New video - JFK Assassination: Nothing but the truth

[Brad Milch]

Deleted by BM

Edited November 10, 2014 by Brad Milch

[Robert Mady]

Kathy, the WC/R merely altered the timing of the second shot that caused the fatal head wound and number of shots fired to be that the third shot caused the fatal head wound and was the final shot of three.

This is the reason why the photographic evidence does not correlate to or is corroborative with the majority of testimonial evidence nor does photographic evidence support the three shot WC/R theory. Therefore the testimonial evidence for the most part is ignored as ramblings of confused or overly excited witnesses or the notion promoted that witness testimony should generally be considered to be unreliable and therefore not useful to determine the truth.

When the 'Four shot assassination model' is applied to the evidence it can be understood the photographic evidence aligns with testimonial evidence and they become corroborative to each other. In other words the 'Four shot assassination model' is derived directly from both the photographic evidence and testimonial evidence and that both sets of evidences support each other and therefor the 'Four shot assassination model'.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

Brad, the Umbrella man firing first shot is a diversion from the truth.

Consider sprocket hole area crop of Z-207

IF first 'firecracker' like shot came at ~Z-190

Before Z-207 you can determine that READY, LANDIS, HICKEY and HILL had simultaneously looked toward the GK in response to something, it is reasonable to conclude that this was the sound of the first shot.

Also of note is that CHANEY, MARTIN and HARGIS do not appear to be aware of any noise nor is MCINTYRE. This supports the fact that the first shot was silenced.

The Umbrella Man firing a dart is a diversion, there are two photographs showing an anomaly on the corner of the wall, about where the SSA turn to look. This anomaly has no explanation.

The UM is undoubtedly part of the assassination as is the Cuban standing in front of him, they did not fire weapons, they were signaling or spotting.

This is the same non-sense to distract our attention as is a man in the sewer, on the triple underpass, the roof of the courts building, on the second floor of the Dal-Tex or somewhere else in or on top of the TSBD, GREER turning and firing a pistol or the most recent disinformation coming via Australia from retired police detective Colin McLaren claiming it was HICKEY firing the fatal shot by mistake.

Do not believe this fiction, it will divert you from the actual evidence and the truth. These diversions are created to explain mysterious evidence that is not properly comprehended.

There is virtually NO evidence supporting shots coming from any locations other than the grassy knoll and monument areas, if you disregard government and media testimonies and contrived autopsy reports.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

Watched more, Jim Marrs, at 27:40 he points out DOORMAN in the doorway of the TSBD and insinuates conspiracists conjecture it might have been OSWALD but then shows LOVELADY in a similar shirt. Marrs NEGLECTS to mention that LOVELADY himself provided absolute proof directly to the FBI that it could not have possibly been him by making an official statement along with having photographs taken of the shirt he claimed to wear during the assassination:

Please don't post LOVELADY was confused or didn't intend to claim he wore the shirt he was photographed in, because the FBI and WC without question accepted this evidence as part of the official public record without attempting to correct this evidence in any manner.

GRODEN should be called into question for his publishing of the information concerning LOVELADY in plaid shirt and claiming LOVELADY made a mistake or was merely confused.

In 1964 the FBI released the photographs and Look or Life even published the FBI photographs of LOVELADY in striped shirt proclaiming that this absolutely was the shirt LOVELADY wore and that it was then determined beyond doubt confirmed to be a match for the attire of DOORMAN.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

< IMO > Continue to question authors like Professor Fetzer, Jim Marrs, Mark Lane, Robert Groden or Colin McLaren...etc.,

Appropriate rule of thumb, if it appears on TV or is published the information it likely is filled with misconceptions.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Brad Milch]

Deleted by BM

Edited November 10, 2014 by Brad Milch

[Robert Mady]

About 35:20 Jim Marrs continues with:

On screen is a Zapruder frame showing MRS KENNEDY on the trunk of the limo.

Marrs states "A lot of misinformation...TRUTH IS, based on her testimony...was that she crawled out on the rear deck of the car under her own volition reached out and picked up a piece of the Presidents head"

WC Testimony

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything.
And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap.
And then I just remember falling on him and saying, "Oh, no, no, no," I mean, "Oh, my God, they have shot my husband." And "I love you, Jack," I remember I was shouting. And just being down in the car with his head in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity. You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out the back. But I don't remember that at all.

The unsuspecting viewer will believe this as truth when it is evident that what he said is not true.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Pat Speer]

About 35:20 Pundit Marrs continues to spout disinformation:

On screen is a Zapruder frame showing MRS KENNEDY on the trunk of the limo.

Marrs states "A lot of misinformation...TRUTH IS, based on her testimony...was that she crawled out on the rear deck of the car under her own volition reached out and picked up a piece of the Presidents head"

WC Testimony

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything.

And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap.

And then I just remember falling on him and saying, "Oh, no, no, no," I mean, "Oh, my God, they have shot my husband." And "I love you, Jack," I remember I was shouting. And just being down in the car with his head in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity. You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out the back. But I don't remember that at all.

The unsuspecting viewer will believe this disinformation is truth.

Do YOU?

Hill said she picked up a piece of his head, and Jenkins confirmed this by saying she handed him a piece of brain in the hospital.

P.S. The Lovelady/shirt controversy was argued ad nauseum on this forum a few years back. Several posters were forced out as a result. Several posters left in disgust. Please go back and read through those threads before trying to resurrect this argument.

[Robert Mady]

Pat, could you post HILLS testimony that claims MRS KENNEDY climbed on the trunk and picked up a piece of skull from the trunk of the limo.

As I specifically provided is evidence that MRS KENNEDY could not have been influenced to go onto the trunk to retrieve a piece of skull because she does not look that direction until already moving onto the trunk, retrieving bones could not possibly have been a motivation, her movement on the trunk was dictated by GREERs acceleration of the limo and the fact that her gloves would have slid.

If you choose to stay with propaganda generated from lies do so, don't waste my time with this non-sense.

There is no argument that MRS KENNEDY may have had a piece of her husbands skull at the hospital, his head was fractured, there no doubt was pieces remaining in the limo after they got out, MRS KENNEDY certainly would have examined the wound to see if she could help. What is so unlikely about her picking up a separated piece from her lap and carrying it to the doctor?

Why are people more willing to defend crazy actions of MRS KENNEDY climbing onto a trunk of a moving vehicle during the assassination to retrieve debris on the trunk from a baseball size hole in the back of KENNEDYs head. We more easily accept an insane explanation because it has been drilled into our heads for 50 years verses analyzing the facts and realizing that MRS KENNEDY is not acting crazy she is acting in a manner of self preservation to save her life and escape from a limo that has continued to take gunfire.

Surely we are insane to not recognize truth.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

Brad, thank you for sharing the videos and your posts.

MK Davis is incorrect, he is working from misconceptions about the assassination. Why do KELLERMAN, GREER and CONNALLYS move forward while MRS KENNEDY shows no forward motion?

If the limo decelerated rapidly all the occupants would show a similar forward motion, this does not happen.

This movement comes at ~Z-325, this is when CONNALLY is shot and is driven down and to his left, NELLIE falls to her right, GREER and KELLERMAN both reflexively duck down because another shot or two has just been fired, MRS KENNEDY lets go of her husband and starts to exit out the back of the limo to escape the gunfire that is occurring.

The limo was only moving at 10-12 mph as it traveled down Elm, GREER had already begun to slow even further to allow HILL to transfer to the limo, this was around Z-300 how much deceleration was there possible after Z-325? Fact is GREER did not decelerate further, he began to accelerate after the shot at Z-325.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

I have read about OSWALD on the step, the fact that LOVELADY provided information for an official FBI report including being photographed and this evidence was accepted unquestioned both by HOOVER and the WC, is sufficient to absolutely conclude that LOVELADY could not possibly be doorman, if people choose to ignore the evidence it is really typical of denial in the absolute sense of the word.

Add the fact that LOVELADY was specifically directed to identify himself in Altgens #6 in such a manner that prohibits us from knowing what he did is conclusive evidence in itself of shenanigans to obscure the truth. If LOVELADY was in truth DOORMAN Altgens #6 self identification would have been clearly marked in a manner that could leave no doubts.

what does it matter if DOORMAN is OSWALD or not, none of the shots came from the sixth floor, none of the shots came from the TSBD. It does not really matter where OSWALD was located during the assassination.

If I am removed for truth, then it really isn't worth contributing to the Forum is it?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

The FBI could not make LOVELADY lie about what he wore during the assassination.

LOVELADY told the truth and was subsequently photographed in the shirt he wore.

The truth is the FBI then simply ignored LOVELADYS statement and photographs.

The truth is the WC then simply ignored LOVELADYS statement and photographs.

The truth is the WC then simply requested that FRAZIER identify LOVELADY in Altgens #6 by placing an arrow directly to LOVELADY and placing the arrow as close to DOORMANS head as possible, which he did.

The truth is the WC then simply requested that LOVELADYS identify himself in Altgens #6 photograph in a manner that could not be definitive.

The truth is the news media then simply claimed the FBI evidence provided in LOVELADYs statement and photographs were conclusive to prove DOORMAN was LOVELADY.

Can you still defend LOVELADY wore plaid and was DOORMAN when official evidence cataloged by the government indicates otherwise?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Mark Knight]

When speaking of Lovelady on the front steps, are you aware of this thread on the forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354

Of particular interest is the GIF on post #37, AFTER Lovelady had left the front of the TSBD. No matter WHO is in Altgens #6, Lovelady is, by his own admission, long gone from the steps by the time Officer Baker charged toward and up the steps...and yet SOMEBODY is still in that corner.

[Robert Mady]

Mark, that man is PRAYER MAN not DOORMAN

His outline is present to the left of DOORMAN.

OSWALD had quickly left the steps to go to the lunchroom to either get a soft drink and or to await a prearranged meeting with his contact for instructions.

BAKERS intent was to either relay a message to OSWALD or to murder OSWALD, because of his haste and direct course he took to get to OSWALD I believe he intended to murder him, the fact that TRULY trailed him disrupted his plans, if his intention was to relay a message, why would it have mattered a few more minutes in time to ditch TRULY and then go to meet OSWALD. The only reason BAKER would have run into a lunchroom on the second floor would have been because he knew OSWALD would be waiting there for a meeting.

It is most logical that BAKER intended to murder OSWALD from the stand point that if OSWALD left the TSBD unknowns could come into play and disrupt or derail carefully laid plans.

Representative BOGGS -And he came up to you, did he say anything to you?
Mr. BAKER - Let me start over. I assumed that I was suspicious of everybody because I had my pistol out.
Representative BOGGS -Right.
Mr. BAKER - And as soon as I saw him, I caught a glimpse of him and I ran over there and opened that door and hollered at him.
Representative BOGGS -Right.
Mr. DULLES - He had not seen you up to that point probably?
Mr. BAKER - I don't know whether he had or not.
Representative BOGGS -He came up to you?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; and when I hollered at him he turned around and walked back to me.
Representative BOGGS -Right close to you?
Mr. BAKER - And we were right here at this position 24, right here in this doorway.
Representative BOGGS -Right. What did you say to him?
Mr. BAKER - I didn't get anything out of him. Mr. Truly had come up to my side here, and I turned to Mr. Truly and I says, "Do you know this man, does he work here?" And he said yes, and I turned immediately and went on out up the stairs.

Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.

Mr. BELIN. All right.
Let me ask you this now. How far was the officer's gun from Lee Harvey Oswald when he asked the question?
Mr. TRULY. It would be hard for me to say, but it seemed to me like it was almost touching him.
Mr. BELIN. What portion of his body?
Mr. TRULY. Towards the middle portion of his body.

IS BAKER lying about a brief conversation with OSWALD?

Is it logical to demand a suspect turn and walk towards you even while holding a gun on him and not asking him any questions and then allow the suspect to stop just inches from the end of your gun?

Why would BAKER have allowed a suspect to get so close, why would BAKER have ordered a dangerous suspect to come towards him at all?

If you were confronted unexpectedly by an Officer pointing a gun at you, would you not say something...anything, the last thing I would do first would be to move towards a gun pointed directly at me.

Both BAKER and TRULY claimed that there was nothing odd about OSWALDS behavior nor was he winded, at such a time with a potential shooter on the loose, why would BAKER have wasted any time on this unperturbed person, why was OSWALD continued to be held a suspect by BAKER until TRULY unexpectedly joined them and was consulted to determine if OSWALD should be released from suspicion, specially during the initial crucial moments where reasonably a person could not be expected to be found on a second floor just seconds following shots believed to have been taken from the roof, 5 floors above which was BAKERS stated intended destination?

The fact that they wasted no time in murdering OSWALD shows their haste. It also becomes apparent that RUBY in the police station intended to murder OSWALD during the midnight press conference. Listen to the 90 second, held for no rational purpose other than to provide RUBY the opportunity to murder OSWALD press conference, there are multiple instances of someone purposely causing distraction by moving heavy furniture or chairs to make horrendous screeching noises. Then some yelling. Same type of noise distraction as beeping horn from backing up car, during the murder attempt on Sunday morning no reason to broadcast transfer of OSWALD watch him get murdered TV presentation.

The man FRAZIER's arrow can arguable be pointed at, the man with the short sleeved shirt is also apparently gone from the steps in animate Clip, this fact correlates exactly to LOVELADYs claim to have worn a short sleeved shirt and the character with the short sleeved shirt disappeared immediately from the steps is conclusive evidence proving that it was LOVEADY in the short sleeved shirt and absolutely once again LOVELADY could not have been DOORMAN.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

If this evidence is true, BAKER does not seem to be looking up toward the pigeons flying from the tops of the buildings at any time at least between Z-241 and Z-249, when does he look up ?

Mr. BELIN - All right. Did you see or hear or do anything else after you heard the first noise?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. As I was looking up, all these pigeons began to fly up to the top of the buildings here and I saw those come up and start flying around.
Mr. BELIN - From what building, if you know, do you think those pigeons came from?
Mr. BAKER - I wasn't sure, but I am pretty sure they came from the building right on the northwest corner.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see or do?
Mr. BAKER - Well, I immediately revved that motorcycle up and was going up there to see if I could help anybody or see what was going on because I couldn't see around this bend.
Mr. BELIN - Well, between the time you revved up the motorcycle had you heard any more shots?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I heard--now before I revved up this motorcycle, I heard the, you know, the two extra shots, the three shots.

Lets review, Besides BAKERS difficulty in remembering how the story was supposed to be told, BAKER somehow knows to wait till three shots have been fired, why wait and why did BAKER not wait for a fourth shot he waited for three?

If BAKER immediately identified the sound of a high powered rifle and believed the sound came from one of two rooftops, why did he wait to react until sometime after Z-313?

Also depicted, a camera car, it contains journalist that swore they saw a rifle in the TSBD window and here they are looking to the side/rear of their vehicle, they apparently are not aware that supposedly two shots have already been fired from the 6th floor TSBD window, why do they appear to be unaware the first two shots, even though they claimed to hear all three, but also then supposedly see a rifle after the third shot, what was so different about the third shot that they then looked to the TSBD 6th floor window? Why would we believe them about hearing three shots and seeing a rifle in the window after the third shot?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Robert Mady