Read The Warren Commission Report (The Whole Thing) -- It Makes Perfect "LN" Sense!

34 views
Skip to first unread message

David VP

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 5:20:45 PM4/8/06
to
The Warren Commission's Final Report on the investigation and details
surrounding the killing of President Kennedy in 1963 isn't a flawless
volume. But it IS the true story, in my opinion.

Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, killed JFK. Not ONE other person,
besides Oswald, has ever (credibly) been linked to President Kennedy's
murder. Not one. That fact, by itself, speaks volumes, IMO.

The alternative, completely-unsupported theories that many conspiracy
believers have "substituted" for the WC's conclusions are far less
credible than anything printed in the 888-Page "Warren Report" or in
its 26 supporting volumes of exhibits and witness testimony.

Let's just concentrate for a moment on two important pages that occupy
space in the Warren Report (WR), regarding the bullet evidence that
proves Oswald's own Italian-made rifle was the instrument of death in
Dallas on 11-22-63. Plus, let's have a gander at the "windshield and
chrome strip" damage that was discovered in the limo after the November
22, 1963, assassination of JFK. ..........

Page 77 (WR):

"Although there is some uncertainty whether the dent in the chrome on
the windshield was present prior to the assassination, {the FBI's
Robert} Frazier testified that the dent "had been caused by some
projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface". If it was
caused by a shot during the assassination, Frazier stated that it would
not have been caused by a bullet traveling at full velocity, but rather
by a fragment traveling at "fairly high velocity". It could have been
caused by either fragment found in the front seat of the limousine."

-------

When trying to piece together the Dealey Plaza shooting, and when
speculating on the possibility that the shot that went through JFK's
back and neck MIGHT have somehow also caused the windshield and chrome
damage to the limo (but later rejecting this hypothesis), the Warren
Commission concluded (on Page #105 of the WR).......

"Had that bullet struck the metal framing, which was dented, it would
have torn a hole in the chrome and penetrated the framing, both inside
and outside the car. At that exit velocity, the bullet would have
penetrated any other metal or upholstery surface of the interior of the
automobile."

-------

The "slowed" bullet that struck the windshield and (possibly, but not
positively) the chrome strip was the HEAD SHOT BULLET (after
fragmenting inside the head of John F. Kennedy). Given the known
evidence, the ONLY possible bullet that could have caused both the
windshield and chrome damage to the vehicle was the bullet that had
just passed through the skull of President Kennedy. Because, given the
FBI analysis, we know the limo damage could not possibly have been
caused by a MISSED shot (unless the shooters were using very
low-powered weapons to shoot the President with, which is just a silly
notion to begin with).

And .... That head-shot bullet positively came out of Lee Harvey
Oswald's rifle, which was found inside Oswald's workplace at the Texas
School Book Depository Building, on the very same floor where Oswald
himself was seen firing a rifle at the President's car at 12:30 PM on
November 22.

It "fits" absolutely perfectly with the scenario of Oswald firing his
6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from above and behind the President.
BOTH larger fragments found in the limo front seat and the "Stretcher
Bullet" found inside Parkland Memorial Hospital (Bullet 'CE399') were
ALL ballistically linked to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of every
other weapon on Earth. ......

Page 85 (WR):

"After independent examinations, both {Robert A.} Frazier and {Joseph
D.} Nicol positively identified the nearly whole bullet from the
stretcher and the two larger bullet fragments found in the Presidential
limousine as having been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
found in the Depository to the exclusion of all other weapons."

-------

The above WR excerpt that verifies beyond any doubt that the two
fragments, as well as CE399, were fired from Oswald's weapon, should
make every conspiracy theorist realize just how utterly silly the
theory of "planting" CE399 at Parkland Hospital truly is.

Since we KNOW that Oswald's C2766 Carcano WAS being fired from the
Depository on November 22, 1963 (and this is VERIFIED beyond any doubt
by the fact there were two bullet fragments FOUND INSIDE THE LIMOUSINE
that came from LHO's rifle) -- this means that any "planting" of CE399
would have been superfluous, because there was ALREADY TRACE EVIDENCE
IN THE CAR THAT WOULD IMPLICATE OSWALD IN THE ASSASSINATION.

Therefore, no "planting" of an Oswald bullet was necessary whatsoever.*

* = Unless you wish to believe that the "plotters" were so fearful that
their Oswald "look-alike" in the Depository would totally MISS
everything in Dealey Plaza, leaving no trace of Oswald's own weapon
anywhere to be recovered, that they therefore insisted upon RISKING
blowing their "Patsy" plot to bits by planting a potentially EXTRA
bullet which would quite possibly not even be needed (had all bullets
been recovered inside John Kennedy and John Connally, which, at the
time when the CE399 bullet would have been "planted", was certainly a
possibility). A very foolish "risk" to take, IMO.

Every single bit of this evidence being discussed here perfectly FITS,
in every way, the "Oswald-Did-It-Alone" (aka: "Lone Nut") scenario. To
a tee. Right down to the obvious conclusion, IMO, of having TWO damaged
areas at the front of the limo -- Chrome / Windshield -- and an exact
equal number of (Oswald's) bullet parts -- TWO -- found in this same
area of the car (front seat). To a tee, it fits.

Because if somebody WASN'T using Oswald's rifle in the Depository, then
HOW did bullet fragments from LHO's Carcano weapon manage to get INTO
THE LIMOUSINE ON NOVEMBER 22ND, 1963?**

** = Or do CTers think that the TWO large bullet fragments found in the
limousine were "planted" there too (like seemingly everything else in
this case that even remotely points an accusing finger at "Saint
Oswald", including, of course, the only other bullet that was
verifiably determined to have struck any victim on November 22 --
CE399)? Frankly, I'm of the opinion that the "Everything Was Faked Or
Fabricated Or Planted" CT excuse has been worn threadbare.

There is no way that conspiracy theorists can adequately (and
believably) write off the wealth of verifiable evidence that shows a
Mr. Oswald to be "guilty as charged". It can't be simply brushed aside
as being "all phony or fake" in some manner. Can't be done while
maintaining anything resembling a straight face, at any rate.

Here's a "Clue" as to what I think the solution to this mystery is:
"OSWALD IN THE DEPOSITORY WITH RIFLE #C2766".***

*** = Rather than the CT option which, I think, is: "JAMES FILES ON THE
KNOLL WITH AN UMBRELLA". ..... No, wait, that's not quite accurate. The
"Umbrella Man" wasn't behind a fence on the "Grassy Knoll"; he was
right out in the open on Elm Street so everybody could see him fire his
"Umbrella Dart" at the President. Oh, what the heck .... who can keep
track of all the crazy conspiracy ideas anyway? They're more abundant
in number than ants at a picnic.

I'd sooner believe it was Colonel Mustard in the Ballroom with a
Boomerang, rather than buy into any of the many screwball conspiracy
theories that have been offered up for the gullible public to swallow.

David Von Pein
March 2005

Walt

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 4:07:56 PM4/10/06
to

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144531245.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Once again,you expose your ignorance VP.... There is a difference between
low powered and low velocity. A low velocity weapon ( like a acp.45) is
still a VERY powerful weapon. A large slow moving bullet doesn't have great
penetrating power but it is still very powerful. The explosion of JFK's head
is exactly the type of damage a .45 can inflict. Incidentally the size of
the dent in the chrome strip is just the right size to have been made by a
.45 caliber bullet. Since the .45 travels at subsonic velocity it is ideal
for use in silenced weapons......

Food for thought.....Don't choke VP.

Walt

Todd W. Vaughan

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 4:11:48 PM4/10/06
to
Walt,

"the size of the dent in the chrome strip is just the right size to
have been made by a
.45 caliber bullet. "


What size was that dent?

And what's your source?

Todd

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 9:07:32 PM4/10/06
to

Of *course* the prosecutor's brief makes sense from the stance of the
prosecution. It's *supposed* to.

But anyone who takes the time to read the underlying evidence knows, the WC
tried to avoid direct conflict, but were willing to simply print outright lies
when they absolutely had to.

It's this underlying evidence that LNT'ers snip out, misrepresent, and run away
from at every opportunity. And should they get cornered, they always have the
weapon of last resort: "Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of
evidence"... which, of course, is simply not true.


In article <1144531245.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>The Warren Commission's Final Report on the investigation and details
>surrounding the killing of President Kennedy in 1963 isn't a flawless
>volume. But it IS the true story, in my opinion.
>
>Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, killed JFK. Not ONE other person,
>besides Oswald, has ever (credibly) been linked to President Kennedy's
>murder. Not one. That fact, by itself, speaks volumes, IMO.
>
>The alternative, completely-unsupported theories that many conspiracy
>believers have "substituted" for the WC's conclusions are far less
>credible than anything printed in the 888-Page "Warren Report" or in
>its 26 supporting volumes of exhibits and witness testimony.


It's those 26 supporting volumes that LNT'ers run screaming in the other
direction when people cite them.

The Warren Commission made the biggest mistake ever when they documented the
proof of their historical sham.

Strangely enough, you rarely hear LNT'ers citing the 26 volumes... that's a
procedure limited to CT'ers.

Speculation is the forte of the LNT'er.

Something that doesn't apparently give a LNT'er any pause at all...
ballistically ignorant, no doubt.


>Given the known
>evidence, the ONLY possible bullet that could have caused both the
>windshield and chrome damage to the vehicle was the bullet that had
>just passed through the skull of President Kennedy. Because, given the
>FBI analysis, we know the limo damage could not possibly have been
>caused by a MISSED shot (unless the shooters were using very
>low-powered weapons to shoot the President with, which is just a silly
>notion to begin with).


Can you cite the FBI experiment where they shot the chrome with the MC?

And tell us what happened?


>And .... That head-shot bullet positively came out of Lee Harvey
>Oswald's rifle, which was found inside Oswald's workplace at the Texas
>School Book Depository Building, on the very same floor where Oswald
>himself was seen firing a rifle


Ah! But he *wasn't*. And you're well aware of this fact. Why bother to lie?


>at the President's car at 12:30 PM on November 22.
>
>It "fits" absolutely perfectly with the scenario of Oswald firing his
>6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from above and behind the President.
>BOTH larger fragments found in the limo front seat and the "Stretcher
>Bullet" found inside Parkland Memorial Hospital (Bullet 'CE399') were
>ALL ballistically linked to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of every
>other weapon on Earth. ......
>
>Page 85 (WR):
>
>"After independent examinations, both {Robert A.} Frazier and {Joseph
>D.} Nicol positively identified the nearly whole bullet from the
>stretcher and the two larger bullet fragments found in the Presidential
>limousine as having been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
>found in the Depository to the exclusion of all other weapons."
>
>-------
>
>The above WR excerpt that verifies beyond any doubt that the two
>fragments, as well as CE399, were fired from Oswald's weapon, should
>make every conspiracy theorist realize just how utterly silly the
>theory of "planting" CE399 at Parkland Hospital truly is.


Why would it? Don't you even *understand* the problem here?


>Since we KNOW that Oswald's C2766 Carcano WAS being fired from the
>Depository on November 22, 1963 (and this is VERIFIED beyond any doubt
>by the fact there were two bullet fragments FOUND INSIDE THE LIMOUSINE
>that came from LHO's rifle) -- this means that any "planting" of CE399
>would have been superfluous, because there was ALREADY TRACE EVIDENCE
>IN THE CAR THAT WOULD IMPLICATE OSWALD IN THE ASSASSINATION.
>
>Therefore, no "planting" of an Oswald bullet was necessary whatsoever.*


This argument, however, is nonsense in two different ways... the conspirators
couldn't know that the limo bullets would be ballistically matchable.

And, the more likely scenario - given the evidence, is that a bullet was
*swapped* with an MC bullet. This explains all the known facts quite neatly.

Something that the WCR was unable to do.


>* = Unless you wish to believe that the "plotters" were so fearful that
>their Oswald "look-alike" in the Depository would totally MISS
>everything in Dealey Plaza, leaving no trace of Oswald's own weapon
>anywhere to be recovered, that they therefore insisted upon RISKING
>blowing their "Patsy" plot to bits by planting a potentially EXTRA
>bullet which would quite possibly not even be needed (had all bullets
>been recovered inside John Kennedy and John Connally, which, at the
>time when the CE399 bullet would have been "planted", was certainly a
>possibility). A very foolish "risk" to take, IMO.

Nonsense. When you *control* the investigation, you can "find" as many bullets
as you need, or "not find" those you don't need.


>Every single bit of this evidence being discussed here perfectly FITS,
>in every way, the "Oswald-Did-It-Alone" (aka: "Lone Nut") scenario. To
>a tee. Right down to the obvious conclusion, IMO, of having TWO damaged
>areas at the front of the limo -- Chrome / Windshield -- and an exact
>equal number of (Oswald's) bullet parts -- TWO -- found in this same
>area of the car (front seat). To a tee, it fits.


Ah! The chrome was hit, SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN A LONE NUT.


The conciseness of your theory is amazing!

>Because if somebody WASN'T using Oswald's rifle in the Depository, then
>HOW did bullet fragments from LHO's Carcano weapon manage to get INTO
>THE LIMOUSINE ON NOVEMBER 22ND, 1963?**


Simple. The Secret Service put them there. This would explain why the limo was
immediately wisked out of the jurisdiction it fell under. I don't happen to
believe this, but you seem to think that bullet fragments couldn't be swapped or
planted. You should open your eyes.


>** = Or do CTers think that the TWO large bullet fragments found in the
>limousine were "planted" there too (like seemingly everything else in
>this case that even remotely points an accusing finger at "Saint
>Oswald", including, of course, the only other bullet that was
>verifiably determined to have struck any victim on November 22 --
>CE399)? Frankly, I'm of the opinion that the "Everything Was Faked Or
>Fabricated Or Planted" CT excuse has been worn threadbare.


Oh, I think most lurkers have figured out that those who need to lie to make
their point, and who 'snip and run' all the time, aren't really the people to
look to for answers.


>There is no way that conspiracy theorists can adequately (and
>believably) write off the wealth of verifiable evidence that shows a
>Mr. Oswald to be "guilty as charged".

Of course they can. The fact that you 'snip and run', and *CAN'T* respond to
refutations, proves the point quite nicely.


>It can't be simply brushed aside
>as being "all phony or fake" in some manner. Can't be done while
>maintaining anything resembling a straight face, at any rate.


The mad snipper 'hinting' that others are dishonest. :)


>Here's a "Clue" as to what I think the solution to this mystery is:
>"OSWALD IN THE DEPOSITORY WITH RIFLE #C2766".***
>
>*** = Rather than the CT option which, I think, is: "JAMES FILES ON THE
>KNOLL WITH AN UMBRELLA". ..... No, wait, that's not quite accurate. The
>"Umbrella Man" wasn't behind a fence on the "Grassy Knoll"; he was
>right out in the open on Elm Street so everybody could see him fire his
>"Umbrella Dart" at the President. Oh, what the heck .... who can keep
>track of all the crazy conspiracy ideas anyway? They're more abundant
>in number than ants at a picnic.
>
>I'd sooner believe it was Colonel Mustard in the Ballroom with a
>Boomerang, rather than buy into any of the many screwball conspiracy
>theories that have been offered up for the gullible public to swallow.


Or the *actual* evidence found in the 26 volumes...


>David Von Pein
>March 2005


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 10:05:37 PM4/10/06
to

Robert Groden explained at the Emerson College conference that he and a
staffer went to the National Archives and the nose of a WCC M-C bullet
fit the dent perfectly.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 10:23:20 PM4/10/06
to

True, but slightly irrelevant.

> still a VERY powerful weapon. A large slow moving bullet doesn't have great
> penetrating power but it is still very powerful. The explosion of JFK's head
> is exactly the type of damage a .45 can inflict. Incidentally the size of

No. The head wound is not consistent with a .45.

> the dent in the chrome strip is just the right size to have been made by a
> .45 caliber bullet. Since the .45 travels at subsonic velocity it is ideal
> for use in silenced weapons......

No, the dent is not the right size for a .45. When Robert Groden was a
consultant to the HSCA he went to the National Archives with a WCC M-C
6.5 mm bullet and the nose fit the dent perfectly.
Yes, a .45 can be used in a silenced weapon, but it is much more likely
to be used in a submachine gun which comes in .45. There was one
silenced weapon which was not automatic and made specifically for .45
caliber called the Destroyer. Developed for use in Vietnam.

Papa Andy

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 9:40:14 AM4/11/06
to
Actually I read the WC from cover to cover when it came out
That was when I started to wonder about the LN theory
That was before Lane, Weisberg, etc.
The section on the interrogation of LHO convinced me that something
strange was going on

A

Todd W. Vaughan

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 1:01:12 PM4/11/06
to
Tony,

>Robert Groden explained at the Emerson College conference that he and a
>staffer went to the National Archives and the nose of a WCC M-C bullet
>fit the dent perfectly.


And after hearing about that I telephoned that HSCA staffer (I can't
recall her name right now, Patricia Orr?) and asked her about this.
She told me it never happened, and that among the HSCA staffers, Groden
was considered a nutcase.

I'm not even sure that the chrome trim piece is in the Archives.

Todd

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 12, 2006, 12:10:31 AM4/12/06
to
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> Tony,
>
>> Robert Groden explained at the Emerson College conference that he and a
>> staffer went to the National Archives and the nose of a WCC M-C bullet
>> fit the dent perfectly.
>
>
> And after hearing about that I telephoned that HSCA staffer (I can't
> recall her name right now, Patricia Orr?) and asked her about this.
> She told me it never happened, and that among the HSCA staffers, Groden
> was considered a nutcase.
>

I am not impressed by that. I don't think it was Patricia Orr.
And why would she know everything that happened? Did she know that
Blahut was tampering with the autopsy photos at the time?

> I'm not even sure that the chrome trim piece is in the Archives.
>

That's what I suspected at first. But I believe it is still there. Are
you aware of any CEs that have been outright destroyed?

> Todd

Gary RJ Strobel

unread,
May 8, 2006, 4:56:37 PM5/8/06
to
After having vicariously enjoyed your many threads over the years, I would
like to get some clarification if I may? I often read threads, more so
recently where someone is stating that this theory or that wound has been
clearly proven/disproved. I often feel, as I am sure many others do, that I
am jumping in the middle of the thread and have obviously missed a great
deal of material, accurate or otherwise... On many occasions I would have
appreciated being able to post a simple question here asking for some kind
of clarification and supportive evidence. I also have numerous questions
that I would love to ask (about 14 years worth), but there are two reasons I
have never posted on these servers in the years I have been here;

1) I often assume that the topic of my question has already been discussed
ad nauseum and didn't want to come across like a complete idiot.

2) The way you folks treat each other here...I find it both horrendous and
astounding. There are many names I have come to recognize over the years and
I see some amazingly qualified researchers here. But the basic premise is
that we all seek answers to the same questions. Like most marriages,
everyone here is not always going to agree with each other, but if I believe
I see something in a photo or video that you don't see, I always concede the
chance I am wrong, but I fail to see the point of why so many here attack
one another personally simply because of differing perspectives.

I would thoroughly enjoy being able to enjoy your discussions here. I think
that there are brilliant and highly educated people here and I would like to
be able to ask the many questions I've had for so many years. I may not be
the professional researcher that so many of you are, but I would like to
think that the background that I have with the military, law enforcement, my
education in law and forensics and my current position as an advanced
paramedic that I may be able to offer reasonable questions and opinions
here. But if nothing else, I would dearly love to think that the only thing
that matters here is my desire to join so many of you to seek the answers,
to seek the truth in what basically boils down to a homicide.

I await your opinions...

Gary S.

Robert Harris

unread,
May 8, 2006, 5:38:21 PM5/8/06
to
On Mon, 08 May 2006 16:56:37 -0400, Gary RJ Strobel
<garys...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>After having vicariously enjoyed your many threads over the years, I would
>like to get some clarification if I may? I often read threads, more so
>recently where someone is stating that this theory or that wound has been
>clearly proven/disproved. I often feel, as I am sure many others do, that I
>am jumping in the middle of the thread and have obviously missed a great
>deal of material, accurate or otherwise... On many occasions I would have
>appreciated being able to post a simple question here asking for some kind
>of clarification and supportive evidence. I also have numerous questions
>that I would love to ask (about 14 years worth), but there are two reasons I
>have never posted on these servers in the years I have been here;
>
>1) I often assume that the topic of my question has already been discussed
>ad nauseum and didn't want to come across like a complete idiot.

You have nothing to fear Gary; both ad nauseum topics and complete
idiots have been primary features of this newsgroup for many years:-)


>
>2) The way you folks treat each other here...I find it both horrendous and
>astounding.

Yes, but if you look closely, you will see that most of it is coming
from about half a dozen or so people.


>There are many names I have come to recognize over the years and
>I see some amazingly qualified researchers here. But the basic premise is
>that we all seek answers to the same questions.

That is certainly what it should be, but I'm afraid it is not.


>Like most marriages,
>everyone here is not always going to agree with each other, but if I believe
>I see something in a photo or video that you don't see, I always concede the
>chance I am wrong, but I fail to see the point of why so many here attack
>one another personally simply because of differing perspectives.

Almost all of the vitriol comes from the extremists on either side of
the conspiracy debate.


>
>I would thoroughly enjoy being able to enjoy your discussions here. I think
>that there are brilliant and highly educated people here

Perhaps, but I haven't seen any since Ray and Mary La Fontaine stopped
posting here.


>and I would like to
>be able to ask the many questions I've had for so many years. I may not be
>the professional researcher that so many of you are, but I would like to
>think that the background that I have with the military, law enforcement, my
>education in law and forensics and my current position as an advanced
>paramedic that I may be able to offer reasonable questions and opinions
>here. But if nothing else, I would dearly love to think that the only thing
>that matters here is my desire to join so many of you to seek the answers,
>to seek the truth in what basically boils down to a homicide.

Well, you certainly have the right attitude. This is indeed, a murder
case and should be treated as such.

Welcome to the group. We are always looking for someone else to join
the brawl:-)

Robert Harris

>
>I await your opinions...
>
>Gary S.
>

There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/

Walt

unread,
May 8, 2006, 6:29:53 PM5/8/06
to
Hello Gary,.... Yer right ....this a rough and tumble N.G.. It's a
shame it isn't more civil, but what the Hell, I'd sooner have the petty
name calling than have some censor clamping his hand over my mouth.
Most folks who post here are honest, albeit some are grossly misguided
in their "thinking" ( or is it lack of thinking?) and some are simply
dishonest trolls. I'm dismayed that you've been lurking all these
years and have felt too intimidated to ask an honest question. I for
one love to respond to an honest question.... But I become frustrated
and angry with people like Von Peon who've got their head so far up
their ass that they can't hear or see anything.

At anyrate now that you've jumped in.....enjoy the swim.

Walt

Gary RJ Strobel

unread,
May 8, 2006, 6:16:18 PM5/8/06
to
Thank you Robert,

I have always got a chuckle out of many of your "debates" not because of the
material presented, rather because of this sparing you folks seem to do. I
am certain there are agencies that appreciate the infighting since a simple
policy has always been to divide and conquer. I see it daily with my
co-workers...we all tend to eat our own and I see the same thing happen
here. The sad part for me is that with the sheer numbers and brilliance of
all the people on these servers, combined, you are all a massive force to be
reckoned with, whereas divided, you can more easily be dismissed.
I've enjoyed my conversations with people like Dr Wecht and yes, even Mr
Groden. While I agree that Bob has made several erroneous statements rater
publicly over the years, I also have to say that his mistakes should not
take away from some of the work he has done with the visual media. Besides
which, I admire the fact that people like Bob and Ceril had the balls to
stand up and publicly voice their opinions. I am wondering if the
qualifications of those asserting "facts" is known here? While their
experience and education may be apparent by their posts, I am rather curious
to know if the professional qualifications of these folks as they relate to
the research at hand is known to all of you. I make no false claims of any
expertise as a "JFK Researcher", but I would like to think my career
experiences and professional training as well as my simple passion to see
the end of a cold case might somehow contribute in a positive way?
I suppose that was just a long way of saying it would be nice to know the
caliber of people that I am talking to here.

Thanks again for your kind welcome...

Gary


On 5/8/06 5:38 PM, in article 445fb698...@news20.forteinc.com, "Robert

tomnln

unread,
May 8, 2006, 7:27:34 PM5/8/06
to
Rather than depend on someone else's Opinion, I suggest you read the WCR &
26 volumes for yourself.

http://history-matters.com/

"Gary RJ Strobel" <garys...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:C08528C5.2581%garys...@sympatico.ca...

Sam

unread,
May 8, 2006, 8:49:25 PM5/8/06
to
hello gary, comments inserted below

"Gary RJ Strobel" <garys...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:C08528C5.2581%garys...@sympatico.ca...

> After having vicariously enjoyed your many threads over the years, I would
> like to get some clarification if I may? I often read threads, more so
> recently where someone is stating that this theory or that wound has been
> clearly proven/disproved. I often feel, as I am sure many others do, that
> I
> am jumping in the middle of the thread and have obviously missed a great
> deal of material, accurate or otherwise... On many occasions I would have
> appreciated being able to post a simple question here asking for some kind
> of clarification and supportive evidence. I also have numerous questions
> that I would love to ask (about 14 years worth), but there are two reasons
> I
> have never posted on these servers in the years I have been here;
>
> 1) I often assume that the topic of my question has already been discussed
> ad nauseum and didn't want to come across like a complete idiot.

no need to assume,
you can find most past posts on google's archives here:
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
enter search words in the first slot labeled "with all the words"
then put alt.conspiracy.jfk in the slot labeled "Return only messages from
the group at this location"
and click on Google Search
you can fine tune your searches but those are some basics

>
> 2) The way you folks treat each other here...I find it both horrendous and
> astounding.

one alternative to this open forum is the censored private school group,
which is a warren commission cheerleading section


> There are many names I have come to recognize over the years and
> I see some amazingly qualified researchers here. But the basic premise is
> that we all seek answers to the same questions. Like most marriages,
> everyone here is not always going to agree with each other, but if I
> believe
> I see something in a photo or video that you don't see, I always concede
> the
> chance I am wrong, but I fail to see the point of why so many here attack
> one another personally simply because of differing perspectives.
>
> I would thoroughly enjoy being able to enjoy your discussions here. I
> think
> that there are brilliant and highly educated people here and I would like
> to
> be able to ask the many questions I've had for so many years. I may not be
> the professional researcher that so many of you are, but I would like to
> think that the background that I have with the military, law enforcement,
> my
> education in law and forensics and my current position as an advanced
> paramedic that I may be able to offer reasonable questions and opinions
> here. But if nothing else, I would dearly love to think that the only
> thing
> that matters here is my desire to join so many of you to seek the answers,
> to seek the truth in what basically boils down to a homicide.

actually it's much more complicated than a homicide, hence the title of this
discussion group

some here know there was a conspiracy, that knowledge perpetuates this group

Gary RJ Strobel

unread,
May 8, 2006, 10:57:43 PM5/8/06
to
Thank you Sam,

I appreciate the info...I have bookmarked and flagged that search html.
I was looking for the film authentication proof that was referenced earlier,
although it is unclear to me who made this claim? Didn't find anything
specific although I have previously read a report that was done a while back
regarding this authentication.

>Why would you even bother replying to crap like that?
>And you seem to forget that I was the guy who proved that the Zapruder
>film is authentic and I believe it shows conspiracy.

Would it be Ben that wrote this? I would certainly be interesting in looking
over whatever info you have learned in order to prove this. Problem I have
is there was a chain of custody issue with the original film as I understand
it, and perhaps you could clarify for me what happened regarding this film
being spliced and damaged? My concern was in the timing which I have
concerns with when comparing vehicular speeds to immobile objects and then
correlated to the what, 18 frames per second? Was it not a fact then that
frames were removed and reinserted? The detail brought out by showing the
data around the sprockets certainly helped, and while I believe that this is
the film shot at that time, what proof do we have to a certainty that no
alterations had taken place? I apologize if I am asking a redundant
question, but you folks have been kind enough to make me feel welcomed and
encouraged me to ask.

Thank you also to Walk and Tomnin. I have read a large part of the WC
material and I would be the first to admit its great for putting me to
sleep. While I cannot fault all conclusions, I must admit there were many
questions that should have been asked that were not, and others that were
just not followed. My logic leads me to wonder that if the WC data was all
that thorough, complete and accurate, then why did a second official
investigation recommend to Justice to pursue further investigation (which of
course was never done) and why did they accuse government agencies of
substandard practices and cooperation with the WC? One thing that comes to
mind also to ask is has there been much if any documentation released from
Bobby's days at Justice? I guess my thought was that if my brother was
assassinated, irrespective of ANYONE's conclusions, and I was the AG, I'd
certainly be doing some digging of my own. Has there ever been any docs
released that showed Robert doing anything of the sort?

Anyhow, I have lots more and while I do google everything first, I find the
opinions here valuable, yep LN and CT alike. I suppose my careers have
taught me that there is rarely such a thing as coincidence though...

No more lurking...

Gary


On 5/8/06 8:49 PM, in article 125vpoo...@corp.supernews.com, "Sam"
<jfk...@sammcclung.com> wrote:

> alt.conspiracy.jfk

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages