Chuck Robbins

RFK must have been one very brave man. He had to know his life was in grave danger from the forces he felt were behind his brother's murder. He ran despite his knowing that he would very likely never live to take the office. I was 9 years old when RFK was murdered and the memories are still very clear. America was shattered emotionally and we, as a people, did nothing but wring our hands and ask "how could this happen?". We preferred to believe that one young man, acting alone, was able to snuff out the lives of our champions rather than face the possibility that some group had been actively killing off the peace-seeking politicians in this country. No wonder Ted is content to only work in Congress. It's a reasonable compromise. He is still working to stem the tide, that claimed the lives of his brothers, without putting his own life at risk. The U. S. military, in a sense, is the largest corporation in the world. It comes complete with it's own court and is, in essence, a dictatorship. Orders, when given, must be followed...or suffer the consequences. This is a very scary subject to even speak of in public. We are determined to get to the bottom of this subject, but, the closer we get, the more danger we expose ourselves to. We should draw as much attention as possible to our efforts in order to help keep the wolves at bay. They have the power to murder a President and get away with it. Would they hesitate to do away with us if, or when, they get tired of toying with us?

Why is there a shadow on JFK's sleeve which has the shape of Jackie's hand? If her hand is in contact with his arm the shadow is from some other source. Also, does anyone else think the length of JFK's arm, when taking into consideration the unseen length from the shoulder to the elbow, is impossibly long? There is something unnatural, in my opinion, about the picture in general.

Chuck, Can you use either of these 2 enlargements to plot the wound again? I just enlarged what Robin and Eugene supplied earlier, thanks to both of them. Also, Jackie clamps Jack's left arm with both hands. In fact, her Right hand initially presses down on what appears to be Jack's elbow before she forms the clamp. Where is this depicted in Altgen's? chris The wound (what I see as the wound) appears to be very close to where the wound was shown in the autopsy photo. Am i seeing something that isn't there? I don't think so because I noticed the face before checking what I found against the x-ray and this photo. I honestly didn't think there would be a close match.

Maybe I'm nuts, but, I think the Altgens photo has been tampered with. Look at this portion, taken from the photo, which is located just beneath the mirror. If I am correct it shows JFK with a wound on his forehead. This wound's position seems to match the hole seen in the skull x-ray. Maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to ridicule me if you feel the need to. I don't mind.

What I see is Kennedy not 'clutching at his throat' but pulling open his coat at the throat area and trying to look at that area. Thanks very much John! I told people this long ago also, and not suprisingly many contested it and others failed to understand the significance of it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is primarily apparent from the motion picture because of the two or three or four frames that show as he emerges from the sign; that is, in the motion picture, you see the President reaching for his coat lapels and going into a hunched position, leaning forward and lowering his head. Mr. McCLOY. That doesn't exist in frame 225 yet, does it? Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is just beginning in frame 225. That is frame 225 is the first view we have of the President. Mr. McCLOY. Out past the sign. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For anyone who has ever gotten a good ole southern "Yellow Jacket" in their clothing, stinging them, the first thing that one does is attempt to get out of/get the clothing off. JFK has a "Hot" round lodged into the base of his neck which, in addition to the pain of impact, would be burning him as if a hot charcoal were located back there. Most, (considering that most being those who have not been shot at and hit) are not aware that "Pain" completely over-rides the instinct for self survival/aka ducking. Thus the burning pain of CE399 into his back caused JFK to over-ride the basic instinct for survival and he thus remained upright until such time as the Z312/313 headshot/aka second shot took the top of his head off. All of this "grasping the neck" is merely more BS started by those who have never truly evaluated the film; read the Warren Report; and believe what they read without separate and independent verification. I do believe the word is "Sheeples"! I can safely state that pain does not override the instinct for self preservation. I was shot in the back during a home invasion robbery. I was knocked to my knees. The fact that my knees were hurting and my back felt like a sledgehammer had hit it did not in any way stop me from immediately regaining my feet and running for all I was worth until I was out of the line of fire. It was only then that I made a conscious decision to run no further. I did walk to my neighbor's apartment after that where I was made to lay down and await the paramedics arrival. I am alive today because I did not allow pain to interfere with my desire to live. That was April 05, 1981. It's been nearly 26 years since then.....but I remember it like it was yesterday. I provide the date so anyone doubting this story can check with the El Cajon Daily Californian archives. My photo, taken on a stretcher while on my way to the ambulance, was on the front page the next day.

Well! There was one in Havanna who was set in position to terminate Fidel Castro in this exact manner. JFK had been fully advised of the potential threat from such an event. And lastly, since I just shared it with someone else, the two films of JFK in the New Orleans, Library of JFK's visit there on May 4th, 1962, which includes film of his motorcade through New Orleans, certainly make good "training" films. ANY position which was LATERAL to the target would have required LATERAL TRACKING of the target as it moved across the field of fire at an unknown speed. Plus the "Drop" in grade elevation of Elm St. would have required a continous vertical sighting compensation incorporated in with the lateral tracking movement. Anyone who thinks this is easy knows little, other than perhaps having shot birds with shotguns. This would have been the absolutely worst position and there is no way that one could take such a position and assume that no pedestians/parade watchers/ Motorcycle cops alongside,etc would not also be in the vicinity. I truly do not know exactly what, if anything, it will take to convince supposedly rational thinking persons that witness's, as a whole, observed all of the shots fired from the TSDB, as well as having witnessed the shooter there. The "second best" shooting would have been as the limo approached the TSDB, and if one "assumes" planned shooting then this provided the opportunity for one to "take" this shot in the event that there were SS Agents riding on the back of the Limo which would have blocked any shot when the limo was on Elm St. The position was the ABSOLUTE BEST under all conditions; insured that an open shot at JFK could be achieved, compensated for the variables of SS Agents possibly being on the back of the car, provided a "high" shot in which the sound would be difficult to utilize in locating the firing position. ALL of which makes it the IDEAL position! And, although the shooter (from the sixth floor) no doubt had a decent shot at JFK as he approached the turn off Houston St. onto Elm St., this shot was not taken. Instead, the "wait" until the Presidential Limo was in the absolutely IDEAL location, going away slowly downhill, with NO SS DETAIL personnel standing on the back bumper and blocking the view. All of which is either one hell of a coincidence, or the signs of extremely well planning by personnel who knew far more than LHO should have known regarding these aspects of target acquisition and termination. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Orleans Library: President John F. Kennedy Visit to New Orleans, Motorcade, student's Signs, Highway Lined with People, St. Charles Ave. Crowds, JFK Speaks. May 1962 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An excellent "training" film! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did not go to the head of the class! I'm a little confused. Are you agreeing with or arguing against Mr. Roberts critique of the shooting as alleged by the WC? A simple yes I agree or no I don't agree would be easiest for me to understand. All the extra words tend to confuse me. My opinion, which was not asked for, is that I cannot discount a combat experienced and trained sniper's determination of what is possible. Please forgive my punctuation and grammer. English was not my best subject in school.

It has been reported that LHO did have a drivers license. The license, and any records associated with it, such as a picture and signature, has since disappeared. Sorry for not having the source handy. It is information which can be found fairly simply with a google search.

$20.00 and a talk with his barber would probably do it.

There is the report, from a dallas police officer, who, after following the ambulance which carried Tippit to the hospital, gives Tippit's time of death, as 1:15 p.m. on 11/22/1963. I have posted this report before. It supports a shooting time closer to 1:00.

What, me worry?

Looking at the building in the background it appears that the film was exposed at an awkward angle. What could have caused a person to hold their camera at such an angle? The true pitch (steepness of angle) of Elm street is lost in this film. In other words, I'm questioning whether the resultant optical illusion was a desired effect. If you have the ability to do so, such as with photoshop, you can adjust the tilt by degrees until the building is level. Then you will be able to see for yourself the actual pitch of Elm street. In case you're not sure why I bring this up, it is because the pitch of Elm Street relates directly to the angle(s) of any bullet wound entry.

Jack, I had the same problem as you re: uploading files. I reloaded windows and that fixed my problem. Perhaps you might try the same thing? It may be a corrupt file preventing the upload.

Mary says JFK clutched his chest. A through and through, from the back, exiting through the chest, would be the logical explanation for the origin of Connally's back wound. Instead, we have the shot in the neck with an exit through the throat, then striking Connally story. A question...What if there had been two wounds from behind? One entering the back, exiting through the chest, and the other in the neck exiting through the throat? If one of the wounds from the rear had to disappear, to support the WC version of events, wouldn't the logical step be to merge the two shots into one? Mary says she heard something, which sounded like a firecracker, "pop" in the car. What caused that popping sound? Jean says she heard 3-4 shots after the first two shots. Falling forward, from her position, could have been her way of saying JFK fell towards her. Why do neither of these women say a word about the head wound? Witnessing JFK's head exploding should have been a traumatic event and it makes no sense that neither of them talked about witnessing that horrible event. Also, being that close, wouldn't some of that cloud of debris have settled upon one, or both, of these two ladies?

We are not the United Nations where the US has a veto. Only one American offered to be a moderator (she was also the only woman). The others also volunteered for this unpleasant task. Now you have started criticizing the moderators before they have started their duties. Remember, I pay for this forum. I have relinquished power to five volunteers. I have just about had enough from you ungrateful people. If you don't like the way this forum is run, go away and give us a rest from your pathetic bickering. Well folks, John is shooting straight from the hip. If you do not approve of or do not enjoy the benefits we all enjoy being here, we are free to leave and pursue our quest for truth elsewhere. Personally, I think this is the best forum available anywhere at any price. Can you argue that membership is not worth the price of admission when the price of admission being asked is simply to behave?

My two cents worth: I welcome the moderating group as a necessary addition to the forum. If the members of the forum (myself included) were able to exchange their points of view without resorting to name-calling there would be no need for moderation. I also think that questioning the wisdom of this action before any actions have been taken by the committee is "jumping the gun". Perhaps the very presence of this committee will have the desired effect that members will self-police their posts? If this is the case, and civility is restored, I am sure the committee members will be thrilled if they find their newfound positions require no actions to be taken on their part. Having added my inflation adjusted two-cents worth, I now surrender the floor.

I added the files which contain the letter from the prisoner who claimed he could prove Ruby and Oswald knew each other. Posted for information only. I don't know whether his name had ever been released.

Thank you Pat and Ron for your informative replies. Whatever stands in the way of exploitation is considered "evil" and subject to eradication...? Sad state for humanity.

Just a quick question. What is it about communism that makes it so hated/feared that it is used to justify assassinations, right wing death squads and declarations of war? Does it threaten a capitalist society? I must have slept through this chapter in world history.

Great stuff, John. Dox seems to be afraid of speaking about this, "especially over the phone", and that kind of fear goes a long way, IMHO, towards keeping witnesses quiet.

Not saying you are wrong about the principle, but, JFK's body was snatched away from Dallas even when the party was told to stay until the autopsy was done. What I'm saying is that protocol seemed to go out the window as far as evidence collection was concerned re: JFK's murder.

Are you referring to Otho Howard? http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=146375 No, the person who wrote it is unidentified. I copied down a good portion of his letter and will post what I have so far since my browser isn't uploading attachments. the Dallas archives is where I found this letter. The file numbers are 0356-001 thru 0356-004.

knows Eva Grant . Sandra Sue Kramer-(Ellison) One DPD report has her living with her parents at 2901 Northwest Highway, but, she really lived at 404 e. ninth according to a DPD list of TSBD employee addresses. Miss Kramer said she knew Eva Grant and saw her at the Vegas Club, but, did not remember ever seeing Jack Ruby. (She did not say she didn't know Jack Ruby) She did say that she did not know Lee or Marina Oswald. Her 404 e. ninth street address is very close to 404 e. tenth st. where Tippit was murdered. Kramer was hired as a sec by Kelly Girl Services in Oct. of 63 then worked 5 days at the TSBD in Nov. including the 22nd. She was at a "north window of the 3rd floor" when the shooting happened. One doc. I found was in the Dallas archives. All I have it under is this file number. 0422-001.gif

I wonder if their uniforms will have Brown Shirts?

Chuck, the south pasture sloped downward, so yes - Bell was higher elevated and looking directly at the colonnade on a more even plane whereas Moorman was at the curb on Elm Street and looking upward at the same structure. This is why we can see the RR cars in Bell's film and not in Moorman's. This is simple perspective that not only we were taught in grade school, but it is also something that can be duplicated by the simpliest of means right at home. Not long ago someone on this forum thought they had a Muchmmore frame matched up to the Morman photo. The fact was that Muchmore was just off to the right of Moorman's line of sight and when the two images were overlaid ... they appeared to look close, but the background had shifted. In the example Chris made - the windows inside the colonnade shelter have shifted because the two photographers were not on the same line of sight. The RR car fills up most of the windows, thus making them appear to be blacked out. The one window that Chris draws attention to is one that I have had trouble finding on Groden's copy of the Bell film because of its poor quality. On my Bell film I can see two windows and the break in the wall that separates them. The frame Chris has opted to use is blurred just enough that the two windows have merged into one. This is why I asked that he or someone else capture another frame or two so we could make a comparison. So far this has not been done and it seems obvious to me why it hasn't. I, as well as many other researchers, have been to the plaza and seen these views for ourselves and I am telling you that using these crappy looking frames to make claims of images being in synchronous harmony is misleading to someone who doesn't know any better. I mean look at where this has gone now ... It has taken 44 years for someone like Chris to take a poor degraded Bell frame that is filled with digital artifacts to proclaim that Zapruder and Sitzman had stand-ins. Now how insane does that appear to you! Moorman's photo is much clearer than the dark Bell frame and Mary's photo was still in her possession when filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination and there are no people seen in the shelter doorway. But some boob will ignore this and continue playing games with the poor degraded image. Its like telling someone who is looking through a dirty window and thinks they see all these oddities and you offer them a view through a clean window and they say, "No thanks, I prefer using the dirty window because looking through your window isn't as much fun!" What is being done here that sickens so many other CT's is that John Kennedy's murder is being turned into a 'Gong Show' and what I am saying is shame on those who support such a piss poor level of research that is turning the purpose of this forum into a laughing stock. I mean, its OK for someone not to understand perspective, angles, film stock differences, and so forth. But it is not OK to not be smart enough to understand why someone would want to use a good image for accuracy over a poor image. Bill Miller I understand your concern about artifacts and their interpretation. I also see where you are concerned about the quality of the images used. I still do not understand how two different perspectives produced images which, for all intents, can merge almost flawlessly. This is not, I believe, a product of artifacts or quality of images. I still do not understand how film, shot from different locations, produce images which are seemingly shot from nearly identical locations. It must be something I am incapable of understanding as I truly wish I could understand what seems to me to be an impossibility.

I once had obtained notes from a retired FBI agent who insisted Permindex was THE ANSWER to who killed JFK. His name was Calvin Fox and he stated he was once a part of Hoover's Secret Army. He also stated Nixon was set for assassination during the San Diego Republican Convention. The convention in San Diego was cancelled and another city was chosen to host the convention after word of the upcoming assassination attempt was picked up. He stated he spoke of these subjects on a local San Diego news program with Harold Keen. Does anyone know if it is possible to access archived footage from TV stations?