• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Bruce Fernandez

Members
  • Content count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bruce Fernandez

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/08/1941

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    bruce_fernandez@msn.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    CT
  • Interests
    JFK, Pitzer, US Govt perfidy

Recent Profile Visitors

907 profile views
  1. Is there a "go to first unread post" option that I'm missing?
  2. Jon ... right around the corner ... Farmington 860-677-7073
  3. Jon, No immediate argument here, BUT: I think your analysis needs to be brought to a conclusive statement of what you propose actually happened with regard to the PMO. Who did what, why and when. Thanks
  4. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/ I hope that works for most folks, I think other references are available, but I'll need to deal with other stuff later.
  5. Paul, all I believe that the "evidence" shows that the windshield showed a "hole that you could put a "pen in"" at Parkland, that's what I refer to as a "through and through". Obviously there are folks who interpret the evidence differently, however I favor that interpretation of early observations. If that (the shot/windshield hole) happened, as I and others believe, then the driver was certainly seriously distracted in the instant. Additionally, if that happened, as I believe, then the Parkland witnesses (Dr's) corroborate an in-shot in the neck and the likelihood (certain hood) of (at least) a second shooter. I am certainly interested in "the umbrella man" and/or a silent poison shot(though not yet persuaded by specific observations of that sort of action). Do you know of any?. I am, as well, certainly distracted by the "English protestation umbrella reference" interpretation, though not persuaded by evidence that there is deadly intent there. Please don't be distracted by what I refer to as evidence or "lack of evidence". For the most part I'm only referring to what I can find on this site, though I've surely tried to sort this stuff out on other sites. If I need to defend "Motorcade Stopping" reference, I'll, at a minimum, suggest the issue of a shot through the windshield, an interesting question in itself.
  6. Just a point to consider and include in the logic of the observations: If we believe that the first wound to JFK came from a "through & through" from the windshield to JFK's throat (I believe this), then a judgment hesitation on the part of the driver is more understandable (though his training should have instructed him as Greg suggests). I know that convoy leadership training is to drive through an ambush. I also know that basic instinct needs to be overcome (training) to accomplish that.
  7. Not "LOL", unless you're just jesting. Bottom lip thickness is different, as well. Or do a better job yourself than Gaal at comparing extant likenesses and show it to us. I imagine that it's a bit of work, but if you're looking for credibility, deal with the issue, not LOL, or perhaps start a new topic titled "LOL" and post there. I, for one, am tired of posts that have no competing substance, just sarcasm and time (and bandwidth, though I think mine is nearly infinite) wasting obfuscation. The issue, sir, is not the credibility of the poster, but the credibility of his/her post. Deal with it. Do you and DVP communicate regularly?
  8. Different curvature on the nose openings, now that's hard to change, regardless of age and timing.
  9. LBJ said his report was "four inches thick." That's twice the size of the 2" thick WC Summary, which never references #11130, so isn't bound by that Executive Order. Where is that report today?
  10. Unfortunately, for whom I don't know, yes, I don't believe them. I'm a hunter (and I suppose killer) from Vermont and the US Army. If my bullets (and most were jacketed) had passed through the deer without expanding or tumbling, I'd have eaten a lot less venison. It's nonsense. If I (and 58,000 others in VietNam) had depended on that sort of thinking, we'd have figured out a way to convey to our comrades how to modify our ammo so it would have a lethal effect on our enemy. Thankfully, we didn't need to do that. I don't know what the motivation was of the authors of that segment was, but I do know that the Discovery Channel has been accused of favoring the government position on this issue (for what it's worth, not much). Don't argue ammo with me, won't work.
  11. David I'll not limit you to "one more question". There are more questions than cogent answers in this case. I stipulated in my previous answer to you that I have serious concerns with the autopsy results. I am similarly (as you, apparently) puzzled that there are two reported bullet entrances (throat & back) and no bullets (other than fragments in the brain)found in the cadaver or Connaly. I do think the Naval (and Army) officers that did the autopsy, while inexperienced in murder cases, were not inclined to deceit. They, however, may have been influenced to report in such a way as to not inflame public opinion, a conclusion I abhor and don't really understand. I have not stipulated, I don't think, that I believe that the weapons used were high powered (2000 FPS or better) weapons. One problem in that area I have, though, with the evidence is that if you believe that the bullet presented in evidence today, if actually fired with adequate powder load, hitting the flesh and bones reported, ended up un scathed (for the most part) is a real representation of the activity in Dealey Plaza that day, then you are representing something other than accepted reality. (Please don't go to the "what is accepted" mode)
  12. David I'm afraid I don't have a firm "think" on that yet. I know, the lawyers say that was a yes or no question, but then I would like to remind them of my oath to tell "the whole truth", neither they or the judges, I think, would like that interpretation. If the barrel of the MC in evidence was "rusted" the next day, as was reported, then I don't believe that weapon did any shooting that day. If just "pitted", then OK. I'm puzzled by the chicken bones, I don't think LHO had fried chicken for lunch (Frazier ... no lunch bag). I think there was a through & through hole in the windshield that was from the bullet that entered the President's throat. I'm concerned that we don't know where that bullet ended up in the body, (or, for that matter came from) but convinced from photos that the throat wound was of entrance. This also gives me major pause about the autopsy (which is where I have personal interest). I think Tague was hit by curbing splashed up from a missed shot from behind the motorcade (TSBD?). I think JFK had a major blow out of the rear of his head from a shot from the side. I don't know how many shots were fired in total but I'm concerned that if it was 3 (as many eye witness reports have it and matched by expended shells in the snipers nest), something is seriously out of balance and suggests planted evidence, implying government intervention and prior planning. David, I've laid out some of my thinking process here. This is a miserable morass of data, it's really hard for me to understand hard positions one way or the other. Bruce
  13. And I'm not "bringing it up", just trying to discern truth, asking questions.
  14. Because I have a personal connection and interest.