Proof of Motorcade Stopping?

[Robert Mady]

RUBY claimed WALKER and JBS were the culprits?

I thought RUBY claimed people at the highest level (>LBJ<) was responsible for putting him in an uncompromising position in order to get him to murder OSWALD. So you are saying even though WALKER and JBS was responsible for masterminding the assassination that LBJ contracted with the mob to have OSWALD murdered to cover-up WALKER and JBS connection. This is highly unlikely. Why not just have the DPD hang OSWALD in his cell?

What sort of pressure do you put on someone to go on a suicide mission?

RUBY was forced to murder OSWALD himself because he had arranged to have him murdered and his arrangements were unsuccessful, I believe the mob told RUBY get the job done one way or the other or else. RUBY was forced to do it himself when BAKER failed at the TSBD and the specific members of DPD failed at the TT.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T., one 'gas gun' and one high powered rifle make perfect sense.

They got 4 shots for the sound from three, in other words the vast majority of witnesses reported hearing three shots, (yes there were some witnesses who claimed one, two and more than three shots) but putting these aberrant reports from these witnesses aside can we agree that there was the sound from just three rifle shots in DP?

If there had only been silent shots:

1) Assuming the silent shot carried toxic or poisoned pellets, how many would they want to shoot with potential for collateral damage? Also if they only shot with a silent weapon, the citizens may have demanded a full investigation in that LHO would not have access to this technology, Also the silent weapon appeared to wound by toxin not by force from projectile.

2) They still needed a 'patsy' whether it was OSWALD or the Cubans, These culprits would have had access to conventional weapons not spy craft stuff.

3) They needed KENNEDY dead, but they also needed to generate a story that we would swallow.

You can't possible test out a 'gas gun' we have no idea how advanced this technology was or what sort of sound it made.

I doubt the CIA or HUNT would hand over the murder weapon, but you are welcome to make a request.

Well, Bob, what you're evidently trying to do is to make sense of the predominant reports that only three shots were heard in Dealey Plaza.

Thus, the hypothesis of a "gas gun" -- which would possibly be silent -- is your method of explaining why you find evidence of more than three shots in the JFK murder.

I don't think your method is necessary -- there is PLENTY of evidence that there were more than three shots.

The Three Shot Theory is the same as the "Lone Shooter" theory (since three shells were found on the 6th floor of the TSBD building where OSWALD's Manlicher-Carcano rifle was found).

The FBI would insist on Three Shots starting at 3PM on 11/22/1963 -- because Hoover demanded a "Lone Shooter" scenario.

Yet there remains plenty of evidence of more shots. For example, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who was on the medical team at Parkland Hospital that received JFK, reported in 1992 (A Conspiracy of Silence) that he found another bullet inside JFK on 11/22/1963 at Parkland -- but the FBI confiscated it and told him to keep silent.

So -- we don't really need additional proof of more than three bullets (as if the Magic Bullet theory wasn't stupid enough already).

The most convincing evidence, IMHO, that there were more than three bullets, is the fact that the JFK X-rays were suppressed for decades, and drawings were all the WC would show. Also, JFK's brain went "missing." This evidence was suppressed, IMHO, because they would have shown with crystal clarity that there had been multiple bullets in JFK's brain.

No -- the main reason I appreciate hearing about Nelson Hunt's plans to create a paramilitary force using the JBS, WALKER and his Minutemen, is that it helps confirm my theory of a WALKER/JBS/Minuteman/DPD plot against JFK.

William Turner (a Forum member) wrote in 1971 (Power on the Right) that to be hired by the DPD in the early 1960's, one had to be a member of the Minutemen, the JBS, the KKK or preferably all three.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 2, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Mady]

Paul T. there is plenty of evidence that OSWALD shot the President from the sixth floor, all of it is false.

The X-rays are false as is the autopsy report as is the autopsy photographs, so what are you basing your theory on, one doctor supposedly pulling a bullet from KENNEDY at Parkland unbeknown to the entire medical staff present in the emergency room?

This is the absolute problem with the assassination, a proliferation of evidence leading away from the truth that is too tantalizing to resist.

[Paul Trejo]

RUBY claimed WALKER and JBS were the culprits?

I thought RUBY claimed people at the highest level (>LBJ<) was responsible for putting him in an uncompromising position in order to get him to murder OSWALD. So you are saying even though WALKER and JBS was responsible for masterminding the assassination that LBJ contracted with the mob to have OSWALD murdered to cover-up WALKER and JBS connection. This is highly unlikely. Why not just have the DPD hang OSWALD in his cell?

What sort of pressure do you put on someone to go on a suicide mission?

RUBY was forced to murder OSWALD himself because he had arranged to have him murdered and his arrangements were unsuccessful, I believe the mob told RUBY get the job done one way or the other or else. RUBY was forced to do it himself when BAKER failed at the TSBD and the specific members of DPD failed at the TT.

Well, Bob, I should not be so surprised to learn that today's readers are unfamiliar with the Warren Commission volumes.

I must repeat my methodology -- even though the Warren Commission conclusions are entirely backward, nevertheless, the Warren Commission testimony amounts to some of the most important data any JFK researcher possesses. This is nuanced thinking, so some writers are not comfortable with it -- but a few are.

Here is an excerpt from the Warren Commission volumes -- from the June 7, 1964 testimony of Jack Ruby to Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren:

--------------------------------- Begin excerpt of Jack Ruby's Testimony ----------------------------------------------

Mr. RUBY. ...At this moment, Lee Harvey Oswald isn't guilty of committing the crime of assassinating President Kennedy. Jack Ruby is. How can I fight that, Chief Justice Warren?

Chief Justice WARREN. Well now, I want to say, Mr. Ruby, that as far as this Commission is concerned, there is no implication of that in what we are doing...That I can assure you.

Mr. RUBY. There is an organization here, Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life at this moment to say it (and Bill Decker said be a man and say it) there is a John Birch Society right now in activity, and Edwin Walker is one of the top men of this organization--take it for what it is worth, Chief Justice Warren......Don't register with you, does it?

Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don't understand that.

Mr. RUBY. Would you rather I just delete what I said and just pretend that nothing is going on?

Chief Justice WARREN. I would not indeed. I am only interested in what you want to tell this Commission. That is all I am interested in.

Mr. RUBY. Well, I said my life, I won't be living long now. I know that. My family's lives will be gone...

------------------------------ End excerpt of Jack Ruby's testimony -----------------------------------------------

Over the years, RUBY's sanity became more and more shaky, but this is what RUBY told WARREN in June, 1964. Naturally Earl Warren would not comment on this naming of WALKER and the JBS, because (IMHO) Warren already knew about them, and so did Hoover, LBJ and Dulles; and it was precisely their policy to not blame WALKER and the JBS -- the real culprits.

This was not to protect the culprits, but to prevent riots in the streets. (The culprits would be punished in other ways.)

IMHO, Bob, there is no way that LBJ was involved in the JFK assassination. LBJ didn't hire the Mafia to hire RUBY. That's nonsense, IMHO. LBJ was responsible for the JFK Cover-up -- but again, the JFK Cover-up Team and the JFK Kill Team were diametrically opposed to each other.

IMHO, Dallas Police engaged Jack RUBY to kill OSWALD -- nor did they pay RUBY -- it was a personal favor -- RUBY simply loved Dallas Policemen -- perhaps especially J.D. Tippit.

As for the pressure of the DPD on Jack RUBY, I don't think it was "suicide mission" pressure -- it was only peer pressure. The DPD hated Cop-Killers. OSWALD was considered a Cop-Killer. RUBY was always sucking up to Dallas Policemen, trying to be their friend, and trying to impress them.

IMHO, the DPD simply begged Jack RUBY to do this, and assured RUBY that he would get off with a slap on the wrist. In fact, he would become a national hero. RUBY liked that angle. The DPD guaranteed that RUBY would be a hero to them. The reason RUBY killed OSWALD was to please his pals in the DPD, on the belief that he would be exonerated by the Dallas courts.

I lean my opinion on Seth Kantor's expert, personal take on Jack RUBY, viz., RUBY had nothing at all to do with the JFK murder. The first time RUBY got involved was with OSWALD, on behalf of the DPD.

Mafia hit men were utterly uninvolved with the JFK murder -- except that Marcello, Giancana and Trafficante all threw money at the JFK problem -- but no men.

Jack RUBY was in no way ever forced to kill OSWALD. RUBY did it out of peer pressure for his pals in the DPD. Yes, Jack Ruby really was that emotional.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 3, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

out of mere curiosity, has anyone come up with a number of miles per hour that the limousine is seen to have slowed to in Zapruder? 5? 7? is it even a given that the motorcade is going 11mph?

reading through this thread i'm again reminded of the very large role semantics sometimes play in any two or more people trying hard to reach an agreement, or a disagreement, on something, often unnecessarily. so very often what's "slow" to one person is quite different than "slow" to another; what's "near stopped" to one - or even "stopped" - is different than to another.

i would say, "yeah, he 'stopped' at the stop sign," when he actually slowed "enough" to count as a stop. others (like my mom) would say "NO, he DIDN'T stop - he slowed at the stop sign."

an example. i learned from my dad to round off. up or down, doesn't matter. like horseshoes, as long as it's close. if it's 6.56pm it's 7 o'clock. if it's 7.03, it's 7. if an item costs 4 dollars and 89 cents, i say it's 5 bucks. invariably. and i've had people stop and stare at my response as if i've said the damn thing costs 17 thousand dollars. the 11 cent difference to some is the fact that "it's NOT 5 bucks, it's 4.89, are you crazy...?"

if the person asking me how much something is is counting the change in his hand while he asks, then i'd say '4.89', because I know that this is significant to this person.

my point is that semantics can make all the difference in the world. If we're looking at 37 of 59 people who say it slowed, and mean it slowed to 1 mph because they never saw the wheels exactly "stop", this is very different from 37 people who mean it "slowed" down from the speed it had been going.

and on the other hand, if i had been there and someone had asked me if it had stopped, notwithstanding the enormity of the situation, i very well might have said, "yeah, it stopped" when i know it "almost stopped."

what i'm getting at is i'd like to know if someone has arrived at the limo only slowing to ~6 mph in Zapruder then, at least in regards to fim-tampering, this makes the 59 witnesses' testimonies more dramatic than if some say that even in Zapruder the limo slows to ~2 mph.

sorry to have bored you with my family details. or with mine.

[Chris Davidson]

Glenn,

According to the extant Zfilm, Itek's study back in 1967 had it moving at 7.6 mph at Z313.

chris

[Glenn Nall]

just what i was looking for, thanks Chris. does the study or anyone show that it slowed any further past 313 in the film?

i'm guessing that it's saying that this is as slow as it gets on the film...?

very obviously 59 people saying "stopped" or "nearly stopped" did not mean 7.6 mph.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Chris Davidson]

The Itek study only involved the last 28 frames up to Z313.

I plotted JFK's position in the car, using the extant Zfilm, and the yellow curb marker near Altgen's position, the limo averaged 9.21mph (approx. 28.125ft traveled in 38 frames) from Z313 to Z351.

Also refer back to post 102 and 103 in this topic, if interested.

chris

[Paul Trejo]

just what i was looking for, thanks Chris. does the study or anyone show that it slowed any further past 313 in the film?

i'm guessing that it's saying that this is as slow as it gets on the film...?

very obviously 59 people saying "stopped" or "nearly stopped" did not mean 7.6 mph.

Glenn, I join you in thanking Chris Davidson for the precise figures of the slowdown of JFK's limo at Dealey Plaza (according to the Z-film).

I would add that the idea of "stopped" as a linguistic term is often over-used in cases of exaggeration or hyperbole.

Many people will say "stopped" or "kinda stopped" when they really mean "practically stopped" -- it's lazy but common.

It reminds me of Dealey Plaza eyewitness Charles F. Brehm who said he saw JFK "stand up" in his seat. Vincent Bugliosi pushed Brehm hard over that exaggeration, because Brehm really meant, "practically stand up" (i.e. JFK's posterior had left its seat momentarily in response to the head shot). Bugliosi was unforgiving.

Also, 7 mph is extremely slow. One cannot do much damage in an accident by going 7 mph. For a car it's slow.

The subtext of all this, of course, is whether the Secret Service played an active or a passive role in the JFK murder (insofar as failure to protect POTUS was ultimately their fault).

It's interesting that author "Will Fritz" (2002) says that Dallas Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels was part of the Dallas plot to kill JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 2, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

I would add that the idea of "stopped" as a linguistic term is often over-used in cases of exaggeration or hyperbole.

People will say "stopped" when they mean "practically stopped."

/**

too late. someone else was just saying this same exact thing.

who was that....??? let's see... hmmm....

OH! it was ME!!!

[Glenn Nall]

7.6 mph is not "nearly stopped" to 59 people (or whatever portion did not say "stopped").

i'm considering the difference in what we see on Zapruder and what the witnesses saw, and if 7.6 is as slow as it gets, then ...

[Paul Trejo]

7.6 mph is not "nearly stopped" to 59 people (or whatever portion did not say "stopped").

i'm considering the difference in what we see on Zapruder and what the witnesses saw, and if 7.6 is as slow as it gets, then ...

Sure, fair enough, Glenn. However, the next key issue is the extent (if any) that the Z-film was tampered with.

IMHO, all tampering in JFK evidence -- from photos to autopsy -- was always directed by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to guarantee a "Lone Shooter" outcome of all the evidence.

So, if the Z-film was tampered with, it must be the FBI trying to guarantee a "Lone Shooter" outcome.

Question -- does the speed of the limo really matter when the question is only about a "Lone Shooter"?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

well, the thread is about the motorcade stopping, and not about a shooter, i think.

but we are mostly in agreement in your particular post.

Answer -- there are basically two reasons anyone participates in this kind of forum, in my opinion. one is that we all have, to one degree or another, that intense desire to at least "be there" when some, or all, of the solution is revealed; the other is the thrill of the hunt itself.

I do not think that i am going to solve this thing. However, i enjoy very much the learning of things, and especially of unsolved mysteries, and esp. this one, of course, and I love talking about it. we discuss ad infinitum (that's hard to type!) the back of Kennedy's skull, and Frank Sturgis taking guns to Miami, and how useless Brennan's testimony is. we discuss the limo because we enjoy it. else we'd be in the kitchen washing dishes with the missus.

does it matter? how is the question only about a lone shooter? did i miss something?

[Paul Trejo]

well, the thread is about the motorcade stopping, and not about a shooter, i think.

but we are mostly in agreement in your particular post.

Answer -- there are basically two reasons anyone participates in this kind of forum, in my opinion. one is that we all have, to one degree or another, that intense desire to at least "be there" when some, or all, of the solution is revealed; the other is the thrill of the hunt itself.

I do not think that i am going to solve this thing. However, i enjoy very much the learning of things, and especially of unsolved mysteries, and esp. this one, of course, and I love talking about it. we discuss ad infinitum (that's hard to type!) the back of Kennedy's skull, and Frank Sturgis taking guns to Miami, and how useless Brennan's testimony is. we discuss the limo because we enjoy it. else we'd be in the kitchen washing dishes with the missus.

does it matter? how is the question only about a lone shooter? did i miss something?

Well, Glenn, I think the question of the JFK limo stopping is related to the question of a Lone Shooter when it comes to the topic of Conspiracy.

The Warren Commission was firm on the question of Conspiracy -- SHUT THAT TALK DOWN. And because the JFK murder really was a Conspiracy, the Warren Report falls apart quickly. The next problem (for the past 50 years) is how to piece together the actual Conspiracy from the evidence shown.

Granted that some people lied (not the least of whom were the Warren Commission experts themselves, and the FBI and of course the CIA, which seems to have perfected that skill) the evidence quickly dissolves, and we must now defend which evidence we will accept, and criticize all the evidence we refuse to accept. This is on an individual basis -- thus there are scores of CT's.

Yet to ask if the Limo stopped or only slowed down -- is equal to asking the question -- was the Secret Service Agent who was driving JFK's Limo also a part of the Conspiracy to murder JFK?

It seems to me that no Dallas plot to kill JFK could be successful without one or more confederates inside the Secret Service.

The most likely candidates would be Dallas SS Agent Forrest Sorrels and Dallas FBI Agent James Hosty.

This makes the most sense to me -- insofar as the Dallas plotters had a trusted SS Agent and a trusted FBI Agent on their team, pushing as hard as possible to support the JFK plot -- they could attain their first goal -- to murder JFK and escape detection.

It also makes sense to me that the Dallas plot hoped for one specific outcome -- the Invasion of Cuba and toppling of Fidel Castro. However, that turned out to be a vain hope. The plot to kill JFK to invade Cuba failed -- JFK was killed, but the US Public would not accept that the Communists killed JFK -- no matter how hard the plotters pushed.

Instead, J. Edgar Hoover's Lone Shooter doctrine became US loyalty dogma.

The Cover-up was not pre-planned. It was a reaction to the murder. It was orchestrated entirely by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. They tampered with all evidence necessary. The Secret Service had to kowtow to J. Edgar Hoover, because they already lost all credibility by fumbling their duty to protect POTUS.

I find no better explanation for the JFK murder than that high-placed officials inside the local government of Dallas joined a Civilian Plot in Dallas to murder JFK to inspire an invasion of Cuba.

I therefore would vote that one or more Secret Service Agents did turn Rogue, and therefore, the Limo did slow down to facilitate the final head-shot.

It seems to me that the Limo slowed down to 7mph directly next to the gutter drain on Elm street, and quickly sped up after that.

The phrase of 59 people that it "stopped" may have been an exaggeration. If it wasn't, then the Z-film was clearly tampered by the FBI to remove that PROOF OF A CONSPIRACY, in the interest of promoting J. Edgar Hoover's Lone Shooter doctrine.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 3, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

you asked: does the speed of the limo really matter when the question is only about a "Lone Shooter"?

i answered: it does if for no other reason that we enjoy talking about it.

you minimize others' topics of conversations in order to wedge in your own agenda. we know that you think Walker is the mastermind. we know that you want to talk about that.

i enjoy other topics along with some other people who enjoy other topics. i enjoy talking about these things, except with you and DVP who belittle the things I enjoy talking about. the topic doesn't always have to turn to General Walker. Sometimes it's just about the car and the film.

sorry. no offense.