Jump to content
The Education Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. No, I'm saying Brewer viewed the strange actions of the man and the cops tearing up the street as somehow related, then decided to follow who he thought be a suspicious person. In other words, since we can't find a radio broadcast that mentions an Oak Cliff shooting together with a description of the shooter, Brewer followed him only for the reasons mentioned above
  3. Then why did he follow Oswald up the street to the theater? Just for the exercise? And why did Brewer ask Postal to call the police? Did he do that because he DIDN'T think the strange-acting man who was ducking the police sirens had done anything wrong that day?
  4. Today
  5. My pleasure Jim. No idea who interviewed her and as for a transcript, I am not sure either. This is based on one of Dale’s great shows with Blunt. Blunt stated that her interview may turn up in the 2017 release. He did not say who interviewed her but that there were notes taken of her interview.
  6. Could it be that Brewer didn't say anything to Postal because Brewer knew the man since he had previously sold him a pair of size 8-1/2 crepe soled shoes, and maybe he thought, even though he's acting strange, he did not believe he was the shooter?
  7. OMG, the NY Times, the W Post must have mentioned us. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/obituaries/james-mccord-watergate-dead.html Again, thanks to Rob and Stephanie, Steve Jones and Jerry Policoff.
  8. Here is another one https://triblive.com/news/politics-election/james-mccord-watergate-conspirator-who-linked-break-in-to-white-house-dies-at-93/
  9. Well, it took over two weeks but its finally out there and they mention K and K. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/james-mccord-watergate-richard-nixon-impeachment/2019/04/18/id/912397/ BTW, did the Washington Post mention us also?
  10. I gather some of you think the frontal shot is not proven enough.
  11. So there was a wound in the right temple hairline, that was not examined during the autopsy. Though Jenkins says Humes and Finck started to but were stooped by Burkley.
  12. I think you'd better listen to it again. Because you're totally misrepresenting what Brewer said when he used the words "brown shirt" for the only time in that '64 interview. It was Brewer HIMSELF who was describing Oswald to Julia Postal. He wasn't referring to any radio description there. And, of course, Brewer HIMSELF could easily see that Oswald was wearing a "brown shirt". So that's what he told Postal.
  13. Tom Robinson said that he was under the impression that the right temple wound represented an exit for a fragment. PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy? ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it. PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound. ROBINSON: Yes. PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on? ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side. PURDY: On his right side? ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes. PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline? ROBINSON: Yes. PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair? ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples. PURDY: Approximately what size? ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch. PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors? ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it. [...] PURDY: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in the back? ROBINSON: That's all. [...] Purdy: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area? Robinson: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time. Purdy: What did you feel caused that wound. Robinson: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel. Conzelman: Did it pierce the entire scull, could you see from the inside that it was evident from the inside scull as well as outside? Robinson: The inside of the scull was badly smashed, it could have well been a piece of bone that passed through there or [...] Purdy: Do you feel that any significant portion of the bullet after it hit the head, exited from the head, not just being picked up by the doctors? Do you feel that possibly exited, where could some if exited from the head? If any. You mentioned one possibly was that right temple. Robinson: Yes, that did go through my mind. Well they had the little pieces, They picked them out. Purdy: So you feel that's the only place that the significant size of the bullet could have exited. Robinson: It was no bullet, it was a fragment or a piece of the bone. Purdy: You would say that there is no other part of the head where that bullet would exited or a part of the bullet? Were there other little holes anywhere? Robinson: No. [...] Purdy: And your feeling about the forehead, you felt then and you feel now that was caused by what? Robinson: A piece of bone or metal exiting.
  14. No problem, got to the 2:00 mark;
  15. Never read about this Tony. Might you have a link? I'd like to hear him say this myself. But I did read the other day about Dennis David telling I think it was the ARRB that on the 25th of November 1963 in the office of William Pitzer, he saw a photograph of JFK's head with a small/entry wound in the hairline of the right temple. As the lunchtime bridge player with Pitzer, given Pitzer's position of controlling the remote filming in the morgue I think it's a credible possibility. Just can't remember where I read it. Anyone else ever seen this? Seems like he mentioned he and Pitzer discussed the observation. Wish I could provide the link. I'll look some more myself. Maybe it was in The Eye Of History.
  16. re: Johnny Brewer's 1964 CBS interview Brewer also says that there man he saw in the store portal "matched the description" of the shooter - a man wearing "a brown shirt". But none of the immediate descriptions broadcast of the Tippitt shooting mention a brown shirt, they all describe the shooter as wearing a white shirt. As John Armstrong noted.
  17. Jim The August 2012 Martin Hay critique (in Kennedys and King) of Paul Chambers' book is not that flattering or conclusive: In my view, Chambers' handling of the medical evidence is by far the most disappointing aspect of this book. I found myself shaking my head in several places, and I think my jaw actually dropped at one point. He makes a number of bold statements without backing them up or even mentioning the evidence to the contrary. He pushes an outdated and incredible theory involving the handling of Kennedy's body. And he makes one particular claim that many may find beyond belief. Taking what some readers may feel is too long a digression in what is a fairly slim book ostensibly about the Kennedy assassination, Chambers attempts to explain “How Science Arrives At the Truth.” Therefore the reader must make a choice between Chambers' reconstruction of the head shot—which is based on a dismissal of both the hard evidence of the X-rays and the soft evidence of the Dallas doctors' testimonies—and his acceptance of the dictabelt which the author previously told us has only a 1 in 11 billion chance of not being an authentic recording of the shots. The two are not compatible. In the end I believe this contradiction sums up Chambers' work. Despite telling us that “Consistency with other evidence is very important to scientists” he appears to have studied each point in isolation and then cherry-picked the details that fit his own thesis. The one point it can really be said that Dr. G. Paul Chambers Ph. D. both makes and proves in his book is that credentials and a good reputation are no proof against being wrong. Gene
  18. Another interesting part of Ricky Chism's interview is that his father told him he was tackled to the ground after turned to run up the slope. The person that tackled him kept asking "where's your weapon?" This too has corroboration; Lem Johns of the Secret Service; "When the shots sounded, I was looking to the right and saw a man standing and then being thrown or hit to the ground"
  19. The single bullet is a theory, aided by moving a wound and zig zagging in the air, disproven by the simple fact Perry knew what he saw was an entrance wound in the throat. A defense lawyer for Oswald would have ate this up. Dr. Perry, how may years have you been an ER surgeon? How many gunshot wounds would you estimate you've seen? You are familiar with the difference in a entrance wound opposed to one of exit. Can you explain those differences and why you concluded on 11/22/63 the Presidents throat wound was one of Entrance? Oswald's guilt as a lone nut is a theory. Based on a lack of evidence.
  20. I don't recall anything like that coming out in Julia Postal's testimony. But, interestingly, in that 1964 CBS-TV interview, Brewer claims that in addition to the fact that he said Oswald was acting scared, he (Brewer) was also relying on the physical description of the suspect in the President's assassination ("5-8, 5-9, 150 pounds"). Brewer said he had heard that description on the radio before he ever saw Oswald that day. Brewer actually implies in the '64 interview that he had also heard the description of Tippit's killer being given out on the radio as well (although when he refers to the shooting of the officer, it's quite possible that Brewer was still talking about the description of the man suspected of shooting the President). But I think there might, indeed, have been a bit of unintentional "conflation" on Mr. Brewer's part concerning the timelines and when he might have heard certain things on the radio. The 1964 CBS interview had previously led me to speculate that Brewer possibly might have been listening to a police scanner on November 22nd in his shoe store. But after checking Brewer's Warren Commission testimony, I learned that the "police scanner" idea could not be accurate, because Brewer told the Commission this: "We were listening to a transistor radio there in the store, just listening to a regular radio program."
  21. I was listening to the early KLIF broadcast and they quote Burkley as saying right temple.
  22. Thanks as I was unaware of that. There is no transcript of her in the ARRB files? Do you know who interviewed her?
  23. BTW, I have always found Charles Robinson credible on this also. If you recall, he was the mortician sent over by Grawler's that night. After commenting on how the morgue was so full and loud it was like a party, he then got to work. He said that when he moved JFK's hair from his right temple, it looked like a bullet hole to him that he filled in with wax.
  24. Well, Paul Chambers is a scientist and he thinks the temple shot is from the front. https://www.amazon.com/Head-Shot-Science-Behind-Assassination/dp/1616145617/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=Paul+CHambers+JFK&qid=1555636253&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull Although he does not think it was the weapon in evidence. Unless one thinks the Z film is pretty much a comic book I think its pretty hard to deny the back and to the left, especially since Thompson has now come out and said the seeming slight forward motion is nothing of the kind. Dave Mantik has eliminated the other arguments eg. jet effect and Sturdivan's nutty neuromuscular reaction. So has Randy Robertson and Gary Aguilar. I don't have to repeat Arthur Conan Doyle do I?
  25. I am not a theorist. OTOH, someone who buys the Single Bullet Fantasy, Brennan, and cannot decide if Randich and Grant showed that CBLA is a fraud--which even Blakey and the FBI have admitted--that person is living in a world of denial and junk science.
  26. Do you know if Brewer warned Postal about the guy being possibly armed and dangerous? It would have been obvious to Brewer if he thought the same guy had just shot someone.
  27. Rick I was just reacting to Ron's comment last Saturday: I do remember something about there being a cause for any effect, this having something to do with logic. There is no "rule" in logic or science that states there must be a cause for every effect. I am over clubbing (as they say in golf) but pointing out that cause and effect are not always what they seem. The analogy is to conclude that smoking 'causes' lung cancer, which isn't universally or absolutely true. It's correlated (as they say in statistics) and a contributing cause (nicotine is carcinogenic) but not the cause. My overstated point is that there are many causes of most events (rather than a single cause). Most are not guaranteed (by themselves) to trigger the event ... they only add to the likelihood of it happening. Statisticians like to say that "correlation does not imply causation". In my line of work (I'm a nuclear engineer doing probabilistic risk assessment), we perform root cause investigations when something fails or an event occurs. There are several techniques used to arrive at a cause - and I have performed hundreds of these investigations in my career - and you're taught to "go down the why staircase" (i.e. keep asking why ... don't stop at the most apparent or superficial driver). So, I don't dispute the temple logic or backwards head movement ... but the cause (or causes) appears to be indeterminant. Back to Dealey Plaza: everything that I've read suggests a shot from the front (probably the South Knoll) ... multiple shooters with a simultaneity from several directions. I've come to believe that Zapruder (and his Film) are distractions and meant to confuse. The throat injury was a wound of entry ... too many anomalies and rationalizations (or intimidations) suggest otherwise. I also believe the President was hit initially, prior to the Stemmons sign ... and I don't trust the Z Film or photographs to tell us the full story. I also believe that there are other facts that we are not privy to -and will not ever know - that explain the head wounds and JFK's apparent head movement. What I am convinced of is, the people who did this knew what they were doing ... and they inserted a lot of distractions, false information, head fakes and magic tricks which make establishing cause and effect almost impossible. Gene
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...