Ken Rheberg

5 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

This is one of the many mysteries of the JFK assassination that fascinate me.

It's my understanding that Jean Hill did not see the actual "sno-cone" but said she later heard that the red liquid she said she saw on the ground had been identified as sno-cone syrup. I believe Hugh Aynesworth is the reporter that "confirmed" this particular fact, if memory serves.

I wonder if this pool of blood had anything to do with the rumors that a Secret Service agent had been killed, and/or A.J. Millican's statement of seeing someone hit in the leg?

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

Ken

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The reason I asked that Ken is because in the review I trace how Gary walks around the plaza with his marksman trying to find a spot for a front shot.

As I wrote, heather arbitrarily eliminated 3 possible sites.  He then settled on the site that was behind the picket fence almost perpendicular to the car as it passes.  As I noted this is not a smart choice.

But it gave Gary the opportunity to say, no cannot be that since it would have hit Jackie.  When he knew this was wrong.

And where does he then go?  The sixth floor "sniper's nest" window.  And where does the show end at?  There.

Do we have to connect the dots here?  I don't think so.

Jim,

Looks like you're still refusing to admit that, in "JFK: Inside the Target Car", Gary Mack did not rule out a shooter from behind the picket fence.

Why is this so hard for you?

Let's see if you fare any better with this. . .

You said, "If you want to continue to defend Gary, and take cheap shots at me, go ahead."

Where are the cheap shots, Jim?

Hopefully, you'll agree that there weren't any.

Ken
 

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ken:

Did you read the articles I posted carefully?

I don't think you did.

In the documentary ITTC, does Gary mention the acoustics?  If so, I must have missed it.

Now, he lined up his GK shot from a point behind the fence  that is almost perpendicular to the car.  The reason he did this is so he could say that "No.  Could not come from there since it would have hit Jackie."  Groden pointed out to him that this was wrong since he had falsely arranged the actors.  But anyone can see in the Z film that this is wrong anyway.  But Gary kept it in the show.  That is not journalism, it is propaganda.

Secondly, when you watch the program you will see that Gary bypasses the spot where most commentators think the actual assassin did fire from.  This is further down the fence, where it juts out toward the street and you would be standing over a storm drain.

I defy anyone to stand in that spot with a scoped rifle and say a professional assassin would miss.  And that is the reason Gary passed it up.

If you want to continue to defend Gary, and take cheap shots at me, go ahead.  But I know both the programs pretty well.

What's next Ken?  Gary is right and Ruby had no help getting into the police station? 

Jim wants to know if I read his articles carefully.

It doesn't appear that Jim read his own post or my response carefully.

Another forum member felt Jim had written a "hit piece" on Gary Mack.  Jim defended himself, in part, by posting something that two Discovery Channel JFK assassination-related programs had apparently said.

One of the documentaries was "JFK: Inside the Target Car".

According to Jim, in his own post, the two documentaries said, "No shot at Kennedy came anywhere except from the so called Sniper's Nest."

I happened to disagree with Jim's attempt to apply this to Gary Mack.  Yes, I dared to disagree with Jim DiEugenio.  And, for that, I was accused, by Jim, of taking cheap shots at him.

I merely had pointed out how, in the "Target Car" documentary, Gary had not discounted a missed shot from behind the picket fence.

Jim has yet to acknowledge that Gary actually said that.

No, I wasn't defending Gary Mack.  It was all about accuracy in reporting.

Ken
 

On 8/1/2018 at 7:31 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Oh please Tracy.  Give us a break will you?

https://kennedysandking.com/content/jfk-inside-the-target-car-part-one

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-the-ruby-connection-gary-mack-s-follies-part-one

Those two above programs said that 1.)  Ruby killed Oswald with no help, by himself and they did not know each other and 2.) No shot at Kennedy came anywhere except from the so called Sniper's Nest.  The HSCA disagreed with both.

 

Gary Mack is on record saying he believed, based on the acoustics evidence, that there were two shooters, one of whom was behind the picket fence.  How can that be glossed over?  Furthermore, in "JFK: Inside the Target Car - Part Four" Gary said, "If anything, we found that, if there was a shot from the grassy knoll, that shooter missed."  Did James DiEugenio miss this important conclusion?

Putting it all together, Gary believed that the second shooter behind the picket fence missed.  Simple as that.  Gary's belief was not based on "hard evidence" -- evidence that can't be disproved.  Has there ever been such evidence?  Of course there has been and still is.  But no one in the so-called "research community" will go there.  That's one of the great mysteries in all of this.

Ken

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

Well Ken,

It seems you have an observing eye.  The forum has taught me to be a bit “nasty”.  I was beaten up fairly well and repetitivey early on by various members I get along with now.

I very rarely work with something other than the visual record.  I have found there are an amazing number of things people have missed when it comes to the films and photos concerning the assassination.  In 54 years, and I really don’t understand why, people haven’t seen these things.

As far as spelling and grammar, I have gotten lazy.  MS Word usually catches my mistakes.  Typing one fingered on an Ipad doesn’t help.  I  am a disabled vet with numb fingers which was a gift from the government.

I think I have contributed one or two things.  If you wish a greater understanding then go to:

jfkrunningthegauntlet.com

Thanks, John.  I'll check the site out.

You're right to place so much importance on the photographic record.  One day the official story will be forced to do an about-face based on that record.  But not on the record as we know it.  On the record yet to be released to the public.  Specifically two films spliced together which clearly show a gunman firing a weapon from behind the picket fence.  It's the hard evidence Gary Mack used to refer to.  Evidence that can't be disputed.  The only hard evidence of a second gunman in this entire case.

Less than 2 1/2 hours after the assassination, both the government and the media became aware of this indisputable "film" of a second gunman. However, a decision was then made at that time to bury it and never refer to it again.  And so it has been for almost fifty-five years.

Oliver Stone chose to make a film about Jim Garrison.  He could have made it about the above and broken the case wide open.

Ken

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

Well Ken,

What are you taklng about?  And, who are you talking about?  Does extra years here equate extra prestige or competence?

You seem to be an over critical fellow concerned with an imagined protocol and a spelling issue so I await your response with bated breathe.

 

Stamp club mentalities.  Or stamp club sensibilities.  The sharing and trading of stamps with other like-minded collectors.  And having a darn good time doing it.  A little searching, and finding, and saving, and clipping, and studying, and displaying.  Might even have a really strong attachment to a stamp or two or more.  But nothing earthshaking is ever going to happen because of it.  After all, it's just a hobby.  And you've got a life.

That's the current state of the JFK assassination research community.  For many -- not all -- it's nothing more than a hobby that is taking us nowhere.  Nearly fifty-five years now, and Oswald is still officially the lone assassin.

Then there's John Butler.  A new breed of "researcher"?  No, unfortunately.  Just a rehash of so many down through the years.  A bit nasty.  Hypercritical and personal. Somewhat scary to be honest.  But worst of all,  prejudging.  As in "imagined protocol".  Without even knowing what I have to say.

Finally, I don't have a spelling issue.  Only if you quote me -- literally with quotation marks -- and then include a misspelling.  I'll have to call you on that.

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Andrej,

. . . Any idea what this Ken Rheberg is talking about?  You think I should ask him if I can make a positive statement about your reasearch?  I wonder what “stamp club mentalies” are?. . .

I've been posting here for over twelve years.  You for less than two.  That doesn't excuse you, however, from asking one member what another member is talking about rather than going right to the source.  That's a new one, I've got to admit.  So, go ahead, ask me if you're truly serious about getting answers to the above questions.  And, since you're quoting me, the word is "mentalities" not "mentalies".

On 7/2/2018 at 12:44 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

 

Ken: While it would be interesting to know if Mrs. Sanders's family had also any memories of the 22nd of November told to them by Mrs. Pauline Sanders. . .

 

Sorry, Andrej.  More than "interesting to know."  This is the sad state of the so-called "Research Community" today.  Meaningless threads going nowhere.  Created and perpetuated on this very forum, in so many cases, by individuals with nothing more than stamp club mentalities.  And cheered on and dominated by a third generation reader/writer who has done nothing, so far, to lead you to the Promised Land of what really happened that day in Dealey Plaza.  Will he ever take you there?  Don't hold your breath.

Have any of you either personally contacted, tried to personally contact, or even thought of personally contacting Pauline Sanders' son, daughter-in-law or grandson about any of this?  If they agree to talk to you, it seems like they might be able to clear up any confusion regarding Pauline's height, weight, where she was standing, what she remembered that day, etc.

Ken

On 3/12/2018 at 9:27 AM, Trygve V. Jensen said:

Additional three, if anything has surfaced/been explained the last 8-10 years:

**(Attachement 3) The "shadow" in the upper right. Would he be walking that narrow section towards the pergolia (on the "inside" of the trees), or at the Elm St.-dead end-road, right along the depository? Do you know how long time it has passed since the shooting, when this was taken?  

 

GM: That's the Richard Bothun photo, taken about 30-40 seconds after the assassination.  The "shadow" is actually an unidentified person. 

 

1: I guess still unidentified?

 

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

 

**Footage of T. Craven (CBS) footage of Underwood/Sanderson (KRLD-CBS) ?  

 

GM: Apparently lost.  KRLD had technical problems and a few of the first reels out of the processor were ruined.

 

2:  Nothing ?

 

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

 

**Is it established with 100% certainty that the infamous "Babushka-lady" did have a camera, or is it just indications made by people supporting conspiracy theories? 

 

GM: The Babushka Lady had a camera.  Researchers are divided over whether she has been identified correctly. 

 

3:  No relevant suggestion of identity ? 

 

 

 

 

Craven's film taken before, during and after the shots while rounding Main onto Houston, down Houston, rounding Houston onto Elm, down Elm as he panned over to the grassy knoll including the stairway and the picket fence, and from on top of the grassy knoll itself was not destroyed which is what Gary Mack meant by "lost". Neither were the two copies made of it.  Gary was only speculating here and I believe he later realized with certainty, back in 2007, that none of Craven's Dealey Plaza footage -- not even one frame of it -- was ever lost in the early developing process.

On 3/8/2018 at 3:50 AM, Steve Thomas said:

Ron,

 

Yeah, I took this as far as I knew how at the time.

 

On a side note, the Jesuit connection is an interesting one in light of the fact that it was a Jesuit college in Alabama that Oswald went to talk to in July of 1963.

I still wish we had a photograph of Fermin De Goicochea.

PS: Lee Farley was a good researcher.

 

Steve Thomas

Steve,

It was Lee Forman, not Lee Farley.  Farley was also a Forum member in those days, he just wasn't on that old Elizabeth Cole thread.  I used to confuse the two myself.

To Steve and everyone else, don't let these two threads die.  The conclusions about Cole back then were, at the very least, shaky on the surface for a number of reasons.

Ken.

17 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Where were we.....?

This is where we were, from the beginning. . .

Steve was interested in writing an essay on women who had heard about, or spoken of, an assassination attempt on JFK before it happened and had told someone about it.  He gave us a list of five names for starters.

One of the women on that list was Elizabeth Cole.  Steve then provided us with a Mary Ferrell Foundation link concerning her.

Yet Steve doesn't link us to additional, relevant information on Ms. Cole that he most certainly knows about firsthand.

Elizabeth Cole was an intriguing person.  And the story she told equally so.  Same with the FBI/Secret Service handling of it.  Steve could write his essay just on her alone.

Ken
 

On 3/16/2017 at 1:55 AM, James R Gordon said:

 

. . . Recently I became aware what Debra meant by it being a "difficult time" for her. Her sister - Sherry Fiester - is very ill. And it is the kind of situation I  prefer not to disturb Debra at this point in time. . .

 

I found an email in my inbox yesterday from JFK Lancer dated 3/11/17 that I had somehow overlooked and never opened.  It goes into great detail about Sherry's illness. So sorry to hear about this.

Ken

On 3/16/2017 at 1:55 AM, James R Gordon said:

An update on the Lancer Archive:-

I do not know whether I mentioned it but the original files that Debra Conway transferred into our safe keeping were horrendously corrupted. The developer informed me that he had never witnessed a hack this severe. There was no possibility of a restoration as  [ not only were the files corrupted ] the very structure of the site had been destroyed. At that point it appeared that the project had come to an end.

However - just on a hope - I contacted Debra to see whether she had stored earlier backups. She answered that she had earlier backups and sent us one. However not only was this backup corrupted it did not contain the a backup of the data files.

Hoping that there was still in existence an earlier backup I contacted Debra and asked for a copy of the structure files as well as the data files. Debra informed me that although this was a difficult time for her she would download a further copy. Unfortunately the download did not fully work and it was never received.

Recently I became aware what Debra meant by it being a "difficult time" for her. Her sister - Sherry Fiester - is very ill. And it is the kind of situation I  prefer not to disturb Debra at this point in time.

So where are we?

First:- It appears that clean backups of the JFK Lancer do exist. And therefore it appears a restoration is indeed possible. However - being earlier copies - it is not clear just how much of the archive will now be able to be restored.

Second:- Restoration is on hold. Debra has enough on her plate without me reminding her to re-download the set that earlier did not download properly.

Third:- the developer is happy to pause the restoration until the clean set of data is sent to them.

Fourth:- I suspect it will be a little while before the restoration is begun again.

James.

 

Thanks for the update.

On 1/22/2017 at 6:00 AM, Ken Rheberg said:

 

Almost two months now since the last update.  What's the latest on the Lancer rebuild?

 

 

No response to my request nearly two months ago for an update on the Lancer Archive recovery project.  So let's try again.

It's now been three and a half months since the last update on this by James Gordon.  The status then was that James had "re-sanctioned" the necessary work and that recovery of the Archive was a real possibility.

So where does the project stand?  James?  Moderators?  Anybody?

Ken

On 3/1/2017 at 11:06 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

 

. . . 50 years of JFK Pet Theorism studiously ignores the physical evidence -- the JFK Assassination Critical Community is as much a part of the JFK murder cover-up as the media and gov't. . .

 

A bold and insightful comment. Not sure if it's been overlooked or deliberately avoided.  But here it is again.

On 12/2/2016 at 8:26 AM, James R Gordon said:

Hi All,

I have just re-sanctioned work on the Lancer Archive. I know I keep changing my mind. I had not heard from Debra Conway and I assumed - wrongly as it turns out - that she had no other backups. Well I was wrong she does have other backups. I do not know whether they are clean backups, corrupted or partial clean/corrupted. I am hoping for the former. 

Now that there is a real possibility that recovery might be accomplished I have agreed to allow it to go ahead.

Sorry for the confusion. I really did think this morning that was an end of the matter.

James.

Almost two months now since the last update.  What's the latest on the Lancer rebuild?

16 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

So who is the guy in the red shirt?

Red Shirt Man was 60 year old western store owner Francis Lee Mudd, in Dallas on business that day from Shreveport, LA.

James,

Okay, I'll give Rather a pass for beaming hostile messages (apparently using the alias Kenneth) to Mr. Tager.

But didn't Rather tell another lie about Dallas besides his Z film description? As I recall, he claimed he was under or near the triple overpass right after the shooting when all the photographic evidence shows there was no one there who could possibly be Dan Rather.

Yup, he was in a press van on the outer edge of the plaza, if not a block away.

It's interesting how big-name journalists like Brian Williams get caught lying so often. Maybe it's cause they get caught up in big stories and feel attached to them and feel the need to embellish their place in history.

SINCE THIS WAS MY THREAD, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION.

WHY DON'T THE MODS YANK ALL THE PARAFFIN, NAA STUFF OUT OF THIS AND START A NEW THREAD ON THAT?

THIS WAS MEANT TO CRITIQUE CBS AND HONOR ROGER FEINMAN.

THANKS.

Jim,

The title of this thread, which you started, is "Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case."

It seemed like you were finally going to tackle the most important story of the Kennedy assassination.

But your thread was, unfortunately, hijacked.

No surprise when it comes to a CBS thread.

Then you step in and attempt to get things back on track to CBS. Good for you.

Alas, it's all for nothing. You're interested only in 1975. And 1967. And 1964. What a waste of time. No wonder it's 52 years and counting.

If you really wanted to get to the bottom of this Kennedy mess, why wouldn't you return to 1963? The day of the assassination, to be exact. Just before 3:00pm CST. CBS. KRLD. Dan Rather. . .

The story of your lifetime. Of our lifetime.

But you won't do it.

Why not, Jim?

Ken

Ken:

I don't understand this. . .

I don't know what the heck you are talking about when you say you want me to devote time to what happened in 1963. . .

Jim,

SINCE THIS WAS MY THREAD, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION.

WHY DON'T THE MODS YANK ALL THE PARAFFIN, NAA STUFF OUT OF THIS AND START A NEW THREAD ON THAT?

THIS WAS MEANT TO CRITIQUE CBS AND HONOR ROGER FEINMAN.

THANKS.

Jim,

Everyone here has consented to be in the public arena.

The stuff anyone posts here is non-copyright material unless so designated.

No one who posts here can maintain a libel action against one who falsely portrays what was posted unless the false portrayal was made with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard of the falsity.

In any event, it sounds to me that DVP is preaching to the choir. Which is OK.

That's not exactly what is said on the Education Forum's homepage, Jon. The first line under “Terms of Use” is this:

Unless otherwise stated, the copyright and other intellectual property rights in all material on this site is owned or controlled by the Education Forum.

I don't see anything about public domain. Did we all have to consent to something different when we signed up? I don't recall.

It would also be helpful if Larry Hancock or Debra Conway could weigh in on this issue as it relates to archived JFK Lancer Forum posts. And, for that matter, Robert Harris regarding the rules for his old JFK History Forum.

I want the full and complete truth as to why our government and its many employees have fought so hard over the years to keep the American people from knowing the truth of the assassination.

Are you aware that the station break announced by Cronkite after Dan Rather's first film report on the official CBS tape lasted much, much longer than 10 seconds?

Well, Ken, I suppose it's *possible* that when I first posted my 85-part series, and switched from one 10-minute segment to the next, I could have excised ("edited") a few seconds of DEAD SILENCE when the camera was focused on a static image of the American flag. Perhaps I felt that such an extensive period of DEAD SILENCE and flag viewing wasn't really necessary to retain as I went from one part to the next.

I can't really recall whether I cut out a few seconds of the dead silence or not. But perhaps I did, so that the next part in my 85-part version wouldn't be beginning with 10 seconds of dead silence.

But when I earlier said that "There's no missing footage", I was really thinking of footage where Walter Cronkite (or some other CBS reporter) was actually speaking and providing news. I wasn't really thinking about missing periods of DEAD SILENCE.

Is the possibility of a few seconds of total silence and dead air *really* an important issue to you, Ken?

If so, I must ask --- Why?*

* And I ask that question even though I, myself, definitely prefer all of my audio/video programs in my collection to be as "complete" and "unedited" as I can get them. But in this CBS instance, any "missing" footage amounts to pure nothingness (as far as actual "news content" is concerned). So why the need to belabor such a triviality?