
> >    "For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> > incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot
> > hard enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion."
>
> He never mentions the word IMPACT.

Is that why you couldn`t figure out that people had taken the
position you claimed no one had. Because they didn`t use the word
IMPACT?

> >> That is a straw man argument.
>
> >    An actual position someone took is the opposite of a strawman.
>
> No one took that actual position. That is what a straw man argument is.

Actually the poster was putting forth the idea that it was the force of
the bullet that threw Kennedy back. Not a strawman, an actual position
expressed by someone.

[timstter]

Still waiting for your citation re Tink Thompson, Marsh.

Why haven't you supplied it yet?

[Sandy McCroskey]

Gee, I thought you were the ballistics expert who said "nanoseconds," not
even milliseconds, after impact. After all, it's the impact that triggers
the explosion, isn't it? Not some remote control device or a spark
traveling along a long fuse attached to it? (Ha ha)

I feel silly even talking about your theory, but for the sake of argument,
if the bullet didn't explode until it had already penetrated JFK's head,
then it could have thrown his head in any direction. Either it explodes on
impact, creating a blast in front of his face, or it indicates nothing
about the direction of the shot.

But look at the brain and skull debris behind the president's head. the
bullet has already *left* JFK's head in 313 and he still hasn't started
moving back.

>>
>>> You are committing the Fallacy of False Cause by only looking at two
>>> frames and assuming they are the only ones relevant to what caused the
>>> motion.
>>> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
>>> backward. That is a straw man argument.
>>
>> Utter bullshit.
>> That was the "back and to the left" mantra in a nutshell, that the
>> direction the body moved indicated the direction of the bullet.
>>
>
> No. Straw Man Argument.
>

Revisionist history!

Just go tell John Blubaugh he's full of it. It will break his heart.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2012 8:56 PM, timstter wrote:
> On Oct 1, 1:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/30/2012 4:48 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Anthony,
>>
>>>>> timstter,
>>
>>>>> There is one problem with your reasoning. Kennedy is actually driven
>>>>> forward when the bullet first hits him in the head. Even conspiracy
>>>>> theorists like David Lifton concede this. He documents it in his book Best
>>>>> Evidence.
>>
>>>> Tink disproved that.
>>
>>> Yeah, just like he disproved the Carcano rifle bolt action was fast
>>> enough to get off all 3 shots.
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#tink
>>
>> That is not what he said. He was criticizing the WC assumptions.
>
> Still waiting for your citation re Tink Thompson, Marsh.
>

I did already. The Wecht conference. David Wimp's presentation. Watch it.

[Anthony Marsh]

I did that in my article. But you refuse to read it.

>>>> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
>>>> backward.
>>
>>> You should familiarize yourself with the discussions you enter. the
>>> original poster wrote...
>>
>>> "For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
>>> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot
>>> hard enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion."
>>
>> He never mentions the word IMPACT.
>
> Is that why you couldn`t figure out that people had taken the
> position you claimed no one had. Because they didn`t use the word
> IMPACT?
>

That word is what makes the distinction. You did not say shot, you said
IMPACT.

>>>> That is a straw man argument.
>>
>>> An actual position someone took is the opposite of a strawman.
>>
>> No one took that actual position. That is what a straw man argument is.
>
> Actually the poster was putting forth the idea that it was the force of
> the bullet that threw Kennedy back. Not a strawman, an actual position
> expressed by someone.
>

Nope.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2012 8:53 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Oct 1, 1:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/30/2012 10:57 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 29, 1:00 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/2012 10:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 26, 9:53 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, I'm new here. The single thing that seems to me most solid to prove
>>>>>> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination is the man on the grassy
>>>>>> knoll who flashed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service
>>>>>> Agent.
>>
>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/franzen.htm
>>
>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2090.htm
>>
>>>>>> For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
>>>>>> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
>>>>>> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.
>>
>>>>> Bullets don`t do that.
>>
>>>> You know nothing about bullets.
>>
>>> I know they don`t do what this poster suggested was done by a
>>> bullet.
>>
>> You couldn't possibly know that because you know nothing about bullets.
>
> Not only don`t I know this much about them I`ve schooled you on this
> much about them.

Nonsense.

[Bud]

On Oct 1, 11:17 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/1/2012 8:53 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 1:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/30/2012 10:57 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 29, 1:00 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 9/28/2012 10:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 26, 9:53 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi, I'm new here.  The single thing that seems to me most solid to prove
> >>>>>> that there was a conspiracy in the assassination is the man on the grassy
> >>>>>> knoll who flashed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service
> >>>>>> Agent.
>
> >>>>>    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/franzen.htm
>
> >>>>>    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2090.htm
>
> >>>>>>     For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> >>>>>> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
> >>>>>> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.
>
> >>>>>      Bullets don`t do that.
>
> >>>> You know nothing about bullets.
>
> >>>     I know they don`t do what this poster suggested was done by a
> >>> bullet.
>
> >> You couldn't possibly know that because you know nothing about bullets.
>
> >    Not only don`t I know this much about them I`ve schooled you on this
> > much about them.
>
> Nonsense.

Feel free to put forth an argument in support of the idea that
bullets can do what this poster suggested.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2012 1:55 PM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>> Who said it was a lead bullet? Is that your theory? Many people think it
>> was FMJ bullet.
>
> A bullet striking hard bone will deliver more energy than the same
> bullet passing through soft tissue. Basic ballistics. CTs claim a
> bullet
> from the GK caused the President to go "back and to the left". If
> true
> then the sudden forward movement of the head must have been caused by
> a
> bullet too. Even your hero Dr Wecht agrees a bullet made the head
> move

No, that is a false equivalency.
And again, no one said it was a lead bullet.

> forward first, and a second bullet from the GK made it go
> backwards.
> Only problem is there was no bullet fired from the GK. So by process
> of
> elimination the head shot came from behind the Limousine.
>
>>> bullet passing through soft tissue. Basic ballistics. CTs claim a bullet
>>> from the GK caused the President to go "back and to the left". If true
>> Learn the difference between the head and the hole body.
>
> Did you mean whole body or a hole in the body?
>

The whole body.

>>> then the sudden forward movement of the head must have been caused by a
>>> bullet too. Even your hero Dr Wecht agrees a bullet made the head move
>>> forward first, and a second bullet from the GK made it go backwards.
>> No. Fallacy of false causation.
>
> When did you respond to Wecht with the same comment? It was his
> theory of instant simultaneous bullets from opposite directions.
>

At another conference.

>
>
>
>
>

[John Reagor King]

In article <5069c7c3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> You couldn't possibly know that because you know nothing about bullets.

There you go again with your silly "You know nothing about" nonsense.
I've said this to you before and I'll say it again.

Does the person know what a bullet is? If so, then they do indeed know
something about bullets.

Does the person know that a bullet can be fired from a gun? If so, then
they do indeed know something about bullets.

Does the person know that bullets fired from guns can injure or kill
people? If so, then they do indeed know something about bullets.

Does the person know that bullets fired from a gun can travel through
the air rapidly? If so, then they do indeed know something about
bullets.

Does the person know that bullets fired from a gun can sometimes
fragment when striking hard objects? If so, then they do indeed know
something about bullets.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5069...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/30/2012 10:55 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <50667740$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/28/2012 10:31 PM, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Sep 26, 9:53 pm, Richard Ferguson <senorcorre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> >>>> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
> >>>> enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion.
> >>>
> >>> Bullets don`t do that.
> >>
> >> You know nothing about bullets.
> >
> > There you go again with your silly claims to other posters that start with
> > "You know nothing about..." You told me the other day that I knew nothing
> > about this assassination, when I have been demonstrating otherwise for
> > nearly a decade. If the previous poster even knows what a bullet *is*,
> > then that person does indeed know *something* about bullets, Anthony. If
>
> So by your logic if a person knows what a violin is that makes him an
> expert, a virtuoso?

So by your logic does a person have to be an expert, a virtuoso, on the
violin to still talk knowledgeably about certain aspects of playing the
violin?

Let's demolish this little myth.

The few times in my life that I have attempted to play the violin, I
have made sounds on it that inspire in others a desire to flee. But
that hardly means I know "nothing" about the violin just because I can't
play it. The four strings are tuned in perfect fifths, starting with
the lowest string on G below middle C, then D, then A, then E. A
double-stop is when the bow is drawn across two strings at the same time
so that they both sound simultaneously. Pizzicato is using one's finger
to pluck the string rather than using the bow. Spiccato is bouncing the
bow on the string. Col legno is turning the bow upside-down and
striking the string with the wooden part of the bow. Drawing the bow
across the string very near to the bridge, rather than farther away as
is the normal way, produces sound of a very different quality. A
harmonic can be produced by touching one's finger to certain spots on
the string rather than pressing the string all the way down to the
fingerboard, which can produce a pitch of different sound quality at
certain intervals above the main pitch of the string, such as an octave
plus a fifth higher or two octaves higher. The bow will not make much
sound when drawn across the string; resin needs to be put on the
bowstrings first, and it must be applied regularly.

I assure you I knew all this from memory years ago, and did not just now
look it up prior to typing these words, and no human on this planet can
prove otherwise.

It is a myth that one just absolutely *has* to be an "expert" in a
particular field to still talk knowledgeably about certain individual
aspects of that field. All one has to do is know *enough* about those
aspects.

> > the person knows that a bullet can be fired from a gun, then that person
> > knows something more about bullets. If that person knows that a bullet
> > fired from a gun can injure or kill a person, then that person knows even
> > more about bullets. ;-)
>
> He doesn't even know that the caliber of the bullet must match the
> caliber of the gun, or the exceptions to that rule.

How do you know he doesn't know that? Mindreading again, Anthony?

[John Reagor King]

In article <5069...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Oh, you can "prove" that he didn't die of natural causes? I thought
cancer was a natural cause. It is one of the most common causes of
death in our species, Anthony.

> before he could spill the beans,

"Before" he spilled the beans? No he wasn't. He spilled the beans
approximately three years and seven months before he died. He
specifically told the Earl Warren on June 7, 1964, that the reason he
was afraid for his life, and the lives of his family, was because they
were all in danger from the radical right-wing John Birch Society of
Dallas, including Edwin Walker, and that this was the exact reason he
was begging to be taken away from Dallas and taken to Washington. It is
the conspiracy authors only who pretend he never said any of that, and
instead pretend that he was hinting that he wanted to spill the beans
that he knew more about the assassination itself, but felt that he was
not safe revealing more about the assassination in Dallas. But that's
not what he said at all, not even close. And he didn't die until
January 3, 1967.

> just like Oswald.

Oh? What "beans" would Oswald have "spilled" had he lived longer?
Knowledge of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK that has not yet come
within one-million light-years of having been conclusively proven to
exist, even though it happened more than forty-eight years ago?

> Don't you believe Ralph Salerno?

Believe him regarding what? This, maybe?

**********

Mr. SALERNO. Well, I think Jack Ruby turning to someone in the
underworld for help in a labor matter is not unrealistic. Many people do
that every day. Many businessmen will buy labor peace, they will ignore
collective bargaining; they will ignore all the agencies of government;
and if they really want something done, they hire the Godfather. Carlo
Gambino, not in the underworld but in the upper worm, was a labor
consultant, business firms paid him as much as $40,000 for help in one
labor matter. I can tell you that Carlo Gambino doesn't know the
difference between Samuel Gompers and Ringo Starr. That is how much he
knows about labor but he is a Godfather and he has interjected himself
in labor matter where miraculously the strike is headed off, or if it is
already ongoing, it has come to an end. So Jack Ruby turning to someone
in the underworld for help is not unrealistic at all. There was a second
part to your question.

**********

Of what relevance is Salerno to Jack Ruby dying of cancer three years
and seven months after he had spilled the beans on the John Birch
Society and Edwin Walker? I don't see Salerno claiming that the Mob
used cancer to carry out their hits, and the Mob seems to have been
blissfully unconcerned about Jack Ruby's paranoia regarding anti-Jewish
right-wing organizations.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5069c77f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
> >> backward.
> >
> > You should familiarize yourself with the discussions you enter. the
> > original poster wrote...
> >
> > "For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> > incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot
> > hard enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion."
>
> He never mentions the word IMPACT.

Oh, unless the exact word is uttered, it can't possibly be essentially
the same meaning? I see the words "knocked back." That would obviously
mean by an "impact."

> >> That is a straw man argument.
> >
> > An actual position someone took is the opposite of a strawman.
>
> No one took that actual position. That is what a straw man argument is.

The original poster in this thread did indeed take that actual position,
Anthony. And you're a fine one to talk. Several times a day, every day,
every week, every month, and every year you frequently act as if other
posters said things completely different from what they actually said.
You did that to me, yet again, the other day, when you asked me if the SB
would have gone through JFK's fists when he raised them to his mouth, when
you knew perfectly well, or had no excuse not to know it, that I've always
said the SB went through him before he raised his fists to his mouth, and
you furthermore most certainly knew that no one who proposes the SB ever
says he raised his arms until after the bullet went through his back and
throat. You're the king of the strawmen in this newsgroup; you concoct
them more often than all other posters combined. ;-)

[John Reagor King]

In article <506a59b2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 10/1/2012 8:54 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 1:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/30/2012 10:57 PM, Bud wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You are committing the Fallacy of False Cause by only looking at two
> >>>> frames and assuming they are the only ones relevant to what caused the
> >>>> motion.
> >>
> >>> They are the only two relevant to how Kennedy`s position changed
> >>> when hit by the bullet.
> >>
> >> CAUSE. The cause does not have to be what you assumed.
> >
> > Then you should show that Kennedy`s head was going forward at
> > generally the same rate every frame leading up to the headshot.
>
> I did that in my article. But you refuse to read it.

How do you know he hasn't read it? You don't even know his address, and
you aren't ever sitting by his computer to see what he does and doesn't
read.

> >>>> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
> >>>> backward.
> >>
> >>> You should familiarize yourself with the discussions you enter. the
> >>> original poster wrote...
> >>
> >>> "For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> >>> incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot
> >>> hard enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion."
> >>
> >> He never mentions the word IMPACT.
> >
> > Is that why you couldn`t figure out that people had taken the
> > position you claimed no one had. Because they didn`t use the word
> > IMPACT?
>
> That word is what makes the distinction. You did not say shot, you said
> IMPACT.

And the original poster in this thread said "knocked back by the head
shot," which is essentially the same meaning as "knocked back by the
impact of the head shot." Apparently according to you only, and no one
else on the planet who has at least average fluency in English, are those
not essentially synonymous phrases. It is virtually irrelevant that the
exact word "impact" did not appear in his sentence.

> >>>> That is a straw man argument.
> >>
> >>> An actual position someone took is the opposite of a strawman.
> >>
> >> No one took that actual position. That is what a straw man argument is.
> >
> > Actually the poster was putting forth the idea that it was the force of
> > the bullet that threw Kennedy back. Not a strawman, an actual position
> > expressed by someone.
>
> Nope.

"For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot hard
enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion."

You are so funny, Anthony. You expect us to actually believe that Mr.
Ferguson meant something different than the force of the bullet in that
sentence? What did you think he was talking about then? A gust of wind?

[John Reagor King]

In article <506a5043$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Just go tell John Blubaugh he's full of it. It will break his heart.

I'm so glad I wasn't drinking my coffee at the instant I read that, as a
mirthful sound of considerable volume blasted out of me just then.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > > Who said it was a lead bullet? Is that your theory? Many people think
> > > it was FMJ bullet.
> > A bullet striking hard bone will deliver more energy than the same
> > bullet passing through soft tissue.  Basic ballistics.  CTs claim a
> > bullet from the GK caused the President to go "back and to the left".
> > If true then the sudden forward movement of the head must have been
> > caused by a bullet too.  Even your hero Dr Wecht agrees a bullet made
> > the head move
> No, that is a false equivalency.

How so?

> And again, no one said it was a lead bullet.

Do you think it was a bullet or not? If not a bullet what kind of object
impacted the head?

[Anthony Marsh]

I am pointing out the incongruity of your ever changing frames. You have
JFK"s fists up by Z-225 and then the bullet hitting Connally at Z-226.
You need to move your SBT back to Z-221.

[Anthony Marsh]

Cancer by injection.

>> before he could spill the beans,
>
> "Before" he spilled the beans? No he wasn't. He spilled the beans
> approximately three years and seven months before he died. He

Then why did he asked to be taken to Washington so he could talk.
He never mentioned the names of all those Mafiosi he knew.

That is not it, but thanks for confirming that Jack Ruby had Mafia
connections.

>
> Of what relevance is Salerno to Jack Ruby dying of cancer three years
> and seven months after he had spilled the beans on the John Birch
> Society and Edwin Walker? I don't see Salerno claiming that the Mob
> used cancer to carry out their hits, and the Mob seems to have been
> blissfully unconcerned about Jack Ruby's paranoia regarding anti-Jewish
> right-wing organizations.
>

Salerno claimed that whenever a killer is hired the man who hired him
must be killed, then the man who hired that killer must be killed, ad
infinitum. Don't you believe Salerno?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/2/2012 4:09 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <5069c7c3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You couldn't possibly know that because you know nothing about bullets.
>
> There you go again with your silly "You know nothing about" nonsense.
> I've said this to you before and I'll say it again.
>
> Does the person know what a bullet is? If so, then they do indeed know
> something about bullets.
>

Illogical.

> Does the person know that a bullet can be fired from a gun? If so, then
> they do indeed know something about bullets.
>

Not much.

> Does the person know that bullets fired from guns can injure or kill
> people? If so, then they do indeed know something about bullets.
>

Not much.

> Does the person know that bullets fired from a gun can travel through
> the air rapidly? If so, then they do indeed know something about
> bullets.
>

Not much.

> Does the person know that bullets fired from a gun can sometimes
> fragment when striking hard objects? If so, then they do indeed know
> something about bullets.
>

Most people do not know that.

[Anthony Marsh]

An explosive bullet. You are so clueless that you think all bullets are
lead bullets. You've never heard of a steel bullet.

[Richard Ferguson]

My goodness, I just got back to look at this site. With the greatest
trepidation, I'll respond again.

For the person who questioned the Oiorpata, go to this site: http://www.woa.tv/articles/hi_amazonexist.html

Here is an excerpt: "On vases, the Amazons are depicted much like another
enemy of the Greeks, the Persians-skimpy, smooth-cheeked creatures wearing
spotted trousers and pointy Phrygian caps. Greeks, on the other hand, are
pictured half-naked, beautiful and, above all, ultra-macho. Some scholars
claim that the Amazon myths were designed to show that reversing the
“natural” (which in ancient Greece meant male-dominated) order would
always lead to disaster.

But in the second half of the twentieth century, archaeologists Renate
Rolle and Jeannine Davis-Kimball separately uncovered evidence that
challenged this theory. In the steppe-land surrounding the Black Sea (now
Ukraine and Russia), they discovered graves of women buried with
classically female accoutrements as well as weapons such as bows and
arrows, daggers and swords. Excited scientists determined that these women
were Sauromatians or Scythians, nomadic horse-riding races named by
Herodotus as part of the Amazons’ ancestry.

Finally, archaeologists had evidence that warrior women existed in an area
where Greek authors situated some of the original Amazons. But these Iron
Age kurgans (grave mounds) also contained skeletons of men and
children—a major departure from the Amazons of Greek legend, who were
Oiorpata (man killers) that lived apart from men. Rolle uncovered one
grave that contained a young woman with a baby on her breast. The remains
left little doubt that the woman was a warrior (the finger bones of her
bow-pulling hand were worn and weapons were found by her side). These
warlike women could have served as the basis for the Amazon myth, but with
some other characteristics thrown in by the Greek authors for good
measure—such as man killing and separatism. But where might these more
dramatic aspects of the Amazonian legend have come from?"

To the parsing of my sentence. The first time I said it, I said he was
knocked back by the impact. The second time I didn't.

It's a
>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
>>>> after the shot.

I wanted to make it a true statement whether you agree it was from the
impact or not. I shouldn't have muddied it by throwing in that I couldn't
see his head move forward. That wasn't meant to be included as a fact.

I will add that I fired expert on all ranges in the Army, including firing
from the hip at pop-up targets with an M-1. I spent part of my youth on a
ranch in the Mogollon mountains of New Mexico. I went hunting with my
father and others many times and shot both white-tailed deer and mule
deer. I have to observe that when I shot a mule deer broadside, hitting
it in line with the heart but a little high so the bullet hit its backbone
and shoulder blades, it was knocked sideways and flat on its side. I was
either firing a thirty-thirty or a thirty-forty at the time. When I (or
others) made a clean heart shot, the deer either stood for a short time
and collapsed or ran a short distance and collapsed.

When I was in the Army, there were officers and sergeants who had been in
WWII. They said the Japanese doped up soldiers and sent them to sneak
into the officers quarters, then run through and shoot as many officers as
they could before they were killed. The officers said they had
thirty-eights and could hit the Japanese soldiers but couldn't stop them.
They'd sometimes take a number of shots before stopping. So the Army
issued forty-fives to the officers. After that, they said the forty-five
bullets would stop the Japanese soldiers or knock them down. That seems
to suggest that bullets actually can have an impact.

[John Reagor King]

In article <506b5dd6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 10/2/2012 4:09 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <5069c7c3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> You couldn't possibly know that because you know nothing about bullets.
> >
> > There you go again with your silly "You know nothing about" nonsense.
> > I've said this to you before and I'll say it again.
> >
> > Does the person know what a bullet is? If so, then they do indeed know
> > something about bullets.
>
> Illogical.

Knowing what a bullet is doesn't count as knowing something about
bullets? :P

> > Does the person know that a bullet can be fired from a gun? If so, then
> > they do indeed know something about bullets.
>
> Not much.

But "not much" is more than "nothing," eh, Anthony? You did not say to
the previous poster,

"You couldn't possibly know that because you don't know much about
bullets."

Instead you said,

"You couldn't possibly know that because you know nothing about bullets."

> > Does the person know that bullets fired from guns can injure or kill
> > people? If so, then they do indeed know something about bullets.
>
> Not much.

But still even more than "nothing," correct, Anthony?

> > Does the person know that bullets fired from a gun can travel through
> > the air rapidly? If so, then they do indeed know something about
> > bullets.
>
> Not much.

But still even *more* than "nothing," eh, Anthony?

> > Does the person know that bullets fired from a gun can sometimes
> > fragment when striking hard objects? If so, then they do indeed know
> > something about bullets.
>
> Most people do not know that.

You were not replying to most people, you were replying to a single
poster. And that poster quite obviously knows that bullets can fragment.
So indeed that poster knows a good deal more than "nothing" about bullets,
Anthony. ;-)

[John Reagor King]

In article <506b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Lol, that tired old myth again? You can, ah, er, um, "prove" that he was
*really* injected with cancer, and that that wasn't just one of his many
silly paranoid claims like his claim that he would hear many Jews
elsewhere in the jail screaming as they were being tortured?

> >> before he could spill the beans,
> >
> > "Before" he spilled the beans? No he wasn't. He spilled the beans
> > approximately three years and seven months before he died. He
>
> Then why did he asked to be taken to Washington so he could talk.

I've already quoted him above saying why, and you quoted me doing it
above in your own article here. Don't you know how to use the Internet?

> He never mentioned the names of all those Mafiosi he knew.

Because those weren't the people he told Earl Warren he and his family
were in danger from in Dallas. He said the reason he wanted to be taken
to Washington was because he and his family were in danger from the John
Birch Society, including Edwin Walker. You quoted him saying so above in
this present reply of yours. Don't you know how to use the Internet?

> >> Don't you believe Ralph Salerno?
> >
> > Believe him regarding what? This, maybe?
> >
> > **********
> >
> > Mr. SALERNO. Well, I think Jack Ruby turning to someone in the
> > underworld for help in a labor matter is not unrealistic. Many people do
> > that every day. Many businessmen will buy labor peace, they will ignore
> > collective bargaining; they will ignore all the agencies of government;
> > and if they really want something done, they hire the Godfather. Carlo
> > Gambino, not in the underworld but in the upper worm, was a labor
> > consultant, business firms paid him as much as $40,000 for help in one
> > labor matter. I can tell you that Carlo Gambino doesn't know the
> > difference between Samuel Gompers and Ringo Starr. That is how much he
> > knows about labor but he is a Godfather and he has interjected himself
> > in labor matter where miraculously the strike is headed off, or if it is
> > already ongoing, it has come to an end. So Jack Ruby turning to someone
> > in the underworld for help is not unrealistic at all. There was a second
> > part to your question.
> >
> > **********
>
> That is not it, but thanks for confirming that Jack Ruby had Mafia
> connections.

In that quotation Salerno merely said that it is plausible that Jack
Ruby had Mafia connections. So? What does this have to do with why he
said he wanted to be taken to Washington?

> > Of what relevance is Salerno to Jack Ruby dying of cancer three years
> > and seven months after he had spilled the beans on the John Birch
> > Society and Edwin Walker? I don't see Salerno claiming that the Mob
> > used cancer to carry out their hits, and the Mob seems to have been
> > blissfully unconcerned about Jack Ruby's paranoia regarding anti-Jewish
> > right-wing organizations.
>
> Salerno claimed that whenever a killer is hired the man who hired him
> must be killed, then the man who hired that killer must be killed, ad
> infinitum. Don't you believe Salerno?

As I am aware of no shred of credible evidence that Jack Ruby died of
anything but natural causes, it is irrelevant whether I believe him or
not, since it has no bearing on why Jack Ruby said he wanted to be taken
to Washington.

[John Reagor King]

In article <506b59df$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

STRAWMAN.

QUOTE ME VERBATIM FROM ANY ARTICLE I HAVE EVER POSTED IN ANY NEWSGROUP,
ALONG WITH THE MESSAGE-ID AND/OR ARCHIVE URL PROVING THAT I REALLY DID
POST IT, IN WHICH I SAID HE ALREADY HAD HIS FISTS UP BY Z225. YOU WILL BE
HELPLESSLY UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY ARTICLE IN WHICH I HAVE EVER SAID THAT.
IF BY TOMORROW YOU DO NOT FREELY ADMIT THAT I NEVER SAID THAT, I'M GOING
TO START A NEW THREAD WITH YOUR NAME AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SUBJECT IN
WHICH I RIDICULE YOU MORE THAN I HAVE EVER DONE BEFORE.

> and then the bullet hitting Connally at Z-226.

STRAWMAN.

QUOTE ME VERBATIM FROM ANY ARTICLE I HAVE EVER POSTED IN ANY NEWSGROUP,
ALONG WITH THE MESSAGE-ID AND/OR ARCHIVE URL PROVING THAT I REALLY DID
POST IT, IN WHICH I SAID THAT THE BULLET HIT CONNALLY AT Z226. YOU WILL
BE HELPLESSLY UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY ARTICLE IN WHICH I HAVE EVER SAID THAT.
IF BY TOMORROW YOU DO NOT FREELY ADMIT THAT I NEVER SAID THAT, I'M GOING
TO START A NEW THREAD WITH YOUR NAME AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SUBJECT IN
WHICH I RIDICULE YOU MORE THAN I HAVE EVER DONE BEFORE.

If I type it in all caps, Anthony, can you see it? You seem woefully
unable to see so very many other things.

> You need to move your SBT back to Z-221.

You need to read what I've actually written, instead of making up your
own versions of what I've said. Don't you know how to use the Internet?

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 10/3/12 8:59 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:
>
> My goodness, I just got back to look at this site. With the greatest
> trepidation, I'll respond again.
>
> For the person who questioned the Oiorpata, go to this site: http://www.woa.tv/articles/hi_amazonexist.html
>
> Here is an excerpt: "On vases, the Amazons are depicted much like another
> enemy of the Greeks, the Persians-skimpy, smooth-cheeked creatures wearing
> spotted trousers and pointy Phrygian caps. Greeks, on the other hand, are
> pictured half-naked, beautiful and, above all, ultra-macho. Some scholars
> claim that the Amazon myths were designed to show that reversing the

> ?natural? (which in ancient Greece meant male-dominated) order would

> always lead to disaster.
>
> But in the second half of the twentieth century, archaeologists Renate
> Rolle and Jeannine Davis-Kimball separately uncovered evidence that
> challenged this theory. In the steppe-land surrounding the Black Sea (now
> Ukraine and Russia), they discovered graves of women buried with
> classically female accoutrements as well as weapons such as bows and
> arrows, daggers and swords. Excited scientists determined that these women
> were Sauromatians or Scythians, nomadic horse-riding races named by

> Herodotus as part of the Amazons?= ancestry.

>
> Finally, archaeologists had evidence that warrior women existed in an area
> where Greek authors situated some of the original Amazons. But these Iron
> Age kurgans (grave mounds) also contained skeletons of men and

> children?a major departure from the Amazons of Greek legend, who were

> Oiorpata (man killers) that lived apart from men. Rolle uncovered one
> grave that contained a young woman with a baby on her breast. The remains
> left little doubt that the woman was a warrior (the finger bones of her
> bow-pulling hand were worn and weapons were found by her side). These
> warlike women could have served as the basis for the Amazon myth, but with
> some other characteristics thrown in by the Greek authors for good

> measure?such as man killing and separatism. But where might these more

> dramatic aspects of the Amazonian legend have come from?"
>
> To the parsing of my sentence. The first time I said it, I said he was
> knocked back by the impact. The second time I didn't.
>
> It's a
>>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot.

Yes, indeed, nobody denies that JFK moved backward and bounced off the seat.

>>>>> I tried
>>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
>>>>> after the shot.
>
> I wanted to make it a true statement whether you agree it was from the
> impact or not.

It may indeed be a true statement that you couldn't see his head move
forward after the shot, though I find that hard to understand, if you have
(and it is readily available online) a complete set of frames of the
Z-film.

But I suspect that you want to imply that this motion somehow indicates
that the bullet came from the front even if the motion wasn't imparted to
JFK's body by the impact of the bullet. If that were true, by what
calculation could you determine anything about the direction of the shot
from the motion of JFK's body? By what mechanism do you suppose the bullet
could move the body in the direction of its own trajectory if not through
its impact?

> I shouldn't have muddied it by throwing in that I couldn't
> see his head move forward. That wasn't meant to be included as a fact.
>

Well, it is a fact that JFK's head continues to move forward after the
bullet went through his head, which was between frames 312 and 313. You
can see that for yourself.

> I will add that I fired expert on all ranges in the Army, including firing
> from the hip at pop-up targets with an M-1. I spent part of my youth on a
> ranch in the Mogollon mountains of New Mexico. I went hunting with my
> father and others many times and shot both white-tailed deer and mule
> deer. I have to observe that when I shot a mule deer broadside, hitting
> it in line with the heart but a little high so the bullet hit its backbone
> and shoulder blades, it was knocked sideways and flat on its side. I was
> either firing a thirty-thirty or a thirty-forty at the time. When I (or
> others) made a clean heart shot, the deer either stood for a short time
> and collapsed or ran a short distance and collapsed.
>
> When I was in the Army, there were officers and sergeants who had been in
> WWII. They said the Japanese doped up soldiers and sent them to sneak
> into the officers quarters, then run through and shoot as many officers as
> they could before they were killed. The officers said they had
> thirty-eights and could hit the Japanese soldiers but couldn't stop them.
> They'd sometimes take a number of shots before stopping. So the Army
> issued forty-fives to the officers. After that, they said the forty-five
> bullets would stop the Japanese soldiers or knock them down. That seems
> to suggest that bullets actually can have an impact.
>

If the impact of a bullet, an explosion, a missile or anything you can
imagine is what moved JFK back, it had to have been something that hit him
later than the bullet that struck between frames 312 and 313.

In frame 312 JFK has not yet been hit. In frame 313, brain and skull
debris that, thrown by the impact, would travel a bit more slowly than the
bullet, extends to some distance outside JFK's head. The bullet has
traversed his head, which continued moving forward.

The backward motion starts in frame 314.

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

We know you are not sincere when you type it in all caps.

>> You need to move your SBT back to Z-221.
>
> You need to read what I've actually written, instead of making up your
> own versions of what I've said. Don't you know how to use the Internet?
>

I'm just trying to help you get out of this hole you have dug for yourself.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/3/2012 10:46 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <506b5dd6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/2/2012 4:09 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <5069c7c3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You couldn't possibly know that because you know nothing about bullets.
>>>
>>> There you go again with your silly "You know nothing about" nonsense.
>>> I've said this to you before and I'll say it again.
>>>
>>> Does the person know what a bullet is? If so, then they do indeed know
>>> something about bullets.
>>
>> Illogical.
>
> Knowing what a bullet is doesn't count as knowing something about
> bullets? :P
>
>>> Does the person know that a bullet can be fired from a gun? If so, then
>>> they do indeed know something about bullets.
>>
>> Not much.
>
> But "not much" is more than "nothing," eh, Anthony? You did not say to
> the previous poster,
>
> "You couldn't possibly know that because you don't know much about
> bullets."
>
> Instead you said,
>
> "You couldn't possibly know that because you know nothing about bullets."
>

"About." He obviously knew enough to call them bullets. That's about it.

>>> Does the person know that bullets fired from guns can injure or kill
>>> people? If so, then they do indeed know something about bullets.
>>
>> Not much.
>
> But still even more than "nothing," correct, Anthony?
>
>>> Does the person know that bullets fired from a gun can travel through
>>> the air rapidly? If so, then they do indeed know something about
>>> bullets.
>>
>> Not much.
>
> But still even *more* than "nothing," eh, Anthony?
>
>>> Does the person know that bullets fired from a gun can sometimes
>>> fragment when striking hard objects? If so, then they do indeed know
>>> something about bullets.
>>
>> Most people do not know that.
>
> You were not replying to most people, you were replying to a single
> poster. And that poster quite obviously knows that bullets can fragment.
> So indeed that poster knows a good deal more than "nothing" about bullets,
> Anthony. ;-)
>

He thinks he know, but he really doesn't.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/3/2012 8:59 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:
>
> My goodness, I just got back to look at this site. With the greatest
> trepidation, I'll respond again.
>
> For the person who questioned the Oiorpata, go to this site: http://www.woa.tv/articles/hi_amazonexist.html
>

Unnamed, unknown person?

> Here is an excerpt: "On vases, the Amazons are depicted much like another
> enemy of the Greeks, the Persians-skimpy, smooth-cheeked creatures wearing
> spotted trousers and pointy Phrygian caps. Greeks, on the other hand, are
> pictured half-naked, beautiful and, above all, ultra-macho. Some scholars
> claim that the Amazon myths were designed to show that reversing the

> ?natural? (which in ancient Greece meant male-dominated) order would

> always lead to disaster.
>
> But in the second half of the twentieth century, archaeologists Renate
> Rolle and Jeannine Davis-Kimball separately uncovered evidence that
> challenged this theory. In the steppe-land surrounding the Black Sea (now
> Ukraine and Russia), they discovered graves of women buried with
> classically female accoutrements as well as weapons such as bows and
> arrows, daggers and swords. Excited scientists determined that these women
> were Sauromatians or Scythians, nomadic horse-riding races named by

> Herodotus as part of the Amazons?= ancestry.
>

They also found that the weapons were specifically sized for women
warriors.

> Finally, archaeologists had evidence that warrior women existed in an area
> where Greek authors situated some of the original Amazons. But these Iron

Which Greek authors? All Greek authors? Did all Greek authors agree on
the location of Atlantis?

> Age kurgans (grave mounds) also contained skeletons of men and

> children?a major departure from the Amazons of Greek legend, who were

> Oiorpata (man killers) that lived apart from men. Rolle uncovered one

That's why I disagreed with your terminology. Not the same group. Amazon
women conquered men and bred with them to have children. Otherwise there
would have been only one generation of Amazons. Do I have to explain the
mechanics of this to you?

> grave that contained a young woman with a baby on her breast. The remains
> left little doubt that the woman was a warrior (the finger bones of her
> bow-pulling hand were worn and weapons were found by her side). These
> warlike women could have served as the basis for the Amazon myth, but with

Sure, hundreds of nomadic tribes could have served as the basis for the
Amazon myth, but that does not mean that this particular tribe were the
real Amazons. There is a term for this in archeology, but I forget what it
is. Also see the Nazi hunt for the Aryans.

> some other characteristics thrown in by the Greek authors for good

> measure?such as man killing and separatism. But where might these more

> dramatic aspects of the Amazonian legend have come from?"
>
> To the parsing of my sentence. The first time I said it, I said he was
> knocked back by the impact. The second time I didn't.
>

My God, man! Don't tell me that you are actually learning from your
mistakes? What is the world coming to?

> It's a
>>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
>>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
>>>>> after the shot.
>
> I wanted to make it a true statement whether you agree it was from the
> impact or not. I shouldn't have muddied it by throwing in that I couldn't
> see his head move forward. That wasn't meant to be included as a fact.
>

I have never said it was from the impact. If you had any way to read the
old messages you would have known that.

> I will add that I fired expert on all ranges in the Army, including firing
> from the hip at pop-up targets with an M-1. I spent part of my youth on a
> ranch in the Mogollon mountains of New Mexico. I went hunting with my
> father and others many times and shot both white-tailed deer and mule
> deer. I have to observe that when I shot a mule deer broadside, hitting
> it in line with the heart but a little high so the bullet hit its backbone
> and shoulder blades, it was knocked sideways and flat on its side. I was
> either firing a thirty-thirty or a thirty-forty at the time. When I (or
> others) made a clean heart shot, the deer either stood for a short time
> and collapsed or ran a short distance and collapsed.
>

Well, according to the WC defenders Jet Effect the reason why you have to
tie a prisoner to a pole when you execute him by firing squad is to keep
him from flying into the firing squad. Have you ever shot anyone in the
head? Does the victim fly back towards you? Have you ever gathered up the
courage to watch hundreds of films showing people executed by a shot to
the back of the head? In how many of those hundred films does the victim
go flying backwards towards the shooter?

> When I was in the Army, there were officers and sergeants who had been in
> WWII. They said the Japanese doped up soldiers and sent them to sneak
> into the officers quarters, then run through and shoot as many officers as
> they could before they were killed. The officers said they had
> thirty-eights and could hit the Japanese soldiers but couldn't stop them.
> They'd sometimes take a number of shots before stopping. So the Army
> issued forty-fives to the officers. After that, they said the forty-five
> bullets would stop the Japanese soldiers or knock them down. That seems
> to suggest that bullets actually can have an impact.
>

Do you remember why M had James Bond trade in his Beretta for a Walther
PPK?

In a December 1964 interview with Playboy Magazine Fleming admitted that
he was not an expert in the field and ?Quite honestly, the whole question
of expertise in these matters bores me. Obviously, I want to know the
facts. If a Gaylord holster is better than a Berns-Martin, I want to know
about it, but there is where my interest rather ends." The reference would
be to the holsters of Chic Gaylord, a well-known holster maker of the
period who in fact DID make shoulder holsters to suit Fleming's choice of
pistol for Bond, the Walther PPK.[1]

Shortly before the publication of From Russia, with Love in 1956, Fleming
received a fan letter from an author and gun collector, Geoffrey
Boothroyd. He told Fleming that he admired the Bond novels apart from the
hero's choice of weapon. Boothroyd felt the Beretta 418 was "a lady's gun"
with no real stopping power.[2] He also objected to the choice of holster.
Boothroyd proposed that Bond should use a revolver like the Smith & Wesson
Centennial Airweight. It had no external hammer, so it would not catch on
Bond's clothes. The Smith & Wesson could be kept in a Berns-Martin triple
draw holster held in place with a spring clip which would decrease Bond's
draw time. Boothroyd also said the suppressors Bond occasionally used were
rarely silent and actually reduced the gun's stopping power.

Fleming thanked Boothroyd for his letter and made a few points of his own
in his reply. He felt that Bond ought to have an automatic instead of a
revolver. Fleming agreed that the Beretta 418 lacked power, but pointed
out that Bond had used more powerful weapons when necessary, such as the
Colt M1911 .45 cal auto pistol he uses in Moonraker. Fleming also said
that he had seen a silenced Sten gun during the war and the weapon had
hardly made a whisper.

Ultimately Boothroyd recommended the Walther PPK 7.65 mm as being the best
choice for an automatic of that size, with its ammunition available
everywhere. He suggested, however, that 007 ought to have a revolver for
long-range shooting. Fleming asked Boothroyd if he could lend his
illustrator Richard Chopping one of his guns to be painted for the cover
of From Russia, with Love. Boothroyd lent Chopping a Smith & Wesson .38
revolver that had the trigger guard removed for faster firing.

Fleming had Bond's Beretta caught in his holster at the end of From
Russia, with Love, an event that almost costs the secret agent his life.
In the next novel, Dr. No, a Major Boothroyd recommends that Bond switch
guns. Major Boothroyd chose the Walther PPK 7.65mm after testing the
Walther PPK, the Japanese M-14, the Russian Tokarev, and the Sauer M-38.

Dum Dum bullets also had an impact. I suggest that you look at some films
of the Japanese soldiers executing Chinese prisoners and see how many
times the victims flew back towards the shooter. Please post your results.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5cdc961e-5d45-4989...@googlegroups.com>,

Richard Ferguson <senorc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> It's a
> >>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
> >>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move
> >>>> forward
> >>>> after the shot.
>
> I wanted to make it a true statement whether you agree it was from the
> impact or not. I shouldn't have muddied it by throwing in that I couldn't
> see his head move forward. That wasn't meant to be included as a fact.
>
> I will add that I fired expert on all ranges in the Army, including firing
> from the hip at pop-up targets with an M-1. I spent part of my youth on a
> ranch in the Mogollon mountains of New Mexico. I went hunting with my
> father and others many times and shot both white-tailed deer and mule
> deer. I have to observe that when I shot a mule deer broadside, hitting
> it in line with the heart but a little high so the bullet hit its backbone
> and shoulder blades, it was knocked sideways and flat on its side. I was
> either firing a thirty-thirty or a thirty-forty at the time.

I notice, however, that nowhere here do you mention ever having shot a
deer in the head. When any higher animal receives a sudden, violent
trauma to the brain, such as being shot in the head, there can be the
possibility of a sudden, violent spasm exhibited by various muscles,
before the animal collapses. This is naturally because the brain can
suddenly send out a brief jumble of signals to the muscles of the body at
such a moment of sudden trauma. I have read many times about people
shooting an animal in the head and the animal exhibiting some sort of
violent spasm in various muscles before going limp, and sometimes those
spasms even continue for longer, depending on the exact injury to the
brain. I have never shot a deer in the head myself, but I have talked to
others who have -- this is East Texas after all, and there is a lot of
national forest around here, and a lot of deer hunters -- and some of them
have told me that they have indeed sometimes seen a deer exhibit a brief,
violent spasm before dropping to the ground. There is no reasonable way
to absolutely rule out the possibility that some of the muscles in JFK's
body may have undergone a brief, violent spasm as well at the instant his
brain was suddenly damaged very badly. The shot did not destroy nearly
all of his brain. The majority of the damage was in the right hemisphere
of the brain, but enough of the brain was left intact that it could have
conceivably sent out this brief jumble of signals to the muscles that I
mentioned above.

You should also consider that the cranium is essentially a pressure
cavity. His skull was very suddenly blasted open, and one can clearly see
the vast majority of bloody matter exiting forward, as well as clearly see
that the vast majority of visible damage to his head is forward of his
right ear. It is nowhere close to implausible to suggest that this may
have also played a role in forcing his head backward, with all of that
material suddenly exploding out of his head forward.

> When I (or
> others) made a clean heart shot, the deer either stood for a short time
> and collapsed or ran a short distance and collapsed.

Ah, so now you admit that they don't always fall over in the direction
the bullet was traveling. ;-)

> When I was in the Army, there were officers and sergeants who had been in
> WWII. They said the Japanese doped up soldiers and sent them to sneak
> into the officers quarters, then run through and shoot as many officers as
> they could before they were killed. The officers said they had
> thirty-eights and could hit the Japanese soldiers but couldn't stop them.
> They'd sometimes take a number of shots before stopping. So the Army
> issued forty-fives to the officers. After that, they said the forty-five
> bullets would stop the Japanese soldiers or knock them down. That seems
> to suggest that bullets actually can have an impact.

Of course they can. But the motion of the body of an animal or person
upon being struck is not always indicative of the direction the bullet was
traveling. This can also be the case with other sorts of objects. There
is at least one famous video that I've seen many times on television --
I'd be astonished if it isn't on Youtube by now -- in which a melon
sitting on a stand is shot, and falls off the stand in the opposite
direction from which the bullet was traveling, and this is even shown in
extreme slow-motion. The bullet itself apparently did not knock the melon
off the stand. Instead, the exiting material on the opposite side of the
melon from the side where the bullet entered pushed it off the stand. It
fell, in other words, toward the person who shot the melon, not away. ;-)

[John Reagor King]

In article <506bac36$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 10/2/2012 7:16 PM, claviger wrote:
> > Anthony,
> >

> >> And again, no one said it was a lead bullet.
> >
> > Do you think it was a bullet or not? If not a bullet what kind of object
> > impacted the head?
>
> An explosive bullet. You are so clueless that you think all bullets are
> lead bullets. You've never heard of a steel bullet.

How do you know he's never heard of a steel bullet? Mindreading again,
Anthony? ;-)

[curtjester1]

In case you want to write a sequel......

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/russell_review_2.html

CJ

[John Reagor King]

In article <506d1627$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

So. You use a flimsy excuse instead of admitting you were obviously
wrong. So be it.

> >> You need to move your SBT back to Z-221.
> >
> > You need to read what I've actually written, instead of making up your
> > own versions of what I've said. Don't you know how to use the Internet?
>
> I'm just trying to help you get out of this hole you have dug for yourself.

You dug the hole. Still refuse to admit that I never, ever, ever said
JFK had his fist already up by Z225. Ok, you asked for it.

[John Reagor King]

In article <506d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> "About." He obviously knew enough to call them bullets. That's about it.

I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit
that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite
obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have
probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have
also refused to admit.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you admit it.

>>>> You need to move your SBT back to Z-221.
>>>
>>> You need to read what I've actually written, instead of making up your
>>> own versions of what I've said. Don't you know how to use the Internet?
>>
>> I'm just trying to help you get out of this hole you have dug for yourself.
>
> You dug the hole. Still refuse to admit that I never, ever, ever said
> JFK had his fist already up by Z225. Ok, you asked for it.
>

You still refuse to name your frame.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's obvious from the way he phrased his attack question.

[Anthony Marsh]

How about a goat? Close enough? The HSCA showed a film of a goat being
shot in the front of the head. But they had to tie him up so that he
didn't go flying towards the shooter.

> to absolutely rule out the possibility that some of the muscles in JFK's
> body may have undergone a brief, violent spasm as well at the instant his
> brain was suddenly damaged very badly. The shot did not destroy nearly
> all of his brain. The majority of the damage was in the right hemisphere
> of the brain, but enough of the brain was left intact that it could have
> conceivably sent out this brief jumble of signals to the muscles that I
> mentioned above.
>

Actually I like your theory better and have suggested that all WC
defenders adopt it instead of the Jet Effect.
One problem with the goat test is that it had no received its daily
injection of amphetamines. It had been anesthetized.

> You should also consider that the cranium is essentially a pressure
> cavity. His skull was very suddenly blasted open, and one can clearly see
> the vast majority of bloody matter exiting forward, as well as clearly see

Upward.
It only appears forward because his head was tilted down.

So you claim. Is that the hoax by Penn & Teller?
Did you also see the one where he catches a fired bullet with his teeth?

[Anthony Marsh]

No one is talking about the body. Just the head. Then the body follows
the head. This is only about the head shot.

>
>
>> I shouldn't have muddied it by throwing in that I couldn't
>> see his head move forward. That wasn't meant to be included as a fact.
>>
>
> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head continues to move forward after the
> bullet went through his head, which was between frames 312 and 313. You
> can see that for yourself.
>

Well, it is a fact that JFK's head started to move forward before 312.

[Anthony Marsh]

"Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial."

[John Reagor King]

In article <506f7c31$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial."

Interesting that you leave out the context, Anthony. What was I talking
about when I said that? Afraid to look through the archives to find out
what I was really talking about? Don't you know how to use the
Internet? Naturally you didn't quote the sentence right before that and
the sentence right after that. Let's all look at what Anthony is
leaving out, everybody:

**********

Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk
violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the
beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225
for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or
anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that
clearly begins no later than Z226.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1f66ddfa97e3bde
8?dmode=source&output=gplain

**********

Where did I say that JFK already has his fists up by Z225, Anthony? Oh
that's right, in your imagination only. What was I actually talking
about, Anthony? The frame where the reactions of both men begin.

So ya gonna admit you made a mistake now, Anthony?

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yes, indeed. And if the bullet that struck after 312 was going to reverse
that motion, it would have done so by the time 313 was exposed and not
mysteriously, magically waited until 314 to have an effect.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

You have exactly the same delay for your shot from behind, whether you
think that was the Jet Effect or neuromuscular response.
I have often stated that the bullet hit just after Z-312 was exposed,
which I call Z-312.6 and we see the reaction in Z-313 which would start
with Z-310.0. So the total time from impact to result is much less than
half a Zapruder frame, maybe only 20 milliseconds.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Not a problem. There is no set time for any particular neuromuscular
spasm to set in from the chain of catastrophic biological events that
may have even started when the first bullet hit JFK.

I don't know of anyone except CTs ever arguing that the backward motion
was any evidence of where the shot came from.

> I have often stated that the bullet hit just after Z-312 was exposed,
> which I call Z-312.6 and we see the reaction in Z-313 which would start
> with Z-310.0.

Any motion of the head physically, mechanically caused by the bullet
(that is, aside from neurophysiologial reactions) hitting between the
frames would have been seen in 313, as the bullet had already passed the
head before that frame was exposed.

> So the total time from impact to result is much less than
> half a Zapruder frame, maybe only 20 milliseconds.
>

Yes, bullets move very quickly.
In 313, the bullet has already passed through JFK's head, which has not
been moved backward in the slightest.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

The WC defenders. They claim that the backwards motion of the head
proves the shot came from behind.

>> I have often stated that the bullet hit just after Z-312 was exposed,
>> which I call Z-312.6 and we see the reaction in Z-313 which would start
>> with Z-310.0.
>
> Any motion of the head physically, mechanically caused by the bullet
> (that is, aside from neurophysiologial reactions) hitting between the
> frames would have been seen in 313, as the bullet had already passed the
> head before that frame was exposed.
>
>> So the total time from impact to result is much less than
>> half a Zapruder frame, maybe only 20 milliseconds.
>>
>
> Yes, bullets move very quickly.
> In 313, the bullet has already passed through JFK's head, which has not
> been moved backward in the slightest.
>

Unless the bullet is still in the head and then fell out during the
autopsy as Hoover said.

> /sm
>
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

No, the WCR showed that the shot came from behind with sufficient evidence
without taking into consideration the backward motion.

The jet effect was hypothesized to explain the backward motion in a way
consistent with a shot from the back, which was known to be the case from
the other evidence. The neuromuscular effect would explain the same motion
in a way consistent with a shot from any direction, but we know that the
shot came from the back.

>>> I have often stated that the bullet hit just after Z-312 was exposed,
>>> which I call Z-312.6 and we see the reaction in Z-313 which would start
>>> with Z-310.0.
>>
>> Any motion of the head physically, mechanically caused by the bullet
>> (that is, aside from neurophysiologial reactions) hitting between the
>> frames would have been seen in 313, as the bullet had already passed the
>> head before that frame was exposed.
>>
>>> So the total time from impact to result is much less than
>>> half a Zapruder frame, maybe only 20 milliseconds.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, bullets move very quickly.
>> In 313, the bullet has already passed through JFK's head, which has not
>> been moved backward in the slightest.
>>
>
> Unless the bullet is still in the head and then fell out during the
> autopsy as Hoover said.
>

If the bullet were still in the head, then it would have stopped at that
point (313), and it has not created any backward motion.

/sm