William O'Neil

August 1, 2007

Greg,
One of the officers listed on that report is J.C. White. There was an accident investigator with that name as well as a patrolman who during the assassination was standing on the west side of the triple overpass. When asked about where the shots came from, he said that he didn't hear any shots because at the time, there was a noisy freight train.

FWIW.

James

Thanks James.

That point is out the door. But the other three points still make me think it's a fake.

Greg...stop and think a minute.
WHETHER GENUINE OR FAKE, this "official" document EXISTS.

It first came to light in the FILES OF MARGUERITE OSWALD.

Its existence and known provenance make it WORTHY OF STUDY.

Since it exists:

1. Whoever wrote it was knowledgeable about many facts

2. There must have been a reason for writing it

3. Who wrote it and why?

4. Whoever wrote it had access to DPD forms

5. Writing a false report was a crime

6. Some have claimed it was a joke; what's funny?

7. How did Marguerite get a copy?

There is the matter of H.H. Grant, a witness...which deserves

investigation (I have info on this but may have lost it in a

computer crash; maybe Bernice saved it years ago from the

DellaRosa forum).

IMO, this should not be dismissed as a joke hoax but investigated

to find its relevance. And I would like to know the provenance

of James's copy FROM HIS VAST INTELLIGENCE SOURCES...clearly

different than Marguerite's indistinct copy.

Jack

Jack, I never said it was a hoax.

She testified that he had signed in as a boarder under the name of Lee Oswald -- not as OH Lee as this report alleges.

Mr. JENNER - You walked out after the transaction, financially, was complete?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - I went and he paid--he had already paid me but I wanted him to put his name on here.

Mr. JENNER - On your register?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - On this [indicating].

Mr. JENNER - He did that

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - In your presence?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes; in the living room.

Mr. JENNER - Your recollection was that he wrote the words "Lee Oswald"?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Lee Oswald.

The report has mispelled "Hidell" with only one "l" despite reference to having mail and ID cards in that name to show Bledsoe.

The report cites Rubenstein as one of the offenders. Jack would never have given that as his name. His name was legally Jack Leon Ruby. Just about every report and article after the assassination refering to him as Rubenstein was from some right winger trying to link a Jew to a Commie. I'll go with that as the whole purpose of this report. It also lists his age as 39 when he was actually over 50.

The report states the fight occurred in the room she had rented to "Lee/Hidel" earlier in the week, and that a bed, chairs and TV set were all damaged. Whilst a rooming house circa '63 would have a bed and possibly chairs provided in the rooms - a TV set in each room is not likely.

Compare the amount of detail in this report on a very very minor incident to reports held in the DPD archives associated with the crime of the century. Go through those, and you get an idea what they thought about paperwork and going into great detail in that paperwork. This report goes way over-the-top in ensuring that certain details are inserted to give it credibility. The DPD was riddled with members of right wing groups, so it's not entirely surprising that the form itself may be genuine.

Investigate it by all means. The real authors have a lot of explaining to do about the purpose of it.

Greg, The Ultra's were JUST trying to be accurate........

....and Pigs can Fly!

-Bill

July 15, 2007

Does anyone know the ID of this man refered to in an HSCA interview of Tom Lutz ( a Nat'l Tattler reporter). I know there were similar ref's in the HSCA report of an OP 'A' or "B' etc. I wonder if they refer to the same individual. He was with Alpha 66 and knew Sturgis and a "Tom Kane" among others.
Thanks -Bill

Hi Bill,

I think 'Operative A' was part fact part fiction, ultimately with an agenda. I am of the belief that this man was Ramon Orozco who amongst other things was one of Rip Robertson's commandos. Tom Kane was an alleged alias (code name) for Lee Oswald.

James

I see little about on the Tom Kane alias for Oswald and it seems to be from an FBI document that Garrison had noted. Anybody have a copy of it to post or more details? Thanks.

Thanks, to you both. James, was Orozco with Alpha 66?

July 11, 2007

Does anyone know the ID of this man refered to in an HSCA interview of Tom Lutz ( a Nat'l Tattler reporter). I know there were similar ref's in the HSCA report of an OP 'A' or "B' etc. I wonder if they refer to the same individual. He was with Alpha 66 and knew Sturgis and a "Tom Kane" among others.

Thanks -Bill

July 9, 2007

I have been intending to update this thread for quite some time, and became bogged down regarding some name checks of individuals on the Silviera List; suffice to say that some of that is going to take some time.
In the meantime, I wanted to post material that gets back to Madrid and the DRE.

First I ran across this today on maryferrell.org

BELT, GUILLERMO (DR.)

Sources: CD 49 (26); CD 205, p. 768; Red Star Over Cuba, Weyl (35)

Mary's

Comments: Former Cuban Ambassador to the United States - 1945-1947. Head of Cuba's delegation to the Inter-American Conference in Bogota, Colombia, in 1948. He provided haven for Fidel Castro and Rafael del Pino when Colombian authorities were trying to arrest them in the Claridge Hotel in Bogota. Guillermo had them flown back to Cuba. Provided information to FBI on 11/26/63 that, according to Jose Antonio Lanuza, Oswald had been in Miami "one or two months ago" attempting to infiltrate the anti-Castro organization DRE.

This may be an instance of an unreliable source on the other hand, given the fact that there is a story out there that Oswald called in on a radio show in Florida, [pre-assassination - Hemming] I thought it was worth posting.

More importantly, I wanted to post an excerpt from "The Strength of the Wolf- The Secret History of America's War on Drugs." by Douglas Valentine.

page 314.....

"In tracing the money used to finance the [July 1961] de Gaulle assassination plots, French Intelligence discovered that about $200,000 in secret funds had been sent to Permindex accounts in the Banque de la Credit Internationale. In 1962, Bannister had dispatched to Paris a lawyer friend.....with a suitcase full of money for the OAS, reportedly around $200,000."

footnote reference James DiEugenio Destiny Betrayed page 211

".......Bannister's money allegedly went to Jean Rene Marie Souetre-- or someone impersonating him. A French Army deserter and the OAS representative in southern Algeria, Souetre reportedly met in the spring of 1963 with E. Howard Hunt in Madrid, ultra General Walker in Dallas and Guy Bannister at 544 Camp Street. In June he offered the CIA a list of KGB penetrations in the French government. Souetre was also reportedly "on the Paris end of drug traffic," and had been followed for years by an undercover narcotics agent in Marseilles."

footnote reference Dick Russell - The Man Who Knew Too Much 1992 page 563

As far as I am aware, E Howard Hunt had always maintained that he had never been to Madrid "until 1965." While a book is not a official document, I feel very comfortable in stating that Valentine has done the research community a real service and if I were to describe the book it is a complete history of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, with substantial segments on MK-ULTRA, the switchover from the FBN to the Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs and the DEA.

Personally, I would not trust any source that can't spell Guy W. Banister's name right.......!

July 8, 2007

The man in the uniform and helmet, is David Ferrie I believe, and the other man in DP does not resemble Ferrie.

July 7, 2007

Dawn, Thanks! ..thats what I thought.

July 7, 2007

I have read and subsequently forgotten, just who else besides Russell Long was said to have influenced JG, to look into the JFK case?

Does anybody know off-hand ??

June 25, 2007

Morales had quite dark skin.
This is him below on the right during a basketball game.

James

Just in case people thought he was the guy sitting down on the left :D

Thanks, Gary.

BTW, thanks to all who have have responded to this thread. Nineteen years difference between the images used below.

James

Seriously, I think it could be him. The side view photo is reasonably convincing for me. The back view, does make the person appear somewhat darker.

I know he is alleged to have said he was there. My concern would be, IF the hit on Kennedy did not have clearence from the top levels of CIA, would it be prudent for Morales to parade around the plaza, drawing attention from various intelligence and indeed governmental agencies.

Perhaps this 'presence' accelerated the cover-up!!

This figure looks quite tall, how tall was Morales?

June 24, 2007

In the event that Mr. Bugliosi has actually won, then it is a direct result of one of the following:
1. To a large extent, opposing forces have been firing (BS) Blanks.

2. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo (factual data), they quite obviously did not know how to load it.

3. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo and knew how to load it, they either did not know how to take the safety off, or else did not know which end of the gun to point.

4. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo, knew how to load it and properly utilize the gun, they did not know exactly what to take a shot at.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With what frequently causes an eruption of reminiscent laughter, I am reminded of those "firefights" with hard core Regular NVA forces in which each side was armed with "real" bullets.

We had long prior learned that the NVA leadership gave it's command signals through the blowing of whistles.

Thus, an important element of our battlefield strategy consisted of utilization of captured (as well as write home and get sent to one) whistles.

Certain (not too competent in battle) persons/privates, were thereafter delegated merely the task of hiding and blowing their "whistle" when a firefight ensued.

To the NVA, this caused absolute confusion!

Some would be attacking; some would be retreating; and some would be surrendering at the same point in the battle.

Others merely stood around totally confused!

So, even if one has "real bullets", the (whistle blowing) confusion and misdirection which has been generated in searching for "body snatchers" and multiple assassins, has created a battlefield in which the CT forces are so confused that, for the most part, they do not know what to fire at, and have thus defeated themselves.

"For those who fail to learn from it, history has a way of repeating itself"

Whether in the Jungles of South Vietnam, or in Dealy Plaza, Dallas, TX.

The truly sad fact ,is that we are fighting this "battle" in our home country.......

The truly sad fact ,is that we are fighting this "battle" in our home country

Even more sad is the fact that the "Enemy" (WC/Posner/Bugliosi/Government Personnel) has merely given the CT Community the whistles, taken a seat on the sideline, and thereafter watched them confuse themselves in the attack.

One can only imagine:

1. Over here, I see him behind the tree!

2. No he is not, I saw him down in the manhole.

3. You are all wrong, he was on top of the Dal-Tex Bldg.

4. All of you must be seeing things, he can clearly be observed:

a. Behind the Stockade fence.

b. On top of the overpass.

c. Hiding in the SS Followup vehicle.

d. Fill in the blank:-___________________

Perhaps one is correct when they claim that Bugliosi has won!

Not unlike in a boxing match, I would suppose that if one punches himself in the face and knocks himself out, the opponenet still wins, even if he is merely standing around and watching.

Ah yes, I'm often reminded of that Mad Magazine comic strip Spy vs Spy....or, perhaps even Road Runner vs Wiley Coyote. The Gods must chuckle...and the beat goes on. Who really wins in the end ?

June 23, 2007

In the event that Mr. Bugliosi has actually won, then it is a direct result of one of the following:
1. To a large extent, opposing forces have been firing (BS) Blanks.

2. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo (factual data), they quite obviously did not know how to load it.

3. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo and knew how to load it, they either did not know how to take the safety off, or else did not know which end of the gun to point.

4. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo, knew how to load it and properly utilize the gun, they did not know exactly what to take a shot at.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With what frequently causes an eruption of reminiscent laughter, I am reminded of those "firefights" with hard core Regular NVA forces in which each side was armed with "real" bullets.

We had long prior learned that the NVA leadership gave it's command signals through the blowing of whistles.

Thus, an important element of our battlefield strategy consisted of utilization of captured (as well as write home and get sent to one) whistles.

Certain (not too competent in battle) persons/privates, were thereafter delegated merely the task of hiding and blowing their "whistle" when a firefight ensued.

To the NVA, this caused absolute confusion!

Some would be attacking; some would be retreating; and some would be surrendering at the same point in the battle.

Others merely stood around totally confused!

So, even if one has "real bullets", the (whistle blowing) confusion and misdirection which has been generated in searching for "body snatchers" and multiple assassins, has created a battlefield in which the CT forces are so confused that, for the most part, they do not know what to fire at, and have thus defeated themselves.

"For those who fail to learn from it, history has a way of repeating itself"

Whether in the Jungles of South Vietnam, or in Dealy Plaza, Dallas, TX.

The truly sad fact ,is that we are fighting this "battle" in our home country.......

June 20, 2007

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear. Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

But you've convinced yourself, good for you. I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

William,

I disagree that the provable wound at T3 doesn't matter.

It is important in understanding the cover-up that the autopsists "officially"

identified 3 different back wound locations other than T3.

I'll argue that it is important in understanding the crime itself to establish that the

damage on the neck x-ray -- bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process, air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1 -- was caused by the shot

to the throat from the front.

I regard this x-ray as a key piece of evidence, one that is rarely examined.

Some, like Tom Purvis, for instance, argue that this damage was created by

the shot to JFK's back.

That scenario is impossible, given the T3 back wound.

What kind of round leaves an air pocket, but no bullet?

Answer that question and we're well on the way to resolving the case, imo.

Cliff, OK , point taken. I was primarily refering to the SBT itself. I also think the throat wound was one of entrance, and it leaves one hard pressed to explain away, in a 3 shot scenario. I think it was the 1st shot to strike JFK, clearly prior to any headshot.

June 20, 2007

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear. Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

But you've convinced yourself, good for you. I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

did not transit the body.

In that, we are in absolute and total agreement.

Now, if one could only determine exactly what would cause a 2,000 to 2,200 fps projectile to become limited in it's velocity to the extent that it would only penetrate the upper back/shoulder of JFK to a shallow depth.

I will again reiterate:

The fact that the relatively clean-cut/punch-type oval wound of entry in the back of JFK which measured 4mm X 7mm, was declared by Dr. Boswell as being an "atypical" wound, and which had considerable fabric from the coat and shirt worn by JFK carried down into the wound of entry, is an EEI (essential element of information)

The fact that the deformed oval base of CE399 measures exactly 4mm x 7mm is another essential element of information.

The fact that a normal medium to high velocity bullet, striking in a nose first attitude DOES NOT carry fabric from clothing down into the wound of entry is another EEI.

Talk about your 4th graders there Cliff. At least most of them know about round pegs and round holes, oval pegs and oval holes, as well as 4mm X 7mm pegs and 4mm X 7mm holes.

I take it you are thinking bullet tumble, caused by tree branch or seat-back cushion ?

June 20, 2007

You can't see that this horizontal fold exposes less fabric

to the sunlight than the 1/2" exposed shirt collar?

A trip to the optometrist may be in order, Mr. Valenti.

The image is suggestive, not clear. Years of your tough-guy talk won't change that.

Fuzzy photos create fuzzy thinking. That's why some people see shooters in multiple spots behind the fence, others see Lambchop instead of flowers, some say Zapruder isn't there, some say he is, some people see a blowhole in the back of JFK's head, other see hair. Etc. etc. etc.

But you've convinced yourself, good for you. I don't really care what you believe, it just catches my notice when you insult people for not falling into your line of thinking. I would think that if you were really confident about your position you would cool it with the Vichy crap.

Guys - It doesn't matter if JFK had his suit on upside - down. At some point (preferably sooner than later), one must deal with the wound on the BODY, and where the DR's and witnesses placed it ! Choose C-7 ,T-1, T-3, doesn't really matter, cause the projectile that caused it , did not transit the body.

June 20, 2007

I am really surprised that this very important thread has only had 74 viewings why the Jack White log-in problems has had 370.

I was thinking the same thing - about this thread and a few others....

A great article.

The mere fact that Bugliosi would endeavor to perpetuate the myth begs the question as to his motive - in my opinion, seriously opening his reputation and credibility to review - starting with a 'relook' into the Manson family murders.

It is unfortunate that there are not more outspoken individuals on the CT side, using similar tactics, which would accuse anyone of officially supporting the Warren Report as guilty of complicity in the crime - and move to litigation. Continued support of the crime of the cover-up should carry punitive measures, as this essentially equates to willingly being an accomplice to murder - which has no statute of limitation here in the US.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...3f6293b048acb5b

RICLAND View profile
(1 user) More options Jun 17, 11:24 am

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com>

Date: 17 Jun 2007 11:24:24 -0400

Local: Sun, Jun 17 2007 11:24 am

Subject: Why does Bugliosi keep Saying This?

In a recent "debate" with Cyril Wecht -- which lasted all but 10 minutes

(Bugliosi gave a speech than ran leaving Wecht to debate himself)--

Bugliosi ended his speech with that business about Oswald being the

"last person the mob or CIA would have chosen as an assassin."

This puzzles me.

No one has argued Oswald was a mob or CIA assassin, so why does Bugliosi

end all his speeches with it?

Is he delusional or is he trying to undermine the real conspiracy

theories by presenting this patently absurd one? ricland

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:0PWxZg...cd=28&gl=us

Maybe Bugliosi is 'connected' and was asked by his connection
or boss to write a buffer book to explain away the evidence,

Why doesn't Bugliosi write a book on the history of the collaboration of Politics, the FBI, CIA and the Mafia. Now that would make for a great book - or set of books. Start at WWII at a minimum. Maybe he could get a TV deal, and a mini-series starring a bunch of drug addicted losers from Hollywood to act in it.
- lee

Lee, In order to understand Vince B. you need to look at who and what the Los Angeles DA's office was about in the 60' and 70's. This is where the "Bug' cut his teeth and formed some of his alliegences. He is a (career) establishment guy, to put it mildly.

June 20, 2007

Trying hard to follow Tom - quite a lot of material. Great stuff. I made sure to download a copy of the jpeg this time.
There seem to be a number of assumptions - one being that the present day copy of the film alleged to have been taken by Zapruder, with his assistant Marilyn Sitzman standing close behind to steady him - [much like the folks directly opposite on the other side of the plaza at the corner of Houston and Main, which just happens to be another amazing coincidence] is not intact - definitely inclined to agree. Not an expert in photogrammetry - however I'll take missing frames over some other accounts I have seen. Another being that the cover-up could be considered a mixture of intentional obfuscation along with the old 'pass the buck' mentality - or, the 'it wasn't our fault' department. Sounds very logical - especially on the SS side - since Hoover, it can be pointed out, is on the record multiple times for what appears to have been the deliberate attempt to prevent certain information from coming to light and attempting to 'enforce' the LN scenario. I also believe that this 'Alternative SBT theory' is much more accurate and in line with the details - and your posts have shed a LOT of light on this subject. However, I can't totally wrap my head around all of what you presented here.

Looking at the original 'official' scenario...all shots fired by Oswald, MC, 6th floor west, TSBD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory

a.

According to the single bullet theory, a one-inch long, copper jacketed, lead core 6.5 millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck, Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. In doing so, the bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a tie knot, removed 4 inches of rib and shattered a radius bone.

b. Miss that stuck the curb at Main st, resulting in a chip of concrete which struck James Tague.

c. Graze shot, which impacted both Kennedy and Connally.

This would account for 3 shots total. If we added a fourth, it would be another shot to Kennedy's head, IMO - and we could go on and on here... However, if it's the 2nd shot which appears at z313 is the graze shot which goes on to penetrate Connally, then how would one account for the back and throat wounds to Kennedy? Clearly the throat wound must be associated with the 'first' shot - however then we are left with the mystery of the so-called first shot which apparently struck no-one [?], where the Tague / Main st shot would fit in, and also stuck on the back wound as well. There would also be the account of the grass being struck [did you retrieve the pellet?], the alleged pavement strike on Elm [sparks, etc.], the alleged .45 round that clanged off the fender of one of the DPD bike fenders, the striation in the cement by the manhole cover, the alleged .45 caliber nose recovered from the grass, the alleged strike to the Stemmons sign, the furrows in the grass across from the steps, the alleged 'dust' and comment made to Jean Hill, etc. Still seems as if 4 shots would be insufficient?

Sorry - one last question which is perhaps more important - can one use the present day 'extant' z-film to effectively demonstrate the graze wound and point of entry into Connally, or is it the case that this is not 100% possible, based upon z313 - x as we have it available today?

- lee

Lee, You are reading my thoughts,

Tom ...you have two unconnected wounds (Back and Neck) to account for, where do they fit within your scenario?

June 19, 2007

Charles Drago
In my opinion you sound like a politician, who in a

very unashamed and poorly disguised manner, is seekng approval for his absurd theory, that the mass of nearly 300 million within the U.S., is well read, well informed, and that most of whom, have a basic knowledge of what we are discussing.

I hope that you have managed to fool yourself !

I am sure that you have brought a smile to the faces of those masses of poorly or completely uninformed whom you are no doubt attempting to rally for your support. BUT SUPPORT FOR WHAT ?

Earlier in this thread I have accused you of giving "ridiculous" locker room motivational speeches that would not even influence the 10 year olds, who play in the Pop Warner league.

You have no doubt rallied battle experienced war veterans, with your apparent lack of both tactical knowledge and leadership, into probably asking...."what exactly is this "wannabe" talking about"?

No one....and certainly never I...have failed to support the principles upon which this nation was originally founded.

However "that nation" bears little similarity to what I have seen in the past half century...."and I don't like it"....nor will I pretend that it has not drastically changed !

NO ! THIS NATION CANNOT NOW HANDLE IT !

As a matter of fact our "enlightened" citzens, to whom you are apparently attempting to appeal, in most part, would not have the slighest conception or understanding of probably 80% of the threads on this forum.

You not only seem to misunderstand the uncaring naivete of most of whom you speak, but your motivational methods, I feel, would spark very little emotion in those few who might comprehend.

It is as if you feel that realism and truism is Anti American.

You...I cannot excuse...as you are one who has seen and experienced the decline of the principles and general morality of U.S. leadership since 1964 !

YOU also know the actual intellectual level of most within this country.

What are you "trying to promote...or defend" ?

AND WHY ?

I feel that I have probably now by passed the "point of diminishing returns", regarding anything that I consider of value, that I could further add.

Although a few of my thoughts were misinterpreted, or perhaps poorly originally stated, I will attempt to not add more redundency to what I feel that I have already well enough expressed.

But in what I hope will be my closing statement in this thread, I wish to reaffirm my my continued support for everything that I have stated...or attempted to state.

If I have at times been overly callous, I apologize for my behaviour or method of expression.....tho not my thoughts.

Charles Black

Charles , If the masses are as "uncaring and naive" as you say (and many are) , why would you think the "truth" would even faze them ?

June 18, 2007

"Handwringing"???
"The war is irretrievable"???

The hands on this keyboard have not been wrung and will not be. They may very well wring a few necks before this thing is over, however.

Fight or get off the pot.

And who wants to retrieve war?

The system's willing executioners (the brain dead majority) are as susceptible to soul cleansing as they are to brain washing.

No force on earth can extinguish the divine spark.

Charles

Indeed, SOMEBODY out there obviously doesn't think we've been succesfully marginalized!

June 18, 2007

\

Yeah, guess my comment seemed a little out of context. I was really aiming at the notion that somehow a bullet passed through JFK and struck Connolly. The autopsy witnesses, Drs. and medical assisstants, who saw the "sound" or probe inserted into the back wound of JFK, said that wound was shallow and did not pierce the Pleural linning around the lungs. Which means that the bullet that caused that wound, did not transit the body.

Got it - not in any way saying that there was anything to the lies sold by FBI snitch Ford or Senator Specter. The man needs to retract his bs and apologize.

Here's a gif - should demonstrate the back wound - from the size of it, seems hard to call it an entry wound. Connally completely rolls over following 313. This isn't what I wanted - it's what I had already made.

- lee

Personally, I would not despair!

Especially considering that you are closer to being correct, than to being incorrect.

There was an "SBT" and it was also the one and only true "MAGIC BULLET".

In that not only did the bullet pass through JFK, but it also passed through JBC.

And, in true "Magical Style", it thereafter disappeared.

However, it/the bullet, was neither the first, nor was it the second shot at Z313.

It was in fact, the third/last/final shot, which occurred down in front of James Altgens, and after having passed through the head/mid-brain of JFK, exited to strike JFK in the right shoulder, passing through his chest on a downward angle, exiting, to thereafter penetrate the left upper leg.

So, those who have "sold" the SBT theory, did not in fact even have to be original in their thought process since there was in fact a SBT.

They merely had to be ingenious enough to thereafter make virtually all trace of this shot & bullet, become MAGIC and thereafter disappear.

Think hard on this one!

Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear.

Thomas, I take it you mean " exited to strike JBC in the right shoulder" ?

Thomas, I take it you mean " exited to strike JBC in the right shoulder" ?

Glad that someone here understands me!

The downward angle of penetration from just to the right of the scapula of JBC, entering to strike the right fifth rib and running parallel with the rib to exit under the right nipple, would appear as a cross-angle as well as a downward angle. (When JBC is sitting in the upright position)

Mostly, it is a downward angle as JBC was leaning/almost laying over across the seats with his right shoulder "up" and exposed between the jump seats.

The third round exited the frontal area of JFK's skull and thereafter struck JBC in the right shoulder, just to the right of the scapula.

It is mostly a "downward" angle of penetration through JBC, just that when he is placed back into the vertical/sittting upright position, this downward angle now becomes a combination downward as well as considerable cross-angle of penetration.

There was no tumbling of the bullet. The elongated nature of the entry wound into the back/shoulder of JBC is merely due to the natural downward angle of penetration.

In that regards, the HSCA at least made some pretty good drawings which demonstrate the "abrasion collar" and how these elongated entry wounds occur.

However, didn't Connolly claim to hear the impact of the headshot, and see its "effects" ( brain matter etc.) AFTER he was shot??

================================================================================

====

"So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, "

================================================================================

====

Connally clearly describes how the third/last/final shot blew blood and cerebral tissue all over him and the car. Which happens to be down in front of Altgens, and clearly matches Altgens description of seeing virtually the same thing.

So, since JFK was well below the level of all others when this impact occurred, wanna take a guess as to exactly where the bullet actually went after it passed through the head of JFK.

================================================================================

=====

"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right

shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."

================================================================================

====

First, let's talk about the first lie.

From his hospital bed, shortly after the assassination, JBC clearly stated that he turned and looked at and saw JFK.

This conversation was in a recorded radio interview, and although it has had a tendency to also become "lost" in history, it is still documented fact.

Thereafter, during his WC Testimony, JBC stated: "but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye,"

Personally, I could care less if JBC did or did not catch the President "in the corner of my eye". Originally, JBC stated he observed JFK. Later, the Z-film clearly demonstrates that he was looking directly at JFK, and if he did not see him then he must have had his eyes closed.

JBC has, for a yet undisclosed reason, lied about seeing JFK and his reactions to the first shot.

================================================================================

====

"and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."

================================================================================

====

Does this state that he felt the impact of a bullet strike him in the back?????

JBC was struck in the wrist by a fragment from the headshot at Z313. Perhaps this made him feel if someone had hit him in the back, perhaps not! Perhaps just another "evasive" answer in that no lie was actually told.

JBC was not struck by any bullet (or fragment) until such time as the fragment from the Z313 headshot tore through his wrist at the Z313 shot. Which of course also sent the fragments forward into the windshield, etc;.

Not only that, his memory of the blood/brain splatter for the third shot is by far too vivid for him to have had already had the severe injuries to the chest, lung, and rib cage when this third shot occurred.

The pain and pathological damage from this shot, had it occurred previously, would have virtually negated JBC being that aware of the surrounding events that immediately after having received these injuries.

JBC was curled up laying across the open area of the Jump seats, with his legs pulled up into an almost fetal position, suffering from ONLY a fragment injury to the right wrist, at the time that the third/last/final shot passed through the skull of JFK and exited to strike JBC

(got it correct that time) in the right rear shoulder, just to the right of the scapula.

Hint: Reach around with your left hand (under the left armpit) and place your obscene jesture finger just to the right of the scapula/shoulder blade.

Now, with your right obscene jesture finger, place the finger on the right front chest, just below the right nipple (with the hand under the forearm/wrist of the left arm)

Now, in sitting erect, look down at this and one will find that the angle between the two points is slightly right to left and slightly downwards.

Now, maintaining the points of contact, lean over onto the left shoulder until almost horizontal, with the right shoulder rolled slightly backwards. This virtually eliminates any "cross-angle", and thereafter makes the penetration through the chest of JBC primarily a "downward angle" of entry, as well as making the elongated nature of the shoulder entry exactly match what the HSCA drew and described as the "Abrasion Collar" nature of this type entry.

Lastly, if you wish to see how the leg got into the way, draw the legs up into the complete fetal position.

Hope that answers any questions.

Tom

P.S. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc:

Hmmm, What Z frame do you put the last head shot / Connolly shoulder shot at? I am presuming you are saying there were two headshots, 313 and ? -Bill

Z-frame numbers only count if one has a complete and intact copy of the actual film.

Therefore, how about this:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

Impact point of third shot:---------------------------------4+95

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm

Impact point of Z313/aka second shot:------------------4+65.3

About 30 feet farther down Elm St. from the impact point of the headshot as seen in Z313.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z342.jpg

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's about as clear as I can make it!

Have you figured the approx. time elapsed btw 4+65.3 and 4+95 ?

June 18, 2007

\

Yeah, guess my comment seemed a little out of context. I was really aiming at the notion that somehow a bullet passed through JFK and struck Connolly. The autopsy witnesses, Drs. and medical assisstants, who saw the "sound" or probe inserted into the back wound of JFK, said that wound was shallow and did not pierce the Pleural linning around the lungs. Which means that the bullet that caused that wound, did not transit the body.

Got it - not in any way saying that there was anything to the lies sold by FBI snitch Ford or Senator Specter. The man needs to retract his bs and apologize.

Here's a gif - should demonstrate the back wound - from the size of it, seems hard to call it an entry wound. Connally completely rolls over following 313. This isn't what I wanted - it's what I had already made.

- lee

Personally, I would not despair!

Especially considering that you are closer to being correct, than to being incorrect.

There was an "SBT" and it was also the one and only true "MAGIC BULLET".

In that not only did the bullet pass through JFK, but it also passed through JBC.

And, in true "Magical Style", it thereafter disappeared.

However, it/the bullet, was neither the first, nor was it the second shot at Z313.

It was in fact, the third/last/final shot, which occurred down in front of James Altgens, and after having passed through the head/mid-brain of JFK, exited to strike JFK in the right shoulder, passing through his chest on a downward angle, exiting, to thereafter penetrate the left upper leg.

So, those who have "sold" the SBT theory, did not in fact even have to be original in their thought process since there was in fact a SBT.

They merely had to be ingenious enough to thereafter make virtually all trace of this shot & bullet, become MAGIC and thereafter disappear.

Think hard on this one!

Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear.

Thomas, I take it you mean " exited to strike JBC in the right shoulder" ?

Thomas, I take it you mean " exited to strike JBC in the right shoulder" ?

Glad that someone here understands me!

The downward angle of penetration from just to the right of the scapula of JBC, entering to strike the right fifth rib and running parallel with the rib to exit under the right nipple, would appear as a cross-angle as well as a downward angle. (When JBC is sitting in the upright position)

Mostly, it is a downward angle as JBC was leaning/almost laying over across the seats with his right shoulder "up" and exposed between the jump seats.

The third round exited the frontal area of JFK's skull and thereafter struck JBC in the right shoulder, just to the right of the scapula.

It is mostly a "downward" angle of penetration through JBC, just that when he is placed back into the vertical/sittting upright position, this downward angle now becomes a combination downward as well as considerable cross-angle of penetration.

There was no tumbling of the bullet. The elongated nature of the entry wound into the back/shoulder of JBC is merely due to the natural downward angle of penetration.

In that regards, the HSCA at least made some pretty good drawings which demonstrate the "abrasion collar" and how these elongated entry wounds occur.

However, didn't Connolly claim to hear the impact of the headshot, and see its "effects" ( brain matter etc.) AFTER he was shot??

================================================================================

====

"So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, "

================================================================================

====

Connally clearly describes how the third/last/final shot blew blood and cerebral tissue all over him and the car. Which happens to be down in front of Altgens, and clearly matches Altgens description of seeing virtually the same thing.

So, since JFK was well below the level of all others when this impact occurred, wanna take a guess as to exactly where the bullet actually went after it passed through the head of JFK.

================================================================================

=====

"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right

shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."

================================================================================

====

First, let's talk about the first lie.

From his hospital bed, shortly after the assassination, JBC clearly stated that he turned and looked at and saw JFK.

This conversation was in a recorded radio interview, and although it has had a tendency to also become "lost" in history, it is still documented fact.

Thereafter, during his WC Testimony, JBC stated: "but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye,"

Personally, I could care less if JBC did or did not catch the President "in the corner of my eye". Originally, JBC stated he observed JFK. Later, the Z-film clearly demonstrates that he was looking directly at JFK, and if he did not see him then he must have had his eyes closed.

JBC has, for a yet undisclosed reason, lied about seeing JFK and his reactions to the first shot.

================================================================================

====

"and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."

================================================================================

====

Does this state that he felt the impact of a bullet strike him in the back?????

JBC was struck in the wrist by a fragment from the headshot at Z313. Perhaps this made him feel if someone had hit him in the back, perhaps not! Perhaps just another "evasive" answer in that no lie was actually told.

JBC was not struck by any bullet (or fragment) until such time as the fragment from the Z313 headshot tore through his wrist at the Z313 shot. Which of course also sent the fragments forward into the windshield, etc;.

Not only that, his memory of the blood/brain splatter for the third shot is by far too vivid for him to have had already had the severe injuries to the chest, lung, and rib cage when this third shot occurred.

The pain and pathological damage from this shot, had it occurred previously, would have virtually negated JBC being that aware of the surrounding events that immediately after having received these injuries.

JBC was curled up laying across the open area of the Jump seats, with his legs pulled up into an almost fetal position, suffering from ONLY a fragment injury to the right wrist, at the time that the third/last/final shot passed through the skull of JFK and exited to strike JBC

(got it correct that time) in the right rear shoulder, just to the right of the scapula.

Hint: Reach around with your left hand (under the left armpit) and place your obscene jesture finger just to the right of the scapula/shoulder blade.

Now, with your right obscene jesture finger, place the finger on the right front chest, just below the right nipple (with the hand under the forearm/wrist of the left arm)

Now, in sitting erect, look down at this and one will find that the angle between the two points is slightly right to left and slightly downwards.

Now, maintaining the points of contact, lean over onto the left shoulder until almost horizontal, with the right shoulder rolled slightly backwards. This virtually eliminates any "cross-angle", and thereafter makes the penetration through the chest of JBC primarily a "downward angle" of entry, as well as making the elongated nature of the shoulder entry exactly match what the HSCA drew and described as the "Abrasion Collar" nature of this type entry.

Lastly, if you wish to see how the leg got into the way, draw the legs up into the complete fetal position.

Hope that answers any questions.

Tom

P.S. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc:

Hmmm, What Z frame do you put the last head shot / Connolly shoulder shot at? I am presuming you are saying there were two headshots, 313 and ? -Bill

June 18, 2007