Jump to content
The Education Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. I wouldn't be surprised at your estimate of 10 or less. Think of Elvis impersonators, most don't even look like him.
  3. Today
  4. Follow up Question: Mr Caro in your years of research did you find any information that LBJ tried to cover up facts regarding the assassination of JFK or did you ever get the sense from the interviews with people who knew LBJ or the reading of his files that you did, that LBJ made moves that would hinder or pervert the course of justice in the assassination of JFK?
  5. I will have a crack at this........on November 22nd 1963 Dallas population approx 700,000 Fort worth population approx 400,000.... Visitors to Dallas from surrounding areas an afar that day 100,000.................Total 1,200,000 half are men(99.9% chance assassin of JFK was male) = 600,000 in close enough proximity to get to a position to fire at the president and kill him. Oswald = 1 in 600,000 (i know, i know we could reduce this number greatly but we need a statistical starting point) Out of the 600,000 males in the area what are the chances that someone is a JFK look-a- like....enough to be teased about it or given a nickname regarding their JFK resemblance, may be 4,5,6 maybe 10 people out of that 600,000 lets go with 10 so that's 1 in 60,000 males is a JFK look-a-like (i am sure its probably more like 4 or 5 in 600,000) So we have a 1 in 600,000 killer of JFK who then has a 1 in 60,000 chance of killing another person that day that looks like JFK............ Tony Said " JFK is shot through the head by person X, Less than an hour later, a few miles away, another man, who was called JFK by his colleagues due to similarities, is shot through the head by the same person X " BOTTOM LINE the Odds = 1 in (599,999 x 60,000) or in laymen's terms = PRETTY F#@KING UNLIKELY
  6. Please point out to me where within this video John Brewer ever utters the words "part of the description". You're not going to find any such utterance by Brewer in that interview. Plus, why would Brewer need to rely on anybody else's description of the man when he (Brewer) can see for himself that Oswald was wearing a "brown shirt"?
  7. Brewer said that to ex-detective Ian Griggs back in 1996 when he was interviewed
  8. Brewer uses the term "description" to refer to the alleged radio broadcast that caused him to identify the suspect, and identifies the brown shirt as "part of the description". Your collections of material are much appreciated, and in this case they indicate there was no radio broadcast 15 minutes after the shooting which could have provided Brewer with a "description". The reporting which did occur some minutes later refers to a suspect in a white shirt.
  9. Ok, I was more focussed on the probability of person X crossing paths with victim B, that shared a likeness, and was so alike, that his colleagues called him by the same name as victim A. All this within a short distance and timeframe. I know I did mention that both victims were shot through the head, but that probability could be put down to person X as being an excellent shot, no matter where he was shooting from.
  10. No, I'm saying Brewer viewed both 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, but necessarily an armed shooter. In other words, since we can't find a radio broadcast that mentions an Oak Cliff shooting together with a description of the suspect, Brewer followed him only for the reasons mentioned above BTW, Brewer has stated that he thinks it was KLIF he was tuned into that day
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. Here is another one https://triblive.com/news/politics-election/james-mccord-watergate-conspirator-who-linked-break-in-to-white-house-dies-at-93/
  16. 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?
  17. I gather some of you think the frontal shot is not proven enough.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. No problem, got to the 2:00 mark;
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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"
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...