Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ken Rheberg

Members
  • Content Count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ken Rheberg

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,288 profile views
  1. Ken Rheberg

    What if?

    Reading threads from the dying so-called "research community" can be frustrating. This is where we're at after more than 55 years: Oswald is officially still the lone gunman. No conspiracy. And the "research community" has done nothing to change all that. I can't be any more clear on this. Nothing. That includes forums, journalists, authors and those beloved conferences down through the years. Here, on this thread, a forum member has said that JFK was murdered in a military-style ambush and that's as much truth as we'll ever get. Well, here's the real truth: our government and the media knew within 2 1/2 hours that there was more than one gunman thanks to what Gary Mack called "hard evidence." In other words, evidence that can't be disputed. Evidence, in this case, that's been suppressed all these years in one massive cover up. All that was needed to make it work was a "research community" that would somehow turn their collective backs on this obvious indisputable evidence. And that's exactly what has happened. The evidence is still out there. Waiting to be uncovered. What could it possibly be? Ken
  2. Ken Rheberg

    The vanishing pool of blood

    The shadowy figure you've circled on the east side of the grassy knoll in Bothun #4 has nothing to do with the couple who were standing at the top of the stairs (BDM) in Moorman and Betzner.
  3. Ken Rheberg

    The vanishing pool of blood

    By the time of the Moorman photo, the couple had already dropped down behind the wall for cover. That's why you don't see them in Moorman.
  4. Ken Rheberg

    The vanishing pool of blood

    We do see them in Willis and Betzner. Standing at the very top of the stairs. On the concrete. Not in the grass behind and against the retaining wall as some have said. A female closest to the camera. A male to her right, blocked from our view by the female, just as Emmett Hudson was blocked from our view by his "young fellow. . . about in his late twenties," in the Willis photo. In other words, this female and male are what we now call "Black Dog Man." They could only have been Sitzman's "colored couple. . . between 18 and 21, a boy and a girl" who were sitting on the bench prior to the motorcade coming down Elm Street. There was no one else it could have been. So, yes, we should have seen them if they had been sitting on the bench just before the shots were fired in both Willis and Betzner. But they weren't on the bench. By then they were standing at the top of the stairs. Ken
  5. Ken Rheberg

    The vanishing pool of blood

    Ron, I have no problem whatsoever with whether you were being serious or sarcastic about this. It was hard to tell considering your many posts over the years where you can be serious and, yes, sarcastic at times. Your answer above seems to indicate that you weren't being sarcastic but that you were serious. The young, black couple sitting on the bench behind the retaining wall left the bench to see the President and were photographed twice by two different cameramen as they stood at the top of the stairs when the shooting began. Who else could it have been? "Who was right there in the area?", you asked. That's how I understand what you were trying to say. Am I correct? I hope so. Ken
  6. Ken Rheberg

    The vanishing pool of blood

    Ron, I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic here. Could you please clarify? Thanks. Ken
  7. Ken Rheberg

    The vanishing pool of blood

    Denny, Could you give us an update on how your efforts are going in obtaining a PDF document of Couch's 2007 oral history from the Sixth Floor Museum? If you've changed your mind for any reason about doing this, then let us know and I'll be glad to step in and request a copy. On the other hand, if you're in the process of proceeding as you indicated above, please indicate what Couch had to say about the "brain matter" (mistakenly called a "pool of blood" by Belin) that he saw that day. Hopefully, this will answer some questions and clarify how his story fits in with the stories of Jerry Coley and Jean Hill. It could also open up a whole new, but fascinating, can of worms. Ken
  8. Ken Rheberg

    The vanishing pool of blood

    I don't believe the Oral History PDF's are available online. Just give Museum Curator Stephen Fagin a call to place an order for the transcript.
  9. Ken Rheberg

    The vanishing pool of blood

    Malcolm Couch has two oral histories archived at the Sixth Floor Museum. One was taken in 1989, the other in 2007. The latter addresses, in detail, the pool of blood issue . A 40 page PDF document of this history can be obtained for a relatively small charge. I don't have my copy yet, but I plan to obtain one soon. I hope it clears up many questions that you and others have about this subject. It's extremely important, in my opinion. I don't believe David Belin did a very good job of making clear for all of us down through the years what Couch was trying to say.
  10. Ken Rheberg

    The vanishing pool of blood

    I had no reason to question Malcolm Couch's credibility or doubt his sincerity. His passion was his Christian faith. He was a pastor for many years, an author of numerous books on Bible prophecy, and founded Tyndale Theological Seminary. At the time I spoke to him, he was not doing well physically and was using a walker. I've heard over the years, many times, that he had seen a pool of blood in Dealey Plaza. So when he told me that this wasn't accurate, I was quite surprised to say the least. But he was adamant that it was not a pool of blood. It was brain matter. He then suggested that I check out his oral history at the Sixth Floor Museum. "It's all in there," he said. When you review his testimony before the Warren Commission, you'll see that he never calls it a pool of blood. Just one reference to blood. It's Warren Commission attorney David Belin who, in his questioning of Couch, characterizes it himself as a pool of blood and uses the term twice. Ken
  11. Ken Rheberg

    The vanishing pool of blood

    I spoke with Malcolm Couch a few years before he died. He told me it wasn't a pool of blood he saw that day. It was brain matter. Ken
  12. Ken Rheberg

    Plaza Man: Bob Groden vs the City of Dallas

    Jim, Looks like you're still refusing to admit that, in "JFK: Inside the Target Car", Gary Mack did not rule out a shooter from behind the picket fence. Why is this so hard for you? Let's see if you fare any better with this. . . You said, "If you want to continue to defend Gary, and take cheap shots at me, go ahead." Where are the cheap shots, Jim? Hopefully, you'll agree that there weren't any. Ken
  13. Ken Rheberg

    Plaza Man: Bob Groden vs the City of Dallas

    Jim wants to know if I read his articles carefully. It doesn't appear that Jim read his own post or my response carefully. Another forum member felt Jim had written a "hit piece" on Gary Mack. Jim defended himself, in part, by posting something that two Discovery Channel JFK assassination-related programs had apparently said. One of the documentaries was "JFK: Inside the Target Car". According to Jim, in his own post, the two documentaries said, "No shot at Kennedy came anywhere except from the so called Sniper's Nest." I happened to disagree with Jim's attempt to apply this to Gary Mack. Yes, I dared to disagree with Jim DiEugenio. And, for that, I was accused, by Jim, of taking cheap shots at him. I merely had pointed out how, in the "Target Car" documentary, Gary had not discounted a missed shot from behind the picket fence. Jim has yet to acknowledge that Gary actually said that. No, I wasn't defending Gary Mack. It was all about accuracy in reporting. Ken
  14. Ken Rheberg

    Plaza Man: Bob Groden vs the City of Dallas

    Gary Mack is on record saying he believed, based on the acoustics evidence, that there were two shooters, one of whom was behind the picket fence. How can that be glossed over? Furthermore, in "JFK: Inside the Target Car - Part Four" Gary said, "If anything, we found that, if there was a shot from the grassy knoll, that shooter missed." Did James DiEugenio miss this important conclusion? Putting it all together, Gary believed that the second shooter behind the picket fence missed. Simple as that. Gary's belief was not based on "hard evidence" -- evidence that can't be disproved. Has there ever been such evidence? Of course there has been and still is. But no one in the so-called "research community" will go there. That's one of the great mysteries in all of this. Ken
  15. Ken Rheberg

    Pauline Sanders

    Thanks, John. I'll check the site out. You're right to place so much importance on the photographic record. One day the official story will be forced to do an about-face based on that record. But not on the record as we know it. On the record yet to be released to the public. Specifically two films spliced together which clearly show a gunman firing a weapon from behind the picket fence. It's the hard evidence Gary Mack used to refer to. Evidence that can't be disputed. The only hard evidence of a second gunman in this entire case. Less than 2 1/2 hours after the assassination, both the government and the media became aware of this indisputable "film" of a second gunman. However, a decision was then made at that time to bury it and never refer to it again. And so it has been for almost fifty-five years. Oliver Stone chose to make a film about Jim Garrison. He could have made it about the above and broken the case wide open. Ken
×