Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Lee Forman

William Cooper - Behold a Pale Horse

Recommended Posts

The Zapruder film, assuming we can trust its veracity, does not indicate a left front temple impact.

Erick,

We can't assume anything of the sort, in fact, quite the contrary: we must proceed, on the basis of abundant evidence, that the film is a fake designed to hide key elements of truth, not least the entrance point on the left temple.

It would be interesting to learn whether the limo driver was left-handed or ambidextrous, and whether he had a reputation as a quick-draw artist with a .45
The selection of Greer is a subject in itself. His son hints at a fairly pronounced dislike of Catholics, but, of course, there are very many other factors at work, not least in the minds of those who selected him.
Another problem is the brain matter which hit the motorcycle cop to the left and rear of the presidential limousine. That would be more indicative of a shot from the right front of the vehicle.

You've forgotten to factor in the limousine's swerve to the left, against the southern curb of Elm., where it came to rest. Insert that into the paradigm, and you have congruence. Otherwise, how to explain Hargis's left windscreen being hit with brain matter? The limo's swerve placed him to Kennedy's right rear.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Zapruder film, assuming we can trust its veracity, does not indicate a left front temple impact.

Erick,

We can't assume anything of the sort, in fact, quite the contrary: we must proceed, on the basis of abundant evidence, that the film is a fake designed to hide key elements of truth, not least the entrance point on the left temple.

It would be interesting to learn whether the limo driver was left-handed or ambidextrous, and whether he had a reputation as a quick-draw artist with a .45
The selection of Greer is a subject in itself. His son hints at a fairly pronounced dislike of Catholics, but, of course, there are very many other factors at work, not least in the minds of those who selected him.
Another problem is the brain matter which hit the motorcycle cop to the left and rear of the presidential limousine. That would be more indicative of a shot from the right front of the vehicle.

You've forgotten to factor in the limousine's swerve to the left, against the southern curb of Elm., where it came to rest. Insert that into the paradigm, and you have congruence. Otherwise, how to explain Hargis's left windscreen being hit with brain matter? The limo's swerve placed him to Kennedy's right rear.

Paul

Paul,

Without considering the Zapruder film, we have precious little evidence which would be admissible in court. The statements of now-dead witnesses 43 years ago are hearsay.

Erick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul,

Without considering the Zapruder film, we have precious little evidence which would be admissible in court. The statements of now-dead witnesses 43 years ago are hearsay.

Erick

Are you saying that sworn testimony before the Warren Commission or the HSCA would not be admissable today? Granted that neither of these esteemed bodies saw fit to allow defense attorneys to cross-examine witnesses, but it seems to me that anyone defending Lee Oswald today would have no objection to any of the WC testimony or affidavits, and I can't imagine that the Government would object. If there are no objections, should'nt the testimony be admissable? Would it not be admissable in any case under the "Official Records" exception to the Hearsay Rule?

If the argument that witnesses are dead means their testimony is inadmissable, then one could argue that the Zapruder film is inadmissable, since Abraham Zapruder is dead and cannot now authenticate his film.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul,

Without considering the Zapruder film, we have precious little evidence which would be admissible in court. The statements of now-dead witnesses 43 years ago are hearsay.

Erick

Are you saying that sworn testimony before the Warren Commission or the HSCA would not be admissable today? Granted that neither of these esteemed bodies saw fit to allow defense attorneys to cross-examine witnesses, but it seems to me that anyone defending Lee Oswald today would have no objection to any of the WC testimony or affidavits, and I can't imagine that the Government would object. If there are no objections, should'nt the testimony be admissable? Would it not be admissable in any case under the "Official Records" exception to the Hearsay Rule?

If the argument that witnesses are dead means their testimony is inadmissable, then one could argue that the Zapruder film is inadmissable, since Abraham Zapruder is dead and cannot now authenticate his film.

Great posts. Thinking some more on this, another point could be made for the Greer shot. At the point of his supposed shot, JFK hadnt been hit "fatally" yet. He had been hit, but not to the extreme that was designed to happen. Greer could very well have been the "last resort" shot, the "fail safe" to make sure the deed got done if all others failed. They had driven all the way down Elm, and were just about leaving the "shooting zone". Greer slowed down. Waited for the shot, and finally decided to take it upon himself to make sure he got the fatal shot. Many beleive that JFK was hit several times, maybe at the exact second. Greers could have been one of two or three that hit Kennedy. Many witnesses testified to the fact that the limo slowed to a crawl, if not stopping completely. Then veering over in the road. It seems to fit very well into the whole scenerio. Just my opinion FWIW

thanks-smitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great posts. Thinking some more on this, another point could be made for the Greer shot. At the point of his supposed shot, JFK hadnt been hit "fatally" yet. He had been hit, but not to the extreme that was designed to happen. Greer could very well have been the "last resort" shot, the "fail safe" to make sure the deed got done if all others failed. They had driven all the way down Elm, and were just about leaving the "shooting zone". Greer slowed down. Waited for the shot, and finally decided to take it upon himself to make sure he got the fatal shot. Many beleive that JFK was hit several times, maybe at the exact second. Greers could have been one of two or three that hit Kennedy. Many witnesses testified to the fact that the limo slowed to a crawl, if not stopping completely. Then veering over in the road. It seems to fit very well into the whole scenerio. Just my opinion FWIW

thanks-smitty

Smitty,

I see the attractions of this line of thinking, and, in the absence of dispositive evidence, must continue to permit the possibility that Greer was indeed the executioner of last resort. But my problem is this: what if Greer had been hit inadvertently, perhaps, let us theorise, by a ricochet? The limo is stuck on Elm with a wounded President and a dead, or seriously impaired, driver. Numerous potential complications suggest themselves. Was such a risk - in fact, an abundance of risks - necessary or worth it? Now distraction noises or shots, aimed to create the illusion of ambush from distance, that's another matter.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great posts. Thinking some more on this, another point could be made for the Greer shot. At the point of his supposed shot, JFK hadnt been hit "fatally" yet. He had been hit, but not to the extreme that was designed to happen. Greer could very well have been the "last resort" shot, the "fail safe" to make sure the deed got done if all others failed. They had driven all the way down Elm, and were just about leaving the "shooting zone". Greer slowed down. Waited for the shot, and finally decided to take it upon himself to make sure he got the fatal shot. Many beleive that JFK was hit several times, maybe at the exact second. Greers could have been one of two or three that hit Kennedy. Many witnesses testified to the fact that the limo slowed to a crawl, if not stopping completely. Then veering over in the road. It seems to fit very well into the whole scenerio. Just my opinion FWIW

thanks-smitty

Smitty,

I see the attractions of this line of thinking, and, in the absence of dispositive evidence, must continue to permit the possibility that Greer was indeed the executioner of last resort. But my problem is this: what if Greer had been hit inadvertently, perhaps, let us theorise, by a ricochet? The limo is stuck on Elm with a wounded President and a dead, or seriously impaired, driver. Numerous potential complications suggest themselves. Was such a risk - in fact, an abundance of risks - necessary or worth it? Now distraction noises or shots, aimed to create the illusion of ambush from distance, that's another matter.

Paul

I see your point Paul. There was alot of risk indeed. Its a wonder they all werent shot! LOL! [with that many bullets! Hell, even Tague caught one! lol!] I think that was the whole idea behind the theory. To have the diversions going on around the plaza with different shots, noises, and such, and then have the shot come from within the car. [if he wasnt the failsafe] He wouldnt have to worry about being hit, if they all knew he was in on the assassination. Hopefully, he wouldnt be hit. Just my opinion FWIW

thanks-smitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Found this little piece interesting. Cooper goes into some weird places in some of the material in the book - 'so it is what it is.' The intent here is not to open any can of worms about a Greer possible - however, for the hell of it, I will again post an anonymous email I received awhile back - I simply found these few pages interesting.

Pages 216 - 220, Behold a Pale Horse, Milton William Cooper, Light Technology Publishing, Sedona, AZ, 1991.

Cooper is deceased - here's an online bio.

http://www.hourofthetime.com/william.htm

A Short Biography

William Cooper was reared in an Air Force family. As a child he lived in many different countries, graduating from Yamato High School in Japan. Since he has traveled through or lived in many different foreign countries Mr. Cooper has a world view much different than most Americans.

William served with the Strategic Air Command, United States Air Force. He held a secret clearance working on B-52 bombers, KC-135 refueling aircraft, and Minuteman missiles. William received his Honorable Discharge from the United States Air Force in 1965.

William joined the United States Navy fulfilling a dream previously frustrated by chronic motion sickness. He served aboard the submarine USS Tiru (SS-416), USS Tombigbee (AOG-11), Naval Support Activity Danang RVN, Naval Security and Intelligence Camp Carter RVN, Danang Harbor Patrol RVN, Dong Ha River Security Group RVN, USS Charles Berry (DE-1035), Headquarters Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet, USS Oriskany (CVA-34).

Cooper was a member of the Office of Naval Security and Intelligence serving as a Harbor and River Patrol Boat Captain at Danang and the Dong Ha River Security Group, Cua Viet, Republic of Vietnam. William Cooper was awarded several medals for his leadership and heroism during combat including two with "V" for Valor.

He served on the Intelligence Briefing Team for the Commander In Chief of the Pacific Fleet. William was the Petty Officer of the Watch and designated KL-47 SPECAT operator in the CINCPACFLT Command Center at Makalapa Hawaii. There he held a Top Secret, Q, SI, security clearance.

William Cooper achieved the rank of First Class Petty Officer, QM1, E-6 after only 8 years of Naval service, a difficult task in any branch of the United States military. William Cooper received an Honorable Discharge from the United States Navy on December 11, 1975.

William attended Long Beach City College where he picked up an Associate of Science Degree in Photography. He founded the Absolute Image Studio and Gallery of Fine Art Photography in Long Beach, California.

As JS notes, it is not Bob Groden who is the black prop operative here, but William Cooper, photo expert extradonaire. I got the goods on Groden, but Cooper's references are certainly interesting.

For one, he discusses a film other than the Zapruder film, which is known to exist, according to those who have seen it, yet defies presentation.

As for Greer shooting JFK with a handgun, well the objections are well founded:

This is implausible. If the driver had pulled out a nickle-plated .45 and shot President Kennedy with it, dozens of witnesses would have seen it. The Connallys would have seen it too. Besides that, an over-the-shoulder shot, although not impossible, would have been difficult while steering the car. The ejection port on a .45 is on the right side. The shell would have hit the shooter in the head. Also, if the driver planned to shoot the president, why would he choose an extremely visible weapon? A blued-metal .45 would not have been as reflective, but still highly visible. Furthermore the angle of trajectory was wrong for that shot. The bullet would have entered the left temple rather than the right temple. Erick A. Bovik

There is another book, a paperback, which postulates with photos the idea that JFK's head shot was the result of an accidental misfire of a SS automatic weapon from the SS car behind JFK's limo.

I remember Groden discussing both of these allegations in his Zfilm presentations.

Seeing Kreskin on New Year's eve at Time's Square, he illustrated the power of persuasion by asking people on camera if they believed in UFOs and after they said no, within seconds they saw something baffeling enough to change their minds.

My point being, if you are told you are going to see a movie that shows the driver turning around and shooting JFK in the head with a pistol, and are shown a blurry copy of the Zfilm, a certain percentage of people will sware thats what they see.

I think 20% of the population - one in five, are in a special category that makes them easy to hyptnotise and open to such suggestions.

As for whether the Zfilm is admissible in court, it already has been shown in court in New Orleans - the source of many of the early bootlegs, and could be introduced into evidence as an exhibit if a grand jury is convened, but it would have to be first brought up in the course of witness testimony.

Not necessarily the person who took the film, it would take someone who is a material witness with original connections to the film, who could accurately trace its chain of possession in detail (Not Bob Groden), and serve as an expert witness on any questions regarding it - possibly Joshia Thompson.

As for a handgun shot to the temple explaining anything, I would say that all of the previous photo, medical and Bathesda evidence is inadmissible in court, and a new forensic autopsy would be ordered to properly process the victim and create new evidence - X-ray, Cat Scan, etc. about which there would be no arguments.

Now I'll back out of this thread.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul,

Without considering the Zapruder film, we have precious little evidence which would be admissible in court. The statements of now-dead witnesses 43 years ago are hearsay.

Erick

Are you saying that sworn testimony before the Warren Commission or the HSCA would not be admissable today? Granted that neither of these esteemed bodies saw fit to allow defense attorneys to cross-examine witnesses, but it seems to me that anyone defending Lee Oswald today would have no objection to any of the WC testimony or affidavits, and I can't imagine that the Government would object. If there are no objections, should'nt the testimony be admissable? Would it not be admissable in any case under the "Official Records" exception to the Hearsay Rule?

If the argument that witnesses are dead means their testimony is inadmissable, then one could argue that the Zapruder film is inadmissable, since Abraham Zapruder is dead and cannot now authenticate his film.

The reason I brought up court-admissibility is because there are still living conspirators who could potentially be brought to justice. There are two perspectives from which to approach this case, the legal and the historical. Historians are not obligated to follow the rules of evidence, however good ones do well to keep them in mind lest the veracity of their work fall into question.

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8), which is the public records exception to the hearsay rule, allows statements setting forth the activities of the agency, matters observed which there was a duty to report, and factual findings resulting from an investigation, unless they are for some reason untrustworthy. Police reports are specifically excluded from this exception. Committee testimony may or may not fall into this exception. If challenged it would be the subject of much brief-writing.

Under Fed.R.Evid. 804(B)(1) former testimony is a hearsay exception if the opposing party or a predecessor in interest had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Committee testimony could arguably be admissible if there was an opportunity for cross-examination, otherwise it violates the 6th Amendment right of cross-examination. The Supreme Court recently ruled on this issue. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Zapruder film could be admissible utilizing this exception. The chain of custody would have to be proven first, which, after 43 years, could be problematic.

One useful hearsay exception which would likely apply to this case is Fed.R.Evid. 803(4), statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Anything said by any doctor during the President’s hospital treatment and autopsy, would be admissible under this exception.

Below are links to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Crawford decision.

http://expertpages.com/federal/federal.htm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html

Erick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul,

Without considering the Zapruder film, we have precious little evidence which would be admissible in court. The statements of now-dead witnesses 43 years ago are hearsay.

Erick

Are you saying that sworn testimony before the Warren Commission or the HSCA would not be admissable today? Granted that neither of these esteemed bodies saw fit to allow defense attorneys to cross-examine witnesses, but it seems to me that anyone defending Lee Oswald today would have no objection to any of the WC testimony or affidavits, and I can't imagine that the Government would object. If there are no objections, should'nt the testimony be admissable? Would it not be admissable in any case under the "Official Records" exception to the Hearsay Rule?

If the argument that witnesses are dead means their testimony is inadmissable, then one could argue that the Zapruder film is inadmissable, since Abraham Zapruder is dead and cannot now authenticate his film.

The reason I brought up court-admissibility is because there are still living conspirators who could potentially be brought to justice. There are two perspectives from which to approach this case, the legal and the historical. Historians are not obligated to follow the rules of evidence, however good ones do well to keep them in mind lest the veracity of their work fall into question.

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8), which is the public records exception to the hearsay rule, allows statements setting forth the activities of the agency, matters observed which there was a duty to report, and factual findings resulting from an investigation, unless they are for some reason untrustworthy. Police reports are specifically excluded from this exception. Committee testimony may or may not fall into this exception. If challenged it would be the subject of much brief-writing.

Under Fed.R.Evid. 804(B)(1) former testimony is a hearsay exception if the opposing party or a predecessor in interest had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Committee testimony could arguably be admissible if there was an opportunity for cross-examination, otherwise it violates the 6th Amendment right of cross-examination. The Supreme Court recently ruled on this issue. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Zapruder film could be admissible utilizing this exception. The chain of custody would have to be proven first, which, after 43 years, could be problematic.

One useful hearsay exception which would likely apply to this case is Fed.R.Evid. 803(4), statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Anything said by any doctor during the President's hospital treatment and autopsy, would be admissible under this exception.

Below are links to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Crawford decision.

http://expertpages.com/federal/federal.htm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html

Erick

Erick,

Hearsay evidence is allowed to be introduced to a grand jury, where cross examination is not permitted - that comes at a trial, if there is one. At the moment we are trying to determine the best evidence to be introduced to a grand jury, which has a different standard, in our favor.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it difficult to believe that Greer would have been employed to kill JFK. Nor is it likely that Groden is a paid CIA disinformation agent. Last time I saw him he did not seem to be very affluent. Once the CIA gets involved in paying people to provide disinformation, you either have to keep paying them or you have to make arrangements for them to disappear.

I would have thought that William Cooper is more likely to be a disinformation agent than Groden.

I think Cooper is nutty.

I saw this video-taped speech he gave where he cited the Novermber, 22, 1307 hit

the Pope put on Jacque DeMolay, suggesting the 11/22/63 hit on Kennedy was a

Masonic revenge killing (I have no opinion on that point), and then Cooper intoned

with great import -- "Subtract 1307 from 1963 and what do you get? 6...6...6!

Think about it!"

When you subtract 1307 from 1963 you get 656.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mark Valenti
I find it difficult to believe that Greer would have been employed to kill JFK. Nor is it likely that Groden is a paid CIA disinformation agent. Last time I saw him he did not seem to be very affluent. Once the CIA gets involved in paying people to provide disinformation, you either have to keep paying them or you have to make arrangements for them to disappear.

I would have thought that William Cooper is more likely to be a disinformation agent than Groden.

I think Cooper is nutty.

I saw this video-taped speech he gave where he cited the Novermber, 22, 1307 hit

the Pope put on Jacque DeMolay, suggesting the 11/22/63 hit on Kennedy was a

Masonic revenge killing (I have no opinion on that point), and then Cooper intoned

with great import -- "Subtract 1307 from 1963 and what do you get? 6...6...6!

Think about it!"

When you subtract 1307 from 1963 you get 656.

Cooper's theory about a Greer shot is breathtakingly stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooper's theory about a Greer shot is breathtakingly stupid.

Mark:

I could not agree more.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cooper's theory about a Greer shot is breathtakingly stupid.

Mark:

I could not agree more.

Dawn

Great minds think alike - or fools seldom differ?

Either of you got an argument?

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mark Valenti

Great minds think alike - or fools seldom differ?

Either of you got an argument?

Paul

Well, let's see...great minds think alike, do they? I'd love to know which other of William Cooper's theories you cozy up to? You know, seeing as how your mind is great and all.

This from the man himself: "President Kennedy was killed by the driver of his car, his name was William Greer, he used a recoil-less, electrically operated, gas-powered assassination pistol that was specially built by the CIA to assassinate people at close range. It fired an explosive pellet which injected a large amount of shellfish poison into the brain, an that is why, in the documents, it stated that President Kennedy's brain was removed. If you've studied the case, you will find that indeed his brain disappeared. The reason for that is so that they would not find the particles of the exploding pellet or the shellfish poison in his brain which would have proved conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT the assassin."

He also believed that aliens lived in his pants or - whatever.

Look, there was an overpass within yards of the limo, why not wait until the car was hidden from view to fire the killshot? Greer and everybody else in Texas could plainly see that many dozens of people were filming the motorcade. Do you truly believe someone with Secret Service training would believe he could sneak a shot in without being seen/photographed/filmed??

This theory was shattered the moment a more clear version of the Z film was available. It's the early, fuzzy versions that create the illusion of a Greer shot. Better versions make it obvious that no such shot was ever delivered.

It's helpful to suspend disbelief a bit in this case, but the citizens of Planet Cooper have let their fingertips slip and are hurtling into the abyss. Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great minds think alike - or fools seldom differ?

Either of you got an argument?

Paul

Well, let's see...great minds think alike, do they? I'd love to know which other of William Cooper's theories you cozy up to? You know, seeing as how your mind is great and all.

This from the man himself: "President Kennedy was killed by the driver of his car, his name was William Greer, he used a recoil-less, electrically operated, gas-powered assassination pistol that was specially built by the CIA to assassinate people at close range. It fired an explosive pellet which injected a large amount of shellfish poison into the brain, an that is why, in the documents, it stated that President Kennedy's brain was removed. If you've studied the case, you will find that indeed his brain disappeared. The reason for that is so that they would not find the particles of the exploding pellet or the shellfish poison in his brain which would have proved conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT the assassin."

He also believed that aliens lived in his pants or - whatever.

Look, there was an overpass within yards of the limo, why not wait until the car was hidden from view to fire the killshot? Greer and everybody else in Texas could plainly see that many dozens of people were filming the motorcade. Do you truly believe someone with Secret Service training would believe he could sneak a shot in without being seen/photographed/filmed??

This theory was shattered the moment a more clear version of the Z film was available. It's the early, fuzzy versions that create the illusion of a Greer shot. Better versions make it obvious that no such shot was ever delivered.

It's helpful to suspend disbelief a bit in this case, but the citizens of Planet Cooper have let their fingertips slip and are hurtling into the abyss. Yikes.

Leeeeeettttttttttss geet rreaaddyyy too rrrummmmmbbblleeee!!!!!!!!! LOL folks! I thought the same thing years ago when I first heard of it, and moved on. No thought put into it. But since Lee posted this subject, I actually thought about it a bit. Alot of things really do fit that scenario, as I posted here before. Im not going to get into any p*****g contest with anybody here, and dont want to hear alot of flack about this post. After Lee posted this, I thought about it some more, and moved on. Then the postings continued. So I thought some more on it, and alot of things began to fit into what happened, and what was said years ago. I think Cooper is a few eggs short of a dozen, and he is just repeating what was said years ago by a few JFK assassination buffs. But.........the Newcomb/Adams book is, I believe, the first to realize that this was a possiblity. I did an AOL search and came up with a few hits for this theory. I dont have the www address for you right now, but just for kicks, do your own search [for "Dallas Revisited"], and see if you find "Way cool Larrys web TV home page" and check it out. [there are others also] Its out there too on some points, and even mentions the "Globe" magazine. [so you know where that goes!] But it does mention several good points that I couldnt begin to post here. One of the things that jumped at me was the testimony of several people who testified about "shootings/or related to shots being fired" in the car. I remembered reading those points years ago, and thought them to be crazy. But now, it doesnt sound too nutty. Like i said, Im just putting this out there, decide for yourself. Im not saying this is what happened. Im not trying to waste anybodys time, and Im not starting an arguement with anybody. I just wanted to post what I thought years ago, and what I think now. Cliff, I loved that math thing!! LOL!! Just my opinion FWIW.

thanks-smitty

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  

×