Lone Gunman Theorists: Please explain
Tracy Riddle
Michael Beck wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:02:46 GMT, tom...@mindspring.com (Tom and Ellen
> Rossley) wrote:
>
> >Michae...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
> >>The shots were fired in 8.1 seconds.
> >
> >THANK YOU MICHAEL!!!! APPARENTLY YOU ALSO AGREE THAT THE WARREN
> >REPORT IS "WRONG"......
> >
> > regards, tomnln
>
> Yes I do (on that matter) Sir/Madam.
Pretty soon the lone-nutters will be arguing that Oswald had ten or
fifteen minutes to do the shooting.
Keith Adler
The most damning evidence against the lone gunman theory is the following:
1. How did Jack Ruby know the exact name of LHO's Fair Play for Cuba
Comittee at the press conference?
2. The 5.6 seconds to get off three shots as proven in the Zapruder film
Please discredit the above.
Michael Beck
>The most damning evidence against the lone gunman theory is the following:
>
>1. How did Jack Ruby know the exact name of LHO's Fair Play for Cuba
>Comittee at the press conference?
It was in the papers.
>2. The 5.6 seconds to get off three shots as proven in the Zapruder film
>
>Please discredit the above.
>
Steve Keating
Keith Adler wrote:
>
> The most damning evidence against the lone gunman theory is the following:
>
> 1. How did Jack Ruby know the exact name of LHO's Fair Play for Cuba
> Comittee at the press conference?
>
> Please discredit the above.
OK.
1. Ruby had been involved at the police station and talking with
reporters about any info he could get on LHO. Wade and others put out
all sorts of info like this on LHO. Anyone interested in LHO would pick
it up. It turns out that Ruby was not only interested, but obsessed with
it. And he had many more police and press contacts than most.
2. There is no definitive time frame for the shooting. And the Z film
certainly does *not* prove one. The 5.6 second figure was mentioned in
the WR as a possible time frame based upon LHO not having a good sight
picture until frame 210. They then ended the timeframe at 313. But they
also said that LHO could have had up to 7.5 seconds. But the WC missed
evidence that indicated an early shot at around 155-165 that meant that
LHO had upwards of 8.5 seconds to shoot. It would have been hard to miss
such short, easy shots.
Steve K.
Bruce J Schuck
Michael Beck wrote in message <34a7baf2...@snews.zippo.com>...
>On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:25:05 -0500, "Keith Adler"
><ey_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>The most damning evidence against the lone gunman theory is the following:
>>
>>1. How did Jack Ruby know the exact name of LHO's Fair Play for Cuba
>>Comittee at the press conference?
>It was in the papers.
Uh huh.
>
>>2. The 5.6 seconds to get off three shots as proven in the Zapruder film
>>
>>Please discredit the above.
>>
>The shots were fired in 8.1 seconds.
Posner claims Z160 for a shot that hit a tree branch (no branches were
really
in the way).
The HSCA said there was a shot at Z190 that wounded JFK and JBC.
Current nutters claim that a shot was fired Z223.
Head shot at 313.
The miss Foster saw.
The hit on the concreate apron around the manhole cover.
The Tague wounding.
Hmmmm. 7 shots in 8.1 seconds A NEW WORLD RECORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jerry Organ
Bruce J Schuck wrote:
> Posner claims Z160 for a shot that hit a tree branch (no branches were
> really in the way). The HSCA said there was a shot at Z190 that wounded
> JFK and JBC. Current nutters claim that a shot was fired Z223. Head shot
> at 313. The miss Foster saw. The hit on the concreate apron around the
> manhole cover. The Tague wounding.
>
> Hmmmm. 7 shots in 8.1 seconds A NEW WORLD RECORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only a buff could transform three clearly-defined shots (see Posner) into seven. Nothing better
illustrates Schuck's brain processes.
Jerry Organ
Bruce J Schuck
In article <34969C...@ns.sympatico.ca>, joj...@ns.sympatico.ca says...
Is this the same Posner who lied and said the wound in JBC's back
was the same length as the bullet?
--
Please remove the nospamatall from my return address
to actually contact me. (Don't bother if you are JMcAdams@anywhere)
Tom and Ellen Rossley
Michae...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:25:05 -0500, "Keith Adler"
><ey_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>The most damning evidence against the lone gunman theory is the following:
>>
>>1. How did Jack Ruby know the exact name of LHO's Fair Play for Cuba
>>Comittee at the press conference?
>It was in the papers.
THIS WAS AT THE FRIDAY NIGHT PRESS CONFERENCS MICHAEL... WHAT PAPER
COULD RUBY HAVE SEEN??? (FBI/CIA/DPD)????
>
>>2. The 5.6 seconds to get off three shots as proven in the Zapruder film
>>
>>Please discredit the above.
>>
>The shots were fired in 8.1 seconds.
THANK YOU MICHAEL!!!! APPARENTLY YOU ALSO AGREE THAT THE WARREN
Michael Beck
>Michae...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:25:05 -0500, "Keith Adler"
>><ey_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The most damning evidence against the lone gunman theory is the following:
>>>
>>>1. How did Jack Ruby know the exact name of LHO's Fair Play for Cuba
>>>Comittee at the press conference?
>>It was in the papers.
>
>THIS WAS AT THE FRIDAY NIGHT PRESS CONFERENCS MICHAEL... WHAT PAPER
>COULD RUBY HAVE SEEN??? (FBI/CIA/DPD)????
It was an internal memo from his CIA handler.
>
>>
>>>2. The 5.6 seconds to get off three shots as proven in the Zapruder film
>>>
>>>Please discredit the above.
>>>
>>The shots were fired in 8.1 seconds.
>
>THANK YOU MICHAEL!!!! APPARENTLY YOU ALSO AGREE THAT THE WARREN
>REPORT IS "WRONG"......
>
> regards, tomnln
Yes I do (on that matter) Sir/Madam.
Howard Rogers
Steve Keating wrote in message <3496CD...@lucent.com>...
>Keith Adler wrote:
>>
>> The most damning evidence against the lone gunman theory is the
following:
>>
>> 1. How did Jack Ruby know the exact name of LHO's Fair Play for Cuba
>> Comittee at the press conference?
>> 2. The 5.6 seconds to get off three shots as proven in the Zapruder film
>>
>> Please discredit the above.
>
>OK.
>
>1. Ruby had been involved at the police station and talking with
>reporters about any info he could get on LHO. Wade and others put out
>all sorts of info like this on LHO. Anyone interested in LHO would pick
>it up. It turns out that Ruby was not only interested, but obsessed with
>it. And he had many more police and press contacts than most.
>
This sounds weak to me Steve. On the other hand, it makes no sense for a
super-secret conspiracy to have its henchmen wandering around publicising
the fact that they have 'insider' knowledge.
The whole thing is extremely strange.
>2. There is no definitive time frame for the shooting. And the Z film
>certainly does *not* prove one. The 5.6 second figure was mentioned in
>the WR as a possible time frame based upon LHO not having a good sight
>picture until frame 210. They then ended the timeframe at 313. But they
>also said that LHO could have had up to 7.5 seconds. But the WC missed
>evidence that indicated an early shot at around 155-165 that meant that
>LHO had upwards of 8.5 seconds to shoot. It would have been hard to miss
>such short, easy shots.
>
>Steve K.
Regards
HJR
Tony Pitman
Jerry Organ wrote:
> Bruce J Schuck wrote:
>
> > Posner claims Z160 for a shot that hit a tree branch (no branches
> were
> > really in the way). The HSCA said there was a shot at Z190 that
> wounded
> > JFK and JBC. Current nutters claim that a shot was fired Z223. Head
> shot
> > at 313. The miss Foster saw. The hit on the concreate apron around
> the
> > manhole cover. The Tague wounding.
> >
> > Hmmmm. 7 shots in 8.1 seconds A NEW WORLD RECORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Only a buff could transform three clearly-defined shots (see Posner)
> into seven. Nothing better
> illustrates Schuck's brain processes.
>
> Jerry Organ
Yeah, well how do you explain the various marks indicating misses.
There was the one mentioned above, another back on the sidewalk on the
north side of Elm, another adjacent to where Tague was standing and also
the bullet that was found in the grass.
They were all fresh marks and at least two were soon to be filled in
with cement or some such. I'm not sure if the one by the manhole was
also filled in .
Tony
George Lamm, Jr.
Michael Beck wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:02:46 GMT, tom...@mindspring.com (Tom and Ellen
> Rossley) wrote:
>
> >Michae...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:25:05 -0500, "Keith Adler"
> >>
> >>>The most damning evidence against the lone gunman theory is the following:
> >>>
> >>>1. How did Jack Ruby know the exact name of LHO's Fair Play for Cuba
> >>>Comittee at the press conference?
> >
> >THIS WAS AT THE FRIDAY NIGHT PRESS CONFERENCS MICHAEL... WHAT PAPER
> >COULD RUBY HAVE SEEN??? (FBI/CIA/DPD)????
>
> It was an internal memo from his CIA handler.
Mike...
Where can I get a copy of this memo??? later... george
> >
> >>
> >>>2. The 5.6 seconds to get off three shots as proven in the Zapruder film
> >>>
> >>>Please discredit the above.
> >>>
George Lamm, Jr.
Steve Keating wrote:
>
> Keith Adler wrote:
> >
> > The most damning evidence against the lone gunman theory is the following:
> >
> > 1. How did Jack Ruby know the exact name of LHO's Fair Play for Cuba
> > Comittee at the press conference?
> >
> > Please discredit the above.
>
>
> 1. Ruby had been involved at the police station and talking with
> reporters about any info he could get on LHO. Wade and others put out
> all sorts of info like this on LHO. Anyone interested in LHO would pick
> it up. It turns out that Ruby was not only interested, but obsessed with
> it. And he had many more police and press contacts than most.
>
> certainly does *not* prove one. The 5.6 second figure was mentioned in
> the WR as a possible time frame based upon LHO not having a good sight
> picture until frame 210. They then ended the timeframe at 313. But they
> also said that LHO could have had up to 7.5 seconds. But the WC missed
> evidence that indicated an early shot at around 155-165 that meant that
> LHO had upwards of 8.5 seconds to shoot. It would have been hard to miss
> such short, easy shots.
>
> Steve K.
Steve...
Are you saying the first JFK hit occurred during frames 155-156???
later... george
Steve Keating
No. There has been no evidence found that indicates that the first early
shot hit anyone in the limo. I believe the evidence shows that the first
hit on JFK was to his back/neck at 223-224 when we see his dramatic
reaction to trauma.
Steve K.
Jerry Organ
Tony Pitman wrote:
> Yeah, well how do you explain the various marks indicating misses.
> There was the one mentioned above, another back on the sidewalk
> on the north side of Elm, another adjacent to where Tague was
> standing and also the bullet that was found in the grass.
Tony, I'll try to answer.
In his landmark study "Pictures of the Pain," Richard Trask examines the suspicious "spot"
photographed in the turf next to the sewer cover on south Elm:
Photographer Jim Murray suggested the dark spot was "heel marks ... (or possibly) matter from
Kennedy's skull." Trask, who examined Murray's originals, called the photos "too inconclusive."
Foster and Murray deny there was, in your words, a "bullet that was found in the grass."
According to Gary Mack, the "scar" on the north Elm sidewalk was removed and tested in a
study commissioned by The Dallas Morning News in the mid-70s. Nothing was found to indicate
a bullet had struck there. As Mack wrote: "Why would the brillant assassination plotters leave
behind proof of their crime when anyone could have drilled out the 'scar' in a matter of
minutes?"
The curbstone near Tague was examined by the WC and I believe is stored at the National
Archives. It was clearly caused by a shot from the vicinity of the Depository. I part company with
Posner who believes a fragment from the headshot caused the mark.
> They were all fresh marks and at least two were soon to be filled
> in with cement or some such. I'm not sure if the one by the manhole
> was also filled in .
Only the turf mark could be considered "fresh." Please explain which were "soon to be filled in
cement or some such?"
Jerry Organ
"Groden Grains," Smoking Gun, Myths Resolved, Annotated Bibliography:
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jojoan/grains.html
Steve Keating
Bruce J Schuck wrote:
> Is this the same Posner who lied and said the wound in JBC's back
> was the same length as the bullet?
Did he lie, Bruce. You confirmed youself that the bullet was 1.17 inches
long and JBC's back wound was also 1.17 inches long. Is that not
correct?
Steve K.
Bruce J Schuck
In article <3497FE...@lucent.com>, jkea...@lucent.com says...
>
>Bruce J Schuck wrote:
>
>> Is this the same Posner who lied and said the wound in JBC's back
>> was the same length as the bullet?
>
>Did he lie, Bruce. You confirmed youself that the bullet was 1.17 inches
>long and JBC's back wound was also 1.17 inches long. Is that not
>correct?
No Steve. JBC's doctor testified his pre-operative wound
was about a centimeter in length.
A centimeter is .4 inches, 1/3rd the length of the bullet.
The largest clothing hole was 15mm long, about .6 inches,
which is *HALF* the length of the bullet.
Posner lied.
You keep propagating the lie.
Stop it.
Bruce J Schuck
In article <3497D2...@lucent.com>, jkea...@lucent.com says...
>
>George Lamm, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> Steve Keating wrote:
>> >
>> > Keith Adler wrote:
>> > >
>>ence that indicated an early shot at around 155-165 that meant that
>> > LHO had upwards of 8.5 seconds to shoot. It would have been hard to miss
>> > such short, easy shots.
>> >
>> > Steve K.
>>
>> Steve...
>> Are you saying the first JFK hit occurred during frames 155-156???
>> later... george
>
>No. There has been no evidence found that indicates that the first early
>shot hit anyone in the limo.
Wow. That means the shooter had to miss by about 4 feet to miss
the Limo completely since the view at that frame was almost
directly into the Limo.
And don't pas on Posners lie about the branch.
There was no branch in the way in that frame.
He lied.
Quit passing on his lies as truth.
Blackburst
>1. How did Jack Ruby know the exact name of LHO's Fair Play for Cuba
>Comittee at the press conference?
Sorry, Keith, but this point is a nonstarter, not worthy of wasting time on.
The correct name of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was all over TV and radio.
See the book "Seventy Hours and Thirty Minutes" on page 28 to see that NBC
broadcast the name at about 7:00pm est. See the WFAA Tapes to find the name
broacast repeatedly on ABC starting at about the same time. This was several
hours before Wade's press conference.
oo
Dave
R2JUDGE
>Subject: Lone Gunman Theorists: Please explain
>From: "Keith Adler" <ey_...@email.msn.com>
>Date: Tue, Dec 16, 1997 11:25 EST
>Message-id: <e4MaL8jC9GA.237@upnetnews03>
>
>The most damning evidence against the lone gunman theory is the following:
>
>Comittee at the press conference?
>
>Please discredit the above.
No problem.
1. The press conference was held at midnight, 11 hours after
Kennedy was killed and 9 hours after Oswald was arrested.
That Oswald was a "fair play for cuba" member could have been
all over the news by then and Ruby could have heard it from the radio or even a
journalist he talked to at the police station.
Or even one of the police officers he knew. So there are several
possibilities.
2. 5.6 seconds. I count 4.8 and only 2 shots actually fired.
Having fired an M16 at targets in Army basic training, I find
it would have taken 4-5 seconds to properly fire 2 rounds with
a bolt action rifle (with the intention of hitting the target). The zapruder
film shows two hits, at Z224
and Z313. Those were the only shots fired.
Ah, that third shell. It was already in the rifle, having never been ejected
from the previous use.
The third gunshot sound... Well everybody seems so willing to ignore that a
gun fired in an area surrounded by buildings is
going to create secondary sound artifacts. Everybody is so
predisposed to each sound being a separate bullet - but the
reality is that a single gunshot can create multiple sounds that
people can percieve as separate shots.
My talley is 2 shots in 4.8 sec.
Ron Judge