Why was Oswald not firing on the motorcade before it turned on Elm? He would have had a wide open shot at the President coming down Houston. But wait till the last second and shoot.

And why Dealey Plaza? Of all the places an assassin could get to JFK, Dealey Plaza hardly seems like a assassin friendly shooting range.....

(these are just thoughts I have when I watch these shows on tv)

Good question. A shooter would have had a good line of sight when the limo came down Houston. Of course, everyone would then look at the window and perhaps see the rifle. That might have made escape more difficult, but not impossible.

Hi John,

Maybe the sniper who shot JFK in the head did shoot him as he was coming towards him behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll

Why do you think Oswald was in the window at all?

If Oswald was on the second floor in the vestibule of the lunchroom two minutes after the last shot when he was confronted by Dallas cop, and entered the vestibule from the south as he must have to be seen through the closed door window, then he didn't come down those stairs and enter the lunchroom through that door.

And since a man was positively seen in the sniper's window four minutes after the last shot, two minutes after Oswald was seen on the second floor, then who was that person if not the sixth floor sniper?

Someone was in that window with a gun, but it wasn't Oswald, so your assumption negates an accurate answer.

Why didn't the Sixth Floor Sniper shoot his target as it came towards him down Houston?

I would ask a real sniper.

A hunter I know, who wasn't in the military, said that Dealey Plaza was a great place for a kill, and the Sixth Floor a natural de.
er stand.

And John,

did you ever caddy for Willie?

Bill Kelly

The head-on shot on Houston would have prevented the limo from entering the true kill zone, where David Ferrie's vaunted "triangulation of fire" would be in effect, and the combination of multiple silenced and unsilenced weapons would insure confusion over shot direction, down to conflicting witness testimony.

Maybe a useful question is, why would triangulation and multiple shooters be necessary, if it was all to be pinned on one man with a matchable "pristine bullet?" To provide options for explanation? To guarantee total confusion? If the latter, it surely succeeded.

What David just said was real close to what I was going to post, that is the way I see it

David Quote...''The head-on shot on Houston would have prevented the limo from entering the true kill zone, where David Ferrie's vaunted "triangulation of fire" would be in effect, and the combination of multiple silenced and unsilenced weapons would insure confusion over shot direction, down to conflicting witness testimony.

Maybe a useful question is, why would triangulation and multiple shooters be necessary, if it was all to be pinned on one man with a matchable "pristine bullet?" To provide options for explanation? To guarantee total confusion? If the latter, it surely succeeded.''


The triangulation of fire made damn sure JFK did not get out of Dealey alive.....they knew they would and did have control of all evidence etc..all was controlled they therefore would have no concerns pinning it on just the one chosen patsy...the rest they could and did cover and confuse..and why we still go round the bush that was deliberate.and it worked...imo..B

i think this shooting diagram is pretty good. I like the dal-tex building shooter (perfect spot), and the knoll shooter along with the shooting from the west end of the TSBD...........but to think that The Umbrella Man had ANYTHING to do with the shooting is realllllly stretching it. There is already a perfect explanation as to why TUM was there and what he was doing. To think that he could take a shot, and hit his target with some kind of device with any sort of accuracy is not physically possible, imho.

I agree, the "triangular shooting dance" could only happen if the motorcade was coming down Elm. It just seems that there were other spots along the route where shooters could have been placed. I guess if I were questioning the "lone assassin" theory I would ask why did LHO wait till the worst time to take the shot(s). That was my original thought. A'course I dont believe that theory, so its a moot point.

The Dal Tex building, to me, is the most under-discussed sniper nest in all of Dealey Plaza.

Why Dealey Plaza? Simple. The opportunistic assassin just happened to work there. If the motorcade hadn't passed the TSBD on 22 November 1963, JFK might still be alive today.

Now why didn't I think of that? You are not paying attention Paul. Oswald could not have been in position to fire the shots. You are right about one thing though, Oswald did "happen" to work there which made him a great patsy. Furthermore, it doesn't matter who fired the shots, the Secret Service still did not move to protect the president when the shots rang out. That inaction is clear evidence of involvement in the murder. Analysis of the crime scene (Dealy Plaza) shows that no security arrangements were made whatsoever. Not a building was secured and people were allowed to be anywhere, including the Dal Tex building and *railroad overpass, the south knoll and so called grassy knoll area.(with a parking lot behind the fenced area, making for an easy escape)

It is too obvious.


* I recall someone posting about Bush's motorcade passing an interstate overpass at high speed yet there were State Troopers guarding that overpass. They knew what needed to be done in 1963. Kellerman sure sprang into action at Parkland when the locals wanted to keep Kennedy's body. He was no fool, nor was the Service at that time.

I bet he wished he'd never bothered taking his rifle into work that day.

The perpetrators were certainly smart people. They even had the power to alter the weather at the last moment to ensure that the bubble top on the presidential limousine was removed.



Take a look at the evidence Peter. It all points to a rather obvious conclusion. Some might even say it's a no-brainer.

Well, I was trying to answer it in terms of the original question, a schoolteacherly habit. If I was lecturing, I would have made my case along different lines. Wish I could do that in a classroom.

Two HUGE facts to remember:

NO witness can say with 100% certainty that Oswald carried THAT rifle into the TSBD on Friday, November 22, 1963, or on any other day.

NO witness can place Oswald in ANY 6th floor window with ANY rifle at the time the fatal shots were fired.

These two facts create reasonable doubt that Oswald is the murderer. And at a trial, it wouldn't have taken a Clarence Darrow to have gotten Oswald acquitted by a REASONABLE jury...not that a REASONABLE jury could've been found in Texas in 1964 [when the trial would've been held, had there been one]. And since shooting the President wasn't a federal crime in 1963, the FBI's [mis]handling of the evidence, even by 1963 standards, would've played into a defense attorney's hands.

NOW...addressing the original question: As a deer hunter, I have shot at deer moving towards me, and I have shot at deer moving away from me. And I've killed several deer over the past 30 years. IMHO, the ideal shot is one in which the deer is neither coming towards me NOR going away from me, but one in which the distance between the shooter and the target remains relatively constant. In terms of a 6th floor shooter, that would approximate the first shot to JFK's back.

Not saying that's why the alleged 6th floor assassin picked the shot[s] he allegedly did; just saying that's how I'd have done it, had I been the one shooting.

And since deer don't shoot back, I can't base this theory on experience; but IMHO, if the shooter has chosen to make his shot[s] while the limo was on Houston Street, odds were that the SS, looking up, would've more easlly spotted the shooter and returned fire. As I said, JMHO,your mileage may vary, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.

John, even if one discounts the practical argument that Oswald worked at the TSBD, Dealey Plaza--particularly that segment of Dealey Plaza--was an ideal location for an assassination attempt.
Why?

1. The turn from Houston onto Elm necessitated the limo's cutting its speed roughly in half. Since it was leading a motorcade, moreover, it would not rapidly increase its speed after completing the turn. This was a huge advantage.
2. Elm Street after the turn ran directly away from The Dal-Tex Building. This would serve as as a second huge advantage for a shooter in that location.
3. By having a shooter in the Dal-Tex, the trajectories of the TSBD sniper's nest window would be closely replicated, increasing the chance the shooting could be blamed on a lone "commie".
4. By firing the shots when the limo was heading down Elm, by the knoll, the illusion could be created that the shots came from the front, or even from the south. This would help add to the confusion, and help insure the escape of the snipers.

my goodness, a young lone nutter - how quaint.... So, one and ALL, hear this now: the SBT/WCR/LHO did it all by his lonesome nuttter-troll legacy will live for another 90 days. Cheers.... LMFAO!

It must have been real hard to get off three shots from the 2nd floor lunchroom

From your photo, Paul, you're a young man. When you were 24 years old, did you, or anyone that you knew, have such demonstrable intelligence associations (to put it broadly) as Oswald had at 24, and for several previous years?

No one I know did. No one my friend, an Army captain, knew, did.

Something was up with that Oswald fella. Way too much action in his life to be a loner, or an unaffiliated operator.

I don't think you can distill all the evidence that points firmly at LHO into these two "huge" facts. If this was all that was presented to a jury, they may well have found him not guilty. As it is, there are numerous other pieces of evidence which prove that LHO killed JFK, and did so on his own.



I wonder how consipracy theorists feel about having a moron like Healy in their camp. He seems to spend all of his time LMFAO-ing, like some drug-crazed monkey.

Yeah I agree - it is a good area for a sniper team. Buildings in all directions with open windows, people everywhere and a virtual echo chamber (all of dealey plaza) to confuse the direction of the shots. Never was I saying that Dealey Plaza WASN'T a good place for an assassination, just that a lot of things had to go perfect for it to be pulled off.

I feel great having David Healy in my "camp" his research is outstanding, have you read TGZFH Paul?

If not then read it ASAP

I have read parts of TGZFH. It's not worthy of sensible critique.

I'd suggest you read this ASAP: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/, in particular this page: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/healy.html.

I see all the arguments about the Z film and how things are incorrect and out of place or whatever, but WHAT does forging/editing it accomplish?



There is nothing the conspirators could take out/replace that would further convince the public that LHO was the only shooter.

If there is, please enlighten me.

Darkening the back of JFK's head to mask the rear exit wound blowout. Sanitizing the view by reducing number of frames in which blood spray appears, making temporal wound seem an exit wound. Painting in an overlarge temporal wound skull flap to disguise frontal entrance. Making the timing of the shots harder to establish. Masking wounding of JFK with overlarge Stemmons Freeway sign, now undamaged by rifle fire miss.

Two important questions to consider:

1. Why did 'they' leave the apparent rearward headsnap in, which gave fuel to the conspiracy fire when the film was first shown on American TV in 1975?

2. How did 'they' ensure that the altered Zapruder film was consistent with the entire photographic record of events in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day? (Please spare us any reference to any of Jack White's 'studies', all of which have been debunked).

I'd be interested to read sensible answers.

Paul.

1) Because there is no way to mask the headsnap, only to do aftermarket explaining away - the "jet effect," the neuromuscular spasm...

2) It just does not match with all other photos in Dealey, as at the NW corner of Houston/Elm, and at the NW side of Elm east of the Pergola. It doesn't even match eyewitness testimony (Hill, Moorman). After multiple viewings of the photos and films, there are nagging dissimilarities that you can sense even before you tote them up.

See also edited post #16 above.

All of Jacks work has been debunked? By who? You?

Please show me all of Jacks work that you debunked

what we need Paul are your replies in a public, face-to-face forum (with cameras rolling). A forum where you can't hide behind aliases, thus certifying your experience, capability and viability answering/commenting on technical questions, especially film composing techniques regarding case relate films-photos. And lest we forget, your blanket approval of *known* WCR failings. Till then, son you're just another lone nutter-troll with an opinion demonstrating not a clue concerning the photographic record of the JFK assassination.

Carry on (as I'm sure you will in that typical nuuter-troll inane way)

RE: John Dugan Nov 3 2009, 06:15 AM

"but to think that The Umbrella Man had ANYTHING to do with the shooting is realllllly stretching it. There is already a perfect explanation as to why TUM was there and what he was doing. To think that he could take a shot, and hit his target with some kind of device with any sort of accuracy is not physically possible, imho."

John, here is the relevant testimony Louis Witt (TUM) gave to the HSCA:

"I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area (on the north side of Elm Street), somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down....(When the motorcade approached) I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street....Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing (the umbrella) in front of me....My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella's being open."
HSCA Vol. IV, p. 432f

That description doesn't tie in with the photographs here. The umbrella is clearly above his head, he is standing still. Whoever is holding that umbrella had a perfect view.

In fact have a good look at all the available photos and film. Good luck finding anything that ties in with Witt's testimony. There's nothing in Witt's story that suggests he was even there and frankly I'm amazed that the HSCA didn't pick up on it. They were too busy laughing at the Umbrella malfunctioning when it was opened during his testimony.

By the way, I 100% agree with you. In my opinion TUM didn't shoot any darts, bullets... whatever from his Umbrella. However, we're a long way from having
"a perfect explanation" as to what TUM was doing there.

Back to the thread. The main reason the 6th floor shooter didn't take the obvious shot in my opinion is, he would have been immediately spotted. He waited until just about everyone was looking away from the Book Depository at JFK givng him time to get at least 2 shots off before being spotted.

You mean other than jumping out of the follow up car into JFK's? There was only a few seconds between the 1st and last shots. No one had shot at a president since 1932. Or 1901 since FDR was president elect.

Hey, Len !





My point is that we now know that the SAIC in New Orleans, John W. Rice, was a member of a group of Secret Service agents in the field who in the aggregate, made up, by their experience in November, 1950 related to the attempt on Truman's life, an institutional memory, both in the field at the various Secret Service offices in cities across the country, as well as in those members assigned directly to the protective services detail. This is a memory based on first hand experience or of being on the detail during the 1950 attempt, a memory that Len denies existed in 1963.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/selec...rt/part-1d.html



n that was too definitive
The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties
The Department of Justice failed to exercise initiative in supervising and directing the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the assassination
The Federal Bureau of Investigation performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties
The Central Intelligence Agency was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination
The Warren Commission performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties

TOM FLOYD BORING ALSO WAS THERE AT THE TRUMAN ATTEMPT..B

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/07bor...amp;oref=slogin

You almost became coherent there David, well done. Shame you couldn't answer those questions. Have you ever answered a question?

They were not technical questions. Using my eyeballs, wired up to my brain, I have never seen any convincing discrepancies amongst the photographic record. If anyone would care to point me in the direction of the evidence I'd be interested to see it. I'm not a "lone-nutter troll", by the way. Believe it or not, if I saw evidence of a consipiracy I'd change my stance and admit that my judgement was wrong. Go on, try me.




Dean, go off and search for any of Jack's "studies" in this forum. I haven't seen one yet that hasn't been debunked. Personally I haven't debunked any of them, why do I need to?

Quite right Sir. There are no discrepancies in the photographic evidence. You can examine all the films and photographs until the end of time and you will still find that there is not a single shred of photographic evidence that implicates Lee Oswald.




Well, to plagiarize Damon Runyon, if you are not a lone nutter troll, you will do until a lone nutter troll comes along

Paul,

Im sorry but all of Tink's gangs "debunking" of Jack's work means nothing to me, you might as well have posted a link to Mcadams website because its seems to me you have been taken in by these guys and believe if they say "Oh we owned Jack and Jim and David today! We debunked everything! The score is now Tink's gang-1 and Fetzer's gang-0"

If you want to believe researchers who think its a game then go right ahead, but if you want me to believe that Jacks work has been debunked (It has not) then do some work on his studies yourself and get back to me.

OR BETTER STILL STUDY THEM FOR 46 ALMOST YEARS EARN JACKS CREDENTIAL'S THEN GET BACK TO ALL OF US INCLUDING JACK....THAT I SHALL AWAIT..
DEAN MCADAM'S ISN'T THAT WHERE THE NEOCONS PLAY THEIR GAMES..I DO BELIEVE.THOUGH ON OCCASION THEY DO TAKE A STROLL.....TAKE CARE..BEST B

Everytime I am directed to McAdams website by a Lone Nutter I just shake my head, its hard to believe how much BS McAdams crams into his website for all the LNers to drool over, I dislike his website so much, but no need to go on and on about it

And Bernice I agree with you 100% that Paul will never debunk or even come close to doing anything that would make me rethink any of Jack's work, what he does not understand is that not only do I think of Jack as one of the best researchers on the case but who has put in more time researching then Jack?

Not many

now Dean we must be fair mcAdams is not the only who clutters up his L/NRS site many/birds of a feather..there..he is far from alone.....and some even still spew the old i sit on the fence so hopefully they can get along with all........ that fence was taken down and replaced many
years ago.....Jack has put in more time than so many combined and taken so much from so many also....I have found it amazing at times that he would still bother to attempt to continue to bring us the truth of the coup and cover-up ..of the jfk..assassination..cheers...best b..

Dean, why do I have to debunk any of Jack's "studies" when that work has already been done? You state that Jack's work has not been debunked. Er, what can I say? It has. Look around, take those blinkers off. Oh, and the amount of time that Jack has wasted over the years has nothing to do with anything.



Yes, well said. Take caps lock off and learn English. All the nutters seem to be in the conspiracy camp!



I'm sure some trajectory analysis has been undertaken using the Z-film which demonstrates that the bullets came from the TSBD. Isn't that a 'shred' of photographic evidence that helps to implicate him? Tell me if I'm wrong, I really don't mind being wrong.

These are only theories, opinions and conjectures which in turn are "corroborated" by further conjectures like the Jet Effect and the magic bullet theory, and by junk science like the acoustics and NAA.




Sorry old chap but there is not a shred of photographic or film evidence that implicates Lee Oswald,



Your certainty ("I'm sure") is the result of blind reliance on authority, and clearly not the result of your own independent inquiry..

No it isn't. I used to believe in a consipiracy. After reading numerous books on the subject I changed my mind, and now I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone. I used my brain, you see. I'll change it back as soon as someone comes up with some hard evidence that proves otherwise. To date there isn't any.

What books have you read that changed your mind?

"Reclaiming History" or "Case Closed" im sure will be your reply

I have some books for you to read

Lets start off with a nice easy to read book that while small it packs a big CT punch, "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor

When you are done with that you need to break out the big bucks for this one, "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman

After you have read those two books I would love to talk to you about them

Then you can move on to the three books from Fetzer starting with TGZFH

And since you seem to have no doubt about that, the purpose of your involvement in this forum of inquiry is hard to fathom.

"Where there is no doubt there can be no inquiry" (Charles Sanders Peirce)

Just wondering, if TGZFH is so good, then how did Dr. John get it soooo wrong?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

And if Jack White does such a good job at 'photo analysis' how did he miss the above error and how did he make this whopper?

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

LMFAO.... perhaps he could explain to our readers, why the Warren Commission Report doesn't stand up to even the merest bit of scrunity? Yet, the small lone nut community (of the educated variety, and a few lawyers I might add) and their supporters are willing to go to the wall for one of the biggest joke-investigations in near recent-history.... Next, we'll be hearing the upstarts espouse assassination is not a political move.....

Lest we remind folks that up to 90% of the American public thinks the 1963 murder of JFK was part of a conspiracy. After all these years... hmm...

ENVY will get you nowhere, Craigster.... surely you know that.....

Assuming that is true - which I don't believe it is - what does it prove, exactly? David, be careful. If you continue to laugh your 'FA' off, you might end up with nothing left to speak out of.



Murder In Dealey Plaza convinced me that there was no conspiracy. I've got Reclaiming History, I've read about half of that, but I'd already made up my mind by then. I haven't read Case Closed. I've read two of Matthew Smith's books, The Second Plot and ... I can't remember what the other is called but it was even worse. The approach of many consipracy theorists is less about serious research or scientiific study, and more akin to shooting shit from a blunderbus to see what sticks.



This isn't a forum of inquiry. I'm here because I'm interested. I'm fascinated by the case and by people like you.

Paul.

D’uuoh

Forgot about the attempt on Truman.The rest of my point still stands though. The time between shots was very short and Clint Hill reacted quickly. Based on your bios neither you nor Peter nor Bernice has any experience/expertise in personal protection or being shot at. Are you certain that in the same situation you would have done any better? Do you like Peter believe this is proof of conspiracy? Shall we conclude that Rosie Grier and Rafer Johnson were “in on” the assassination of JFK’s bother 5 years later?

I‘m not sure what your point was about Rice, was he in Dallas?

Did you forget who was AG?

Why not? Costella said they could make peoples limbs move anyway the wanted



These supposed discrepancies have been shown not to be based on ignorance of perspective or of images that weren't really simultaneous.



Witnesses, especially to traumatic events, often make mistakes IIRC their (H & M's) versions have changed a bit, normally forensic evidence trumps witness testimony not the other way round.

Len,

You posted your opinion that in 1963, the Secret Service had not had to defend against assailants attempting to shoot the president since 1932, an implication that members of the Secret Service in 1963 had no first hand knowledge or experience reacting to "shots fired" in the proximity of the president.

I posted proof that this was not true. I pointed out that a shooter got within 31 feet of the president, at his residence, just 13 years before 1963. The rest of my observations seem unambiguous. I used Rice as an example, since it has only been documented in recent times that he was assigned to guard the president in the 1950 to 1951 period, that he and other agents who were guarding the president in late 1950 were still on the job, both in Secret Service offices around the nation, as well as on the protective detail in Dallas.

In you post, you acted confused about my points, which seem quite clear, and you reacted to being proved wrong about when the last time was that the Secret Service had seen "action" in defense of a president against gunmen, by posting words to the effect of, "well, what do any of you know?"

Apparently, more than you, do, in this instance!