Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Wim Dankbaar

Robert Groden Interview

Recommended Posts

___________________________----

David Healy: Could I trouble you to request that you respond in english. I have no idea what " (b)dgh01" means???? I know the words "hardly" and "period", but I am accustomed to seeing them used in a sentence, so your post makes no sense to me.

Thank you,

Dawn

Dawn - If you look at many of other replies David Healy has made on this forum you will find them no better than the one he gave you. Groden was critical of what Lifton wrote in the 'Hoax book' and Healy feels that if he cannot counter with something intelligent - then his one word moronic replies will do. Expect another one very from him very soon!

_________________________

Bill,

Thank you. I have little interest in what Lifton might have to say about Z film alteration. l"Best Evidence" is great, if only it were 200 pages of the evidence, versus his personal 17- year- story, blow by blow.

I can see why Bob Groden would have been critical since he is the EXPERT on the Z film, not dr Fetser or David Lifton.

I propose a new rule: All responses have to be in complete sentences.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

Thank you. I have little interest in what Lifton might have to say about Z film alteration. l"Best Evidence" is great, if only it were 200 pages of the evidence, versus his personal 17- year- story, blow by blow.

I can see why Bob Groden would have been critical since he is the EXPERT on the Z film, not dr Fetser or David Lifton.

I propose a new rule: All responses have to be in complete sentences.

Dawn

==========

Are we to be impressed with your ego or just your wishfullness at being someone in the KNOW?

How's that for Kings English?

roflmao!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn - If you look at many of other replies David Healy has made on this forum you will find them no better than the one he gave you. Groden was critical of what Lifton wrote in the 'Hoax book' and Healy feels that if he cannot counter with something intelligent - then his one word moronic replies will do. Expect another one very from him very soon!

-------

Get back on Lancer where your a big fish in a little pond... Evidently rubbing elbows with the big boys around here makes you a bit nervous?

Maybe we can find you a how-to PhotoShop book, perhaps give you something to do whiling away your sparetime.... rofl!

Other than that, have a nice holiday -- you move to the USofA yet?

David Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get back on Lancer where your a big fish in a little pond... Evidently rubbing elbows with the big boys around here makes you a bit nervous?

Maybe we can find you a how-to PhotoShop book, perhaps give you something to do whiling away your sparetime.... rofl!

Other than that, have a nice holiday -- you move to the USofA yet?

David Healy

David, Thanks for making me appear correct about your soon posting another say nothing moronic response. I could not have done it if you were not so predictable.

As far as PhotoShop or any of the other software that I use goes - feel free to teach me a thing or two through your examples. So far it seems like incomplete sentences and thought patterns is about all you have brought to this site.

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al,

I'm sure you dismiss UM as a possible accomplice, just as you dismiss DCM. You therefore dismiss the fletchette theory regarding the throat wound. So I want to ask you about that wound. (I still consider the umbrella gun a possibility, but only that.) I'm sure you've probably answered this before on Lancer, but I don't recall it. What do you think happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat?

Ron

Ron,

I dismiss UM and DCM as accomplices in this shooting for several reasons. The main one being that they would not be needed to signal to the shooters that the shots had not yet eliminated the target. The shooters would be well aware of that by continually tracking their target. They would only be visible to the spotters, if there were spotters assigned to the shooters, and they would have enough on their plate without having to check on what DCM and UM was signalling. Secondly, their position would be too obvious to all around them, and too close of proximety to the shots. Considering the varying LOS depending upon when the shots rang out could put them in the line of fire and deflections and riccochets would put them in danger as well, considering we are dealing with rifle caliber projectiles. THis is the same case I use to dismiss Greer and Kellerman as being part of it. Lastly, their actions after the incident shows that they did not utilize the confusion and panic in the plaza to make their escape. Too arrogant of them to sit down on the curb prior to leaving.

The flechette issue from the umbrella holds no water IMO. Accuracy on this would be extremely poor, the umbrella is never seen pointed at the limo and what purpose would it serve. To do something so dramatic at such a close range, they would have fired a fatal wound with something more accurate.

As to your question on what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat? Once the body was taken from Dallas, the chain of custody is under suspicion and the findings are out the window. We hear of and see a massive evulsive wound in the back of the skull and when it gets to Bethesda, it is no longer there. The evidence of other wounds are now compromised. To believe a rifle caliber projectile struck the president's throat and did as little damage as the Parkland doctors described needs a hard look. It would had to have been compromised in velocity. This would had to have occurred close to the impact area, as a distant deflection or obstruction that would compromise the velocity would have caused the projectile to have missed it's mark. That is why I have to believe in windshield penetration and have posted on how this will compromise a projectile on several Lancer threads.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is total bullxxxx!

Al

:)

Great reply Tim! Care to address any of the content or are you simply taking your anti-establishment stance?

Al

Al,

Noting that you were offtopic is addressing your content. You began your own post by noting that it was offtopic. Your post interrupted a serious discussion about Pat's misassertions regarding Bob Groden, about whom I thought we shared a mutual respect. It was you who didn't respond to the content or the context. Additionally, noting that you're now resorting to obscenity on this forum, to which I personally and respectfully invited you on the basis of its decency after you'd rendered yourself unwelcome elsewhere, is on topic. Any reasonable reading of my posts demonstrates that I have been very respectful toward you, welcoming you here with the inclusion of the following photo:

When you were being overly dismissive of the history of CIA hired Mafia assassins, a unique time in our history when the lines between government and underworld were blurred and possibly backfired, I finally weighed in to support Ron Ecker's reasonable debating points. I have not resorted to name-calling or obscenity, as you have. The position I raised regarding the possible involvement of anti-Castro and/or Mafia elements, without over-certainty, is one held by Tosh Plumlee, Larry Hancock, Wim Dankbaar, Ron Ecker, Shanet Clark, James Richards, Dawn Meredith and many others. So why single me out, when I have made it abundantly and repeatedly clear that I respect the ballistics expertise you bring to the discussion, and have refrained from any debate with you to avoid such misbehavior on your part?

As for your certainty about the latino mindset, did you read my post this past week, in response to Gary Webb's death, about the dozens of Mexican police drawn and quartered at Caro Quintero's ranch in Vera Cruz? Was I wrong about that? Have you read my seminars or the responses? Is it just that you can't allow anyone to question the work of the DPD? When I mentioned the overwhelming police response to a non-paying movie-goer in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, you retorted about how would I expect police to respond to the murder of a family member as compared with that of a "stranger," even when that "stranger" was the President of the United States. Your offtopic post was misplaced, your singling me out for considering a position that so many others hold with far more certainty than I was misplaced and inappropriate, and your use of name-calling and obscenity is just plain dishonorable and you should apologize.

Tim

First of all Tim, I was off-topic to the extent that I brought out another issue to show my support of Bob Groden. If you would watch the video I referred to, you would see that the "experts" used their title to try and belittle Groden and they did so by providing false information on ballistic issues.

I owe you no apology. This all started because you came looking for a fight and John pointed that out to me when all of this started. Our last go-round was on Lancer and it started over your attack on me and my profession and I didn't stand for it then and I will not take anything off you now. I have been through too much in my life to be bullied by anyone. If I am out of line here and offending people, then John is welcome to remove me from this forum.

I was not unwelcome at Lancer. I asked for Vernon and the great Nazi hunter to be removed from Lancer or I would go. They refused to remove them so I left. I was then asked to return and told that they had been suspended from the Lancer Forum. I chose not to return as I knew they would be back, and lo and behold, I find that Vernon is back on Lancer.

You use Tosh as one who disagrees with me. If I have spoken incorrectly on anything I have posted, then let Tosh come forward and show where I am wrong. He can speak for himself.

You and others that are offended by me confuse ego and background. I am trying to show why I believe in what I do and you challenge me with numbers who disagree with me.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al,

Yes, now I remember the windshield issue. I believe you have argued that a south knoll shooter fired through the windshield, inflicting the throat wound, and then fired the fatal shot just over the windshield. And the problem with that, as I believe Bill Miller has argued based on Altgens 6, is that there is no visible windshield damage in that photo right after the throat wound. Therefore the windshield damage came later, Bill has argued, and the throat wound had to come from somewhere else.

Because of Altgens 6 I'm inclined to believe that the throat shot came from the north knoll, with some subsequent bullet or fragment damaging the windshield. If it were a north knoll shot, can you think of any reason why the bullet did not go through the neck and exit? Is a pistol shot a possibility as an explanation for non-exit, and might a pistol have been logically chosen from that distance rather than a rifle?

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I owe you no apology. This all started because you came looking for a fight and John pointed that out to me when all of this started.

Al

Al,

Your profession precludes any discussion about the possible involvement of the DPD without you getting personal? And John pointed what out?

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al,

Yes, now I remember the windshield issue. I believe you have argued that a south knoll shooter fired through the windshield, inflicting the throat wound, and then fired the fatal shot just over the windshield. And the problem with that, as I believe Bill Miller has argued based on Altgens 6, is that there is no visible windshield damage in that photo right after the throat wound. Therefore the windshield damage came later, Bill has argued, and the throat wound had to come from somewhere else.

Because of Altgens 6 I'm inclined to believe that the throat shot came from the north knoll, with some subsequent bullet or fragment damaging the windshield. If it were a north knoll shot, can you think of any reason why the bullet did not go through the neck and exit? Is a pistol shot a possibility as an explanation for non-exit, and might a pistol have been logically chosen from that distance rather than a rifle?

Ron

Hey Ron. Bill Miller, who I have argued with both on public forum and through IM continuously on the Altgens 6 issue, have agreed to disagree on it. Ihave a tremendous amount of respect for Bill Miller as a person and researcher, but we do not agree on everything. There were witnesses at Parkland, including a medical intern later turned doctor and a police officer (Sgt. Ellis) who saw a through and through hole in the windshield in the Parkland lot. There is also a Ford Motor Company employee who saw this windshield with the through and through bullet hole in it. Doug Weldon interviewed him before his death.

The problem I have with both head and neck wound impact from the north knoll is wound trajectory. With the left side of the president's head and neck remaining intact and lack of resistance penetration with the neck wound, I cannot see how it could have occurred. I see no logical reason for using a pistol for this incident as it would take away accuracy and wound capability that a rifle would provide. Now a pistol caliber shoulder weapon would increase the accuracy of the shot, but it still would compromise the internal wound ballistics.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I owe you no apology. This all started because you came looking for a fight and John pointed that out to me when all of this started.

Al

Al,

Your profession precludes any discussion about the possible involvement of the DPD without you getting personal? And John pointed what out?

Tim

No Tim, my tenure in LE allows me to explain the incompetent performance of the DPD and give explanation as to why they failed to perform their basic duties.

Ask John what I am referring to what he pointed out to me by personal message and what my reply was.

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I owe you no apology. This all started because you came looking for a fight and John pointed that out to me when all of this started.

Al

Al,

Your profession precludes any discussion about the possible involvement of the DPD without you getting personal? And John pointed what out?

Tim

No Tim, my tenure in LE allows me to explain the incompetent performance of the DPD and give explanation as to why they failed to perform their basic duties.

Ask John what I am referring to what he pointed out to me by personal message and what my reply was.

Al

"No Tim, my tenure in LE allows me to explain the incompetent performance of the DPD and give explanation as to why they failed to perform their basic duties." All Al has provided is excuses, even equating the death of JFK to that of a "stranger" compared with the DPD "family member" Tippit, the John Bircher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I remind all members contributing to this thread the Rules of the JFK Forum. Especially rule (iv).

(i) All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature (see below for instructions how to do this).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471

(ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1861

(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. I know most of us have done this in the past, myself included, but it must stop. It creates bad feeling and leads to further personal attacks. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

(v) Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.

(vi) Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.

(vii) When you start a thread please make sure it is relevant to the events surrounding the assassination of JFK. We have other areas of the forum where you can post about Politics, History, Mass Media, Sociology, etc.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=idx

(viii) Members should use the quote function of the forum when replying to people’s posts. To do this click the REPLY button. Pressing this button will allow you to reply to a topic, and have the text from a particular reply quoted in your own reply. This can be edited so that only the relevant passage is included. If you want to reply to several postings, copy and paste the relevant comments into your own answer. To make this clear use the colour options to highlight what someone else is saying. Type in the name of the person after the quotation.

(ix) It helps the reader if the text of your posts goes right across the page. If you find this has not happened, use the EDIT button to make sure it does. I do this for you whenever I can but I find it very time-consuming so I would prefer it if you did it yourself.

(x) There is no need to add your own name to postings. The forum software does this automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al wrote: "I have been through too much in my life to be bullied by anyone." Me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Carrier Posted Today, 06:30 AM

  QUOTE(Ron Ecker @ Dec 23 2004, 07:15 AM)

Al,

Yes, now I remember the windshield issue. I believe you have argued that a south knoll shooter fired through the windshield, inflicting the throat wound, and then fired the fatal shot just over the windshield. And the problem with that, as I believe Bill Miller has argued based on Altgens 6, is that there is no visible windshield damage in that photo right after the throat wound. Therefore the windshield damage came later, Bill has argued, and the throat wound had to come from somewhere else.

Because of Altgens 6 I'm inclined to believe that the throat shot came from the north knoll, with some subsequent bullet or fragment damaging the windshield. If it were a north knoll shot, can you think of any reason why the bullet did not go through the neck and exit? Is a pistol shot a possibility as an explanation for non-exit, and might a pistol have been logically chosen from that distance rather than a rifle?

Ron

Hey Ron. Bill Miller, who I have argued with both on public forum and through IM continuously on the Altgens 6 issue, have agreed to disagree on it. Ihave a tremendous amount of respect for Bill Miller as a person and researcher, but we do not agree on everything. There were witnesses at Parkland, including a medical intern later turned doctor and a police officer (Sgt. Ellis) who saw a through and through hole in the windshield in the Parkland lot. There is also a Ford Motor Company employee who saw this windshield with the through and through bullet hole in it. Doug Weldon interviewed him before his death.

The problem I have with both head and neck wound impact from the north knoll is wound trajectory. With the left side of the president's head and neck remaining intact and lack of resistance penetration with the neck wound, I cannot see how it could have occurred. I see no logical reason for using a pistol for this incident as it would take away accuracy and wound capability that a rifle would provide. Now a pistol caliber shoulder weapon would increase the accuracy of the shot, but it still would compromise the internal wound ballistics.

Al

Al, Ron, others: I suggested a while back in a question to John Ritchson, that the use of a silencer (from positions other than the TSBD) may have slowed the projectile speed down somewhat... As I recall a silencer may reduce velocity to some extent, right?

My theory was that the carano or similar was used from the TSBD, and high powered rifles with silencers (to attempt to disguise their location) were used from around the railway overpass and the Dal-Tex. Perhaps someone else has suggested this too.

I don't believe anything but true assassin's weapons (high powered rifles) were used to assassinate Kennedy.

Projectiles with lower velocity (due to longer distance and silencers) would help explain the shallow wound in JFK's back and the throat wound, neither of which was a through-through wound.

Al, is this way off?

Edited by Antti Hynonen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Tim, my tenure in LE allows me to explain the incompetent performance of the DPD and give explanation as to why they failed to perform their basic duties.

Al

Al Carrier's position is not significantly different than the one he attributes to James Files, that of a small timer exaggerating his own importance, perhaps magnifying a few things he's heard, and proclaiming with certainty that there was no police malfeasance in Dallas and no anti-Castro involvement in the assassination. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an "idiot" and Simkin doesn't consider that abusive. Al's profanity is defended by the administrator.

Unless Al Carrier was at least at the Deputy Directorate of Planning level at CIA or at a very high level in Military Intelligence, there's no way for him to know the things he claims with certainty and abusiveness. He presumes to know more than the likes of Gaeton Fonzi. He "rediculously" [sic] makes derogatory comments about historians who haven't earned the right to even talk about these matters, as he thinks he has. LE had its chance with this case in Dallas in 1963. That he still defends a 50% Bircher DPD is very telling. That he is certain that the police had no hand in Oswald's murder is "rediculous." [sic] That he thinks throwing around FrangOps33 gives him a right to control the free flow of historical examination, makes him an abusive cop walking the history beat. He's the LE side of the James Files story. That Tosh isn't around to let Al know what he really thinks is disappointing. Just check back when Tosh made a comment about there being some decent people in the CIA and Al's response. Tosh and I have discussed Al's imbalanced view of police compared with CIA: all or nothing, the province of a small (apparently somewhat illiterate) mind.

Tim Carroll

Historian

Edited by Tim Carroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...