Peter McGuire

Now, let me see if I'm following the program here...

According to Tom Purvis, the first shot occurred before the WC said it did; the second shot coincided with Z-frames 312/313; and there was a third shot AFTER that.

OK, perhaps I can buy that...and perhaps all 3 shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and all 3 shots were fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano.

Where the LN/LHO story falls apart is the negative result in the test for nitrates on Oswald's cheek, IMHO.

So even if there were only 3 shots, and they were all fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and they were all fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano...the evidence linking Oswald to the shooting itself is lacking. The palmprint on the underside of the barrel was protected by the wood stock of the rifle, so there is no physical evidence that Oswald handled that gun on that day, and CERTAINLY no evidence that he fired the gun ONCE, much less three times. No LHO fingerprints on the exposed portions of the rifle, no LHO fingerprints on the cartridges recovered, and no LHO fingerprints on the clip that either was or was NOT found with/in/near the rifle...and no evidence that LHO used gloves on that day.

Has that about covered it?

Actually:

According to Tom Purvis, the first shot occurred before the WC said it did

The WC stated that an accurate determination as to when the first shot was fired, could not be determined.

However, they obviously had to admit that JFK was reacting to a shot when he came out from behind the sign, and with their HIGHLY PHONY assassination re-enactment, they determined that the first shot PROBABLY could not have been fired until after Z-210.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...eport_0061b.htm

(And, at this point, it would be beneficial to bring out the point that the WC was somewhat negligent, in that they did not bother to provide us with Z-Frames 208/209/210/& 211 in their printing of frames of the film.)

Now:

1. In event one will "do the math", they will find that based on the distance from the sixth floor window of the TSDB, to the position of Mr. Zapruder, divided by the standard speed of sound, and thus multiplied by the frame exposure rate of the Z-film, that approximately 5-frames of the Z-film would elapse between the point of time in which a shot was fired from the TSDB position, until the sound of that shot would reach the Zapruder position.

This is of course the "highly controversial" JIGGLE ANALYSIS of the Z-film.

And, if one takes a look at the headshot at Z-312/313, and then follows frames of the film thereafter, they will find a relatively distinctive 3-frame blurring of the film beginning at Z-318 and continueing through Z-319 and Z-320.

Now, if one will review the now available Z-film, they will find a similar 3-frame blurring of the film which begins at Z-208 and continues through Z-208 and Z-210.*

*Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Thompson ("SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS") this was known and done many years prior to these frames of the film being available to the internet researcher.

Additionally, if one will back up in review of the Z-film and thereafter look at the outline of the two motorcycle policemen helments in the background to the left of the Presidential Limo, then they can follow the progression of the "V" shaped outline which the direct front center of their helmets makes.

In following this, one can see that at/by Z-209/210, both of these motorcycle policemen have turned their heads to look directly towards JFK.

Then, there is the "crescent/half-moon" outline of the pillbox hat worn by Jackie Kennedy, which will also demonstrate that by Z-210, that she was facing and looking directly into the direction of JFK.

Therefore, were one to accept that the "Jiggle Analysis" has some basis in fact, then, in subtracting 5 frames of elapsed time/frames from the jiggle/blur which begins at/around Z-209, then one would derive a "FIRED" z-frame of approximately Z-204.

And, if one were to assume that there would be at least some short delay in reaction time for the motorcycle policemen, in which JFK reacted and they then diverted their gaze at him, then this as well as the outline of Jackie's pillbox hat, would serve to indicate that a shot was fired prior to Z-209/210.

2. The US Secret Service, in their re-enactment and survey work during the first week of December 1963, established the point of impact for the first shot fired.

And, although they did not assign a Z-frame number to it, when one has in their possession copies of this survey plat and the survey notes, as well as the later WC survey plat and survey notes, then one can accurately assign a Z-frame number to the "X" for the first shot, as determined by the US Secret Service.

This location plats at/approximately, the position of JFK at what is now absolutely definable as Z-208 to Z-210.

Since I have previously posted that portion of the US Secret Service Survey Plat of December 5, 1963, which demonstrates the position of the "#1" shot as determined by the US Secret Service, I will not waste time again provided what has done previously.

3. In addition to the US Secret Service survey work & Survey Plat (which was not known to exist), I also provided portions of the Survey Plat of November 25, 1963, as produced by Mr. Robert West for Time/Life, and which not unlike the SS Survey Plat, did not appear to be known to exist.

This work platted an impact point for the first shot fired, which, without the survey notes of Mr. West, as well as the later and considerably more accurate and complete survey plats of the US Secret Service as well as the WC Survey plat, could not be positioned in relationship to a "Z-frame" number assignment.

However, when all of this information is available to a "single source", then, it can be determined that Time/Life Magazine, though some yet to be discovered means, platted the point of JFK at the time that the first shot was fired, as being at approximately Z-204/205.

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

Now, personally, I would not believe anything which "Tom" had to say, unless of course he had the evidence with which to support the statement, and or it could be independently verified through separate, independent, and factual research, or both.

Just as I certainly would not believe anything which the WC had to say without having followed the same research protocol.

Tom

Now, personally, I would not believe anything which "Tom" had to say, unless of course he had the evidence with which to support the statement, and or it could be independently verified through separate, independent, and factual research, or both.

Just as I certainly would not believe anything which the WC had to say without having followed the same research protocol.

Tom

Hey Mark!

You still out there?

How are we doing so far in burying the BS about how difficult the shots were as well as the necessity for multiple assassins?

And although I have devoted extremely little time and effort to bury the "Body Kidnapper's", this is due to the fact that, other than a few die-hard dummies, it completely buried itself among anyone with even the most remote ability for rational thought.

Hey Mark!

You still out there?

How are we doing so far in burying the BS about how difficult the shots were as well as the necessity for multiple assassins?

And although I have devoted extremely little time and effort to bury the "Body Kidnapper's", this is due to the fact that, other than a few die-hard dummies, it completely buried itself among anyone with even the most remote ability for rational thought.

For whatever reason, this appears to NOT be getting through. Therefore, if it appears multiple times, please excuse!

Nevertheless, it is a topic which is worth a full review if one accepts that "new evidence" is being presented in the shots fired in the death of JFK.

Tom:

You seem to be a likeable guy. Your personal emails to me were friendly; you tried to be helpful, and so forth.

But, I just cannot make any sense out of what you are trying to say on this forum.

Oswald did not even fire a rifle that day.

With that , were can you go? What can you possible say?

Let's take another look at the "smiling Secret Service Agent"

"it was just a joke"

How about the "Ruby drop inn" in the heart of downtown Dallas. Or the

"Hitler burger bunker" in Berlin

[/qoute]

There is a "Hitler Bar" in Daejeon , South Korea. It is located near the Seo (west) Daejeon Train station and has been there for at least five years now. I am going to try to get an old friend to send some pictures of it to me.

The man framed for Kennedy's murder should not be used this way.

I have read that "the position of vehicles in the motorcade was changed at the last minute" (at Love Field), (e.g., the press car being placed at the end).

This was one of the things that got me started digging into the JFK murder.

This fact has been reported/printed more than once, but not the identity of the person who ordered the change of placement of the vehicles.

I've always thought this to be one of the most salient and overlooked details. Because that's obviously one of the bad guys.

And we all know that the original, planned route was changed to go thru Dealey Plaza.

Now, is it just me, or if there was an actual criminal investigation, those would be 2 of the guys that you'd go grab up first.

[qoute]LBJ's Secret Service play dogpile on him, JFK's people are on film just standing there looking around. How can anybody not see that there was a deliberate stand-down order in place. [/qoute]

.

Randy

[qoute]I was just about to post this picture when I saw that you did Randy. Is it the smoking gun photo or what?

What should the secret service be looking for if not someone perched on a fire escape looming over the presidential motorcade? [/qoute]

I know every supposed SS rule was broken (open windows, roofs not secured, storm drains/manhole covers left loose, no motorcycle protection by the presidential limo, no secret service men on the limo...and how about that Emery Roberts pulling the two bodyguards off the back of the limo?

Anyone have any input on that? Did he really say "THEY got him"...?)

Either the SS were all completely hung over (which I've read they were) or they saw him and let it happen on purpose. And right inside the window, visible in the other Altgen photo, are two men, one with a gun aimed at the President.

http://tinyurl.com/ycmyvt

Yeah, a deliberate stand down order. For sure. But the SS complicity is the only participation that confuses me. How does the CIA or HL Hunt or LBJ or whoever approach the SS to recruit them? It's still unfathomable to me.

On edit: I read that the name of JFK's bodyguard Emery Roberts called off was Henry Ripka. I'm amazed that I can't find much about him on google. Has he spoken out anywhere, or did he get suicided shortly after?

In this picture, there seems to be someone observing from the window and the fire escape. ( Dal Tex Building? ) while Johnsons car doors are open. A shot has been fired and they are just looking around!

I have read that "the position of vehicles in the motorcade was changed at the last minute" (at Love Field), (e.g., the press car being placed at the end).

This was one of the things that got me started digging into the JFK murder.

This fact has been reported/printed more than once, but not the identity of the person who ordered the change of placement of the vehicles.

I've always thought this to be one of the most salient and overlooked details. Because that's obviously one of the bad guys.

And we all know that the original, planned route was changed to go thru Dealey Plaza.

Now, is it just me, or if there was an actual criminal investigation, those would be 2 of the guys that you'd go grab up first.

LBJ's Secret Service play dogpile on him, JFK's people are on film just standing there looking around. How can anybody not see that there was a deliberate stand-down order in place.

.

Randy

According to Piper, the "boots on the ground", in the operation to kill JFK, were members of the Meyer Lansky crime syndicate, of which Jack Ruby was a member. He further claims that Angleton was the connection to the Mossad. Interestingly, there is a public monument honoring Angleton in Tel Aviv.

Piper offers a motive to a murder that already has a thousand. What difference does it make that he thinks Israel was at the top of the food chain? And the last I heard, Israel is an independent country. How does this become a religious issue?

Someone was directing the intelligence agencies to act. Who was above the core elements of the CIA in this matter? Who knows? I sure don't. Are they going to come out and admit it? Of course not. We can see, however, what happened that afternoon. It is right before our eyes.

Piper's work with the Meyer Lansky crime syndicate is valuable , and should be corroborated.

At the risk of reigniting the hysterical previous non-debate of Piper's thesis in Final Judgement from 8 months ago, please consider this thought provoking article written by Mark Glenn concerning "anti-semitism". The points presented in this article, upon careful reflection, has lead me to the conclusion that I "might be anti-semitic".

Examine these points and ask yourself, if you might fall into the same category. After your reflection on these questions, then consider with as open a mind as possible whether Mr. Piper has presented a credible, well documented case explaining this still unsolved crime (JFK's murder).

Well put.

Let's stick to the contents of the book. The standard operating procedure of the conspirators has been to

discredit anything thrown their way. In this case it's the author is an anti-Semite. It is always something.

I spent five years of my life preparing to be a public school teacher. I received a BS in Music , but did not student teach or intern.

I remember my favorite teacher. His name was Ken Beighley and he was an Educational Psychology professor.

He was an educator.

As Shintaro used to say, "Whoa.........strange".

My reply to Andy Walker's ill-considered attack on me (post #342), seems to have vanished.

I won't 'rush to judgement' as its possible, just possible, that I forgot to hit 'add reply', as I had to rush out shortly afterwards. I thought I posted it though.

I am glad to see that there is discussion surrounding Final Judgement again. I think at the very least we have learned where Jack Ruby was coming from. Like Oswald, I don't think he was the lifelong loser he was portrayed to be. It also gets away from grinding out the minutia of November 22nd.

I am amazed that so many people, especially those from academia, still believe there is more to the John Kennedy assassination than Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone.

In the 40 years since, there has not been a shred of evidence to support other conclusions. All the ballistic, eyewitness, motivational and biographical evidence points to nothing but that demented loser getting to the 6th floor--the highest station he reached in life--and killing the President.

I think educators should be dedicated to passing on truth, and leave conjecture to something unexplainable--like how the Pyramids were built. You'll be doing history a favor.

Let's try it this way, "In the 43 years since, there has been a mountain of evidence presented by private researchers that not only clears Lee Oswald , but which also shows the real purpetrators of the crime"

I think educators should be critical thinkers who encourage their students to think for themselves. And history does not need favors, it needs honest Historians.

The bullet hole shown in the picture has been described as having it's point of entry from the front. Of course , like most evidence in this case, the windshield was destroyed and replaced. But the words of the Parkland Hospital intern and the Ford Motor Company employee will not be forgotten.

Thomas,

That photo is from the movie.

It's great to hear that you have access to Krulak. Please ask your father to ask Krulak what he thinks of the man in the photo looking more like Taylor than Lansdale.

Ron

Which photo is from the movie?

The one that clearly shows Landsdale's deformed hand?

Peter

Prouty's argument that the man walking past the tramps was Lansdale seems very odd to me because, as previously discussed on this forum, the man looks more like Maxwell Taylor. (The hair matches Taylor, not Lansdale, both men had a drooping right shoulder, Taylor had a similar big ring on his left hand, etc.).

Prouty knew both men, so it seems inconceivable to me that Prouty could look at that photo and not see who it looked more like. So I have this notion that Prouty, not wanting to ID Taylor, said it looked like Lansdale, so people would then look at the photo and see who it really looked like. But that's just a notion, I have no way of knowing what Prouty was thinking. I do know, as it's a matter of record, that Prouty proved not very reliable in a number of his statements. (His ARRB interview was a disaster.)

BTW I think the military officer who allegedly corroborated Prouty (as Prouty claimed) on the man looking like Lansdale denied doing so. As for Lansdale being in Dallas that day, there is no proof of that. We only know that he was in Texas, ostensibly on his way to visit his son in Arizona.

Taylor on 11/22 was allegedly in a Pentagon meeting with the other Joint Chiefs hosting some military guests from Germany. It has been established that AF chief Curtis LeMay, for one, was at no such meeting.

Thanks for you input , Ron.

But wasn't Prouty identifying Landsdale from his deformed hand?

Peter

Were individuals "found" or in need of protection at the railyards?

I believe the Bum Walk was staged, in that it was a non-arrest,

it was more of a security escort for these three characters.

______________________________________________

Even though the cops are carrying shotguns, I've often wondered if they weren't the shooters or helpers and if the "tramps" weren't the ones doing the "escorting" (in order to create plausible deniability for the cops).

--Thomas

______________________________________________

______________________________________________

Comments, anyone?

--Thomas

______________________________________________

I believe that Prouty has stated the man walking away is Lansdale. This was confirmed by some of his associates , who also knew Landsdale. Prouty further stated " forget the tramps" they are actors"

The important thing is that it has been established that Edward Landsale was in Dallas that afternoon. Edward Lansdale, lifetime spook and a man with more than an ax to grind with JFK.

Summary of Lansdale's depositon before Rock Com. from Ford Library - B. Kelly

LANSDALE, EDWARD G.

Deposition of Edward G. Lansdale, Friday, May 16, 1975

NLF MR Case No. 93-16. Document No. #8

Questioned by Rockefeller Commission counsel David Belin.

Declassified 8/4/94

Lansdale identifies himself as Major General USAF, retired in late October, 1963. As Dept. Asst. to Sec. of Defense Thomas Gates, in the Eisenhower administration, Lansdale held the title of Deputy Assistant to SOD for Special Operations and assisted in the early planning of what became the Bay of Pigs.

In the Kennedy administration, as Special Operations assistant to McNamara, Lansdale coordinated counter-insurgency planning and operations for all the military services.

In the fall of 1961 JFK asked him to look into the Cuban situation, with the Attorney General Robert Kennedy as the chief intermediary, although he occasional reported directly to the president. His report, Lansdale said, is part of JFK’s personal papers.

Until the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Lansdale was a member of the Special Group Augmented, aka MOONGOOSE. Early in 1962, Lansdale surveyed the refugee organizations primarily in Florida.

Lansdale denied any k knowledge of assassination planning or attempts to kill Castro.

Lansdale attended an August 10, 1962 meeting at the office of the Secretary of Defense. A report of this meeting is referred to as Helms Exhibit No. 17, dated August 13, 1962.

At Lansdale’s request, a Colonel Stakeley came in the October 4th meeting, chaired by RFK, and first reported preparations for missile sites in Cuba.

In regards to anti-Castro Cuban harassment raids against Cuba, Lansdale said that they would have been against the President’s policy after October 1962, and that of those individuals he knew who was working on such operations, a CIA office he referred to as “Mr. Harvey” would have been the person most likely to have initiated such raids.

“I remember most clearly from ’62 was the fact that it was definitely against the top executive policy to carry out harassing raids in Cuba, and I had exacted a promise and had give instructions in writing to CIA to cease and desist on that, not carry them out…There might have been individuals there who would inclined to know better than an outsider, and they might attempt something, but it’s just a feeling I had. I have not been able to pin it down specifically.”

Q. With reference to any particular individuals?

A. It might have been Harvey. It might have been such a person.

Q. You mean Harvey might have done something you feel without direction from above?

A. Possibly so. That is why I gave him directions in writing. It was just a gut feeling I had dealing with him. With his Deputy, with his bosses there. I had no such feeling and I just singled out an individual and I thought, just be doubly sure, I should do that. Now it might have been a personal attitude of his or something that caused that and nothing specific in proof of it.

Q. Apart from Mr. Harvey, whom you singled out as an individual, did you have any other experience which I might indicate that the CIA would not follow directions to curtail an activity in those directions.

A. Not really.”

Lansdale added that his testimony should be kept secret because his involvement in Cuban operations should not become known to the governments in Southeast Asia, and he wanted placed into the record the fact that he was against massive U.S. military buildup in Vietnam and advised against it.

Thanks

Oswald, according to the official story, shot and killed Tippit at 1:18.

I have found a second document which states Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15.

It's impossible to kill Tippit at 1:18, when he has already been pronounced dead at 1:15,

wouldn't you think?

DOA @ 1:15 = shooting around ten munites earlier? Can't be true. No, what it really means is that the ambulance broke the speed of light. Yeah... that's it.

Great find, Chuck! One minor and inconsequential correction. The WCR put the shooting at 1:16.

Has anyone seen or heard of this document before? If it's accurate, it clearly exonerates Oswald in the shooting - which the evidence in toto tends toward doing, also.

Yes , this is additional evidence in the exoneratation of Lee Harvey Oswald. Which, as Harold Weisburg put it " should not have been believed in the 17th century" Look at the backyard photos, take note of these timelines, listen to the Grassy Knoll eye (ear) witnesses.

Even a cursory look at the evidence supposedly linking Oswald to the two murders quickly makes it obvious that this was a snow job. Let's get on to why Kennedy was killed.

Peter

Why was Kennedy killed?

I don't think there is only one reason why Kennedy was killed. But, there is one group which is tied to all of

those who were threatened by Kennedy and his politics.

What was his planned course of action in his next term? Withdrawal from Viet-Nam, Dismantling the CIA,

getting rid of the Federal Reserve and making changes to the oil depletion allowance (stopping corporate

welfare). These are all plans that were sure to piss off the most powerful (wealthy and military) people in America who were either already getting more rich and powerful or, through the coming war, were going to

become more rich and powerful, or, through the destruction of their group, whether the Fed or the CIA,

were going to lose their cash cow or their jobs.

The Fed, despite it's government sounding name, is a privately held company. This company prints our

money and provides it to our government. Simple, right? Wrong. This company buys paper and ink, pays

individuals to print the money, and then takes the finished product, which are promissory notes, and then

provides them to our govt., for which our govt. promises to pay this company the full face value plus

interest.

Think about it. How can any govt. exert any true control over itself when it does not control it's own supply

of money? Why has our govt. allowed a privately held company to take control of our nation's money

supply? Why do we, as citizens, have to pay interest on something, a promissory note, that is, basically,

worthless? Since the source of power is inevitably money, or who controls the money, when it comes right down to it, the group that controls this country is the group in control of the Federal Reserve Board.

Don't be confused by the name. There is no Federal Govt. control or ownership of this company that prints

our money for virtually nothing, which they then provide to us at face value, for which our country agrees to

"repay" at face value, plus interest.

Is it no wonder that our national debt has continued to soar in a never ending spiral? This is the ultimate

Ponzi scheme and we are it's victims. I am sure that somewhere there is a huge pile of true wealth, which

would be gold and silver, bought with the proceeds of this phony money we call the dollar.

We are a nation of fools who care more about what is on TV than we do about who is "placed" into the White

House for us by our highest court. If our TV's were to all suddenly stop working our nation would be in an

uproar, but, when our process to elect a President stops working...it's all good, we understand, you know,

xxxx happens, right? WRONG! This is just the most recent symptom of the disease which infected our govt.

on 11/22/1963 when our last truly independent President was removed from office via public execution.

What we have sitting in place of our two-party govt. is a two-headed monster.

If, or when, people get wise to what has been happening, and get angry enough to do something, we will

see the true face of this monster. I predict we will, in our lifetimes, see acts which will rival those of Nazi

Germany, only these acts will be done against our fellow Americans. We, on this forum, are, I'm sure,

already on their long list of "undesirables" who are to be rounded up and dealt with.

The feelings I have just expressed may not sit well with some of you, and for that I am sorry, but, I am a

citizen of these United States, and as such, I am compelled to speak out

and say I feel our form of Govt.

was destroyed on 11/22/1963. The two-headed monster, with one voice, that sits in it's place has been

bleeding us dry ever since. We, as a people, had better wake up soon... if not, the worst is yet to come.

This rant is done.

On page 459 of JFK and Vietnam John M Newman writes: "The American people have never been satisfied with the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination, nor has the Congress for that matter. Nevertheless, it is psychologically less troubling to believe that Johnson carried on Kennedy's Vietnam policy than to acknowledge the reverse. If that premise, and the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, are dispelled, where , then, does honest inquiry lead? Until now, such inquiry has been off-limits for serious political scientists and historians because of the conspiritorial presumptions that appear inherent in the material. The implication seems to be that any study that dares examine the possibility of a recent conspiracy is somehow un-American. Yet, IN FACT, it is THAT idea that is un-American. That we the people have not only THE RIGHT but THE DUTY to examine such questions is a basic assumption of our most treasured political institutions. ( emphasis added , Newman only emphasises THAT)

Peter

Introduction:

"We sure blew the son-of-a-bitch away, didn't we?!"* The JFK case was fundamentally broken in the late 1990's by an extensive series of government interviews with all available medical and photographic personnel involved in the autopsy of President John F. Kennedy. The interviews were conducted by a Presidentially appointed board, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), and are deposited in the National Archives II of the United States in College Park, Maryland. The interviews make it clear that the visual evidence, and probably the autopsy report were fabricated after the assassination. The relevant material is presented in this book. The meaning of this is that there was a domestic political conspiracy to kill President Kennedy to prevent his re-election, to prevent the imminent arrest of Vice-President Lyndon Baines Johnson, the subject of major investigations in Congress and in Texas on murder charges and many criminal charges in the Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker scandals and other crimes, and to prevent the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam--in fact to reverse the entire direction of Kennedy's conservative financial management, the pending détente with Cuba and the Soviet Union, and liberalizing polices of a Centrist President. Johnson not only avoided imprisonment, but then became president and led the country into a disastrous war which saw America suffer and ignominious defeat and withdrawal. The only winners were the war profiteers, and Johnson's Texas backers, who stood to lose immense power if Kennedy dropped Johnson from the ticket in 1964. It is not rational that the cover-up of the facts in Kennedy's murder were fabricated to mask the mistakes of federal agencies, as some maintain, or problems created for them by the assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald's employment as a government agent. The nature of the cover-up left only Oswald as the accused lone assassin, and hides the fact that there were more shots--and therefore more gunmen--and shots from other directions than from the sixth floor window of the school book building.

In fact, it is unlikely that any shots at all were fired from that window.

The full article: http://www.theksbwchannel.com/news/3939906/detail.html

The fact is: no shots by the assigned patsy, Lee Oswald were fired from that window.

I would like to make note of a picture of the president. The so called "death stare" picture.

This picture could only have been made after the president's head was reconstructed, as a third of his head was blown off from the frontal shot.

The man lost the side of his head and he had no ear.

My father was a mortition, ( although I'm no JFK) and according to him, it is more than possible to do this kind of reconstructive work.

Peter

Oswald, according to the official story, shot and killed Tippit at 1:18.

I have found a second document which states Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15.

It's impossible to kill Tippit at 1:18, when he has already been pronounced dead at 1:15,

wouldn't you think?

DOA @ 1:15 = shooting around ten munites earlier? Can't be true. No, what it really means is that the ambulance broke the speed of light. Yeah... that's it.

Great find, Chuck! One minor and inconsequential correction. The WCR put the shooting at 1:16.

Has anyone seen or heard of this document before? If it's accurate, it clearly exonerates Oswald in the shooting - which the evidence in toto tends toward doing, also.

Yes , this is additional evidence in the exoneratation of Lee Harvey Oswald. Which, as Harold Weisburg put it " should not have been believed in the 17th century" Look at the backyard photos, take note of these timelines, listen to the Grassy Knoll eye (ear) witnesses.

Even a cursory look at the evidence supposedly linking Oswald to the two murders quickly makes it obvious that this was a snow job. Let's get on to why Kennedy was killed.

Peter

Tosh,

While I admire your courage and openess and need to set things straight, I question what appears to be your willingness to dangle out those who need to remain in the shadows. After all, you of all should be aware that all is not safe!

Al

As someone who has long worked with Tosh on many aspects of his life, I can assure you that some questions for him naming names or giving details go unanswered by him.....which seems to indicate some level of 'care' about what should and shouldn't be out in the open.....although we can all have our opinions [or guesses] on where the 'line' should be drawn. I'd only add that we are about in the USA to be consumed and destroyed by 60+ years of a 'national security state' run amok in its secrecy and much of what was done within that secrecy and if not exposed - we all [on the planet] will soon perish IMO...and to the extent that Tosh or anyone with some information steps forward, I applaud it in full and ask all to detail the 'dirty deeds' that need the disinfection of the sunlight upon them to the maximum......we need more, not less disclosure! I applaud Tosh Plumlee for what he has tried to air. Again, having worked at times closely with him, I know he carefully considers what to say and what not to say....only he can know if the 'calls' were the right ones....and this applies for each of us....

I totally agree with you Peter, but I also understand that exposing the players does not necessarily expose the orchestrators and will more often times than most, corrupt those who have been victimized by the orchestrators and never reach the source. This is what I am getting at and what my concerns are here. For those who went up the hill and came back down with a heavier load than they carried up. Tosh will understand!

Al

This is another example of the TRUTH coming out by someone who is in the later stages of his or her life.

We have been given a lot of facts in the past few years in this manner. Relish them.

Peter

Thanks Forum software, lets try again.

Thomas Jefferson. " I hope we shall crush at its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challange our Government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our Country."

Abraham Lincoln. " The money powers prey upon the Nation in times of peace, and conspire against it in times of adversity. I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front, and the bankers in the rear, of the two the one at the rear is my greatest foe, if they win the Republic is finished."

Theodore Roosevelt. " Behind the ostensible Government sits an enthroned, and invisible Government, owing no allegance and no responsibility to the people of this Nation. To destroy this invisible Government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business, and corrupt politics is the first task of today."

Franklin D Roosevelt. " The real truth of the mater is, as you and I know, that a financial element has owned Government since the days of Andrew Jackson."

Lee Harvey Oswald. " No Sir I havn't killed anyone, I'm just a patsy."

There seems to be a couple of ways to consider Oswalds role.

One is believe that there was a conspiricy, but still cling to the notion that Oswald had to be involved and fired the shots from behind.

Another is to understand that all the man had to do was go to work that day to perform his role.

The plan to frame him was pre-arranged well in advance. ( assuming they didn't get Kennedy in Chicago or Miami)

And upon close examination , the frame job is laughable at best.

Peter McGuire

Am I blind, or did you not provide a link to McAdams' site? If not, why not? Isn't that what an "objective" site would do?

The Assassination of JFK: Index - John Simkin's site includes many assassination-related biographies, links to reports, organizations and websites, and a forum for debating the issues.

How did you manage to overlook its virulently pro-conspiracy slant? Why the benign, neutral language?

Yet that is just what I do. Look again at this index and you will see links to the sites of non-conspiracists like John McAdams and Ken Rahn. Yet these gentleman do not provide a link to my website. I do this because I believe that the intelligent investigator will come to the right conclusion if they look at all the evidence available. It is the same reason why I allow lone nutters like you to post on this forum. As they will discover from reading your posts, you are completely illogical and unable to take part in an intelligent debate on the subject.

Ha ha ha ha ha. It looks like BS was addressing me in the above quotes. Unfortunately I have had his posts on the forum blocked for some time, so I can only "enjoy" them when snippets are quoted by other posters as above.

He wants to know why my site overlooks this site's "virulently pro-conspiracy slant." I believe that all of the links on my site are to sites that are "pro-conspiracy," or at least are run by researchers who have no doubt there was a conspiracy. Why should I waste the time of visitors to my site by referring them to LN sites, when the idea that Oswald did it alone is so easily debunked?

I admit that this disqualifies my site as an "objective" site. The thing about the McNeese State freshman orientation exercise is that the faculty is bamboozling students into thinking that McAdams's site is more "objective," an impressive one easily gets on first impression. Most of the students I'm sure have no way of knowing that the McAdams site, for all the worthwhile info that it contains, is run by what many consider to be a disinformation agent, who laboriously tries to slant everything, to the last jot and tittle, to support an impossible conclusion (there being, among other things, wounds on JFK's body that prove the impossibility) that Oswald acted alone.

I think that what the McNeese faculty is doing, manipulating freshman students on the JFK part of the exercise, is despicable. But on the bright side, it is sending hundreds of young students to my site, so maybe something good will come of it, as many of them consequently visit some of the linked "virulently pro-conspiracy" sites like this one. Maybe a couple of them will even read this thread and join the forum.

This matter of 'objectivity' is often used as a weapon on the right...as it 'political correctness' [in its re-born sense] and the litmus test of not ever seeing any conspiracies anywhere - even when [especially when!] they exist. Would a site on the Holocuast be more 'objective' if it included holocaust denial sites...I wouldn't suggest they do so. Some things are for reasonable and objective humans beyond needed conter-arguments presented. Anyone can always seek them out themselves. As long as there is mention or one can reasonably read into the material that other points of view exist, I think that is enough.

Well put, Peter. Specifically in the Kennedy case, there is plenty of material spread around supporting the official position, while the other side is way behind in equal exposure by the media. When time is given to the "other side" by Lone Whacko's , it is often spun to their side anyway. ( see Cyril Wecht in one of Jenning's specials)

What we need to do is unapologetically present our case as our research shows it. How silly would it be if a lawyer said "well that concludes my case, now my advisary has his opinions, listen to them carefully because everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, mine IS the right one but his could be true too" .

There is no doubt about what happened that afternoon. Clearly , it is the intention of the conspiritors to continue to fool enough people to keep this thing down until time fades it away.

And they have the power, the will, and resourses to do just that.

Peter

One less anti-American scumbag walking the Earth. Pity.

Mr. BS, feel free to expand and expound on your anti-human, anti-humanitarian, pro-hate, pro-murderous and delicately worded comment above....do you feel that anyone who you and your ilk deem 'anti-American' deserve death or just should be celebrated when dead (by whatever means necessary).....? Why exactly did Webb deserve to die to the extent you celebrate it? Was it that he said the CIA deals in drugs and other such, or that he even dared to 'go there'? Do you support death squads to deal with such people in and outside the USA? Do you feel JFK deserved his execution? What would you propose be done with persons who question 'authority' - denial of vote? incarceration in camps? torture and death? Who decides who is breaking the 'rules' of a 'Pro-American'? Have you ever read the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Is there ever any reason to question illegitmate or illegal and immoral authority? Doesn't 'authority' in the USA come from the People? Are all Americans outside of the borders not on a spy mission, corporate robbery, or engaged in killing 'anti-Americans' ipso facto 'anti-American'? Would you endorse a statement such as yours above be placed on each innocent person killed worldwide in the ongoing expansion of American Empire? How do you differentiate your morality from that of your 'enemy' [the 'islamofascists' et al.] when you stoop to what you allege is their morality and means? Anyone on the Forum or groups of persons in USA and world you would wish dead? Since you believe there is not enough of your 'religion' in the USA today kindly cite where in your religion such hate and intolerance is taught and what 'more of it' would mean for the undertakers worldwide - not to mention morality, peace, justice. Here is your BIG chance to enlighten we blind on your 'superior' views and ethics - and worldview for the future. We await such enlightenment - as you hold us in contempt your presence here must be to so enlighten. To date a number of us have noted you have not yet beknighted us with this enlightenment. I think the time is now or never. Enlighten away....or better go away.

I note that BS didn't even try to address anything I brought up here....and 'enlighten' us.

BS is been on my ignore list. I never have to deal with him. However, I do not see why he should

be on this forum. He serves no purpose. I have learned a lot in my short time that I have been here, reading posts by many researchers who spent a lot of time on this subject. Even his ignored posts are distracting.

I would like to make a little contribution by calling this picture the Smiling Secret Service Agent,

"It was a joke" .

Peter

Thanks for posting that, Mike.

When journalists are describing CT'ers, I always detect a trace of patronising pity in their words. However, it's those who are unwilling or unable to face the unpleasant truth about events like JFK's murder who are deserving of pity. The naive and childish assumption that the Government and media always act in the interests of the people and that conspiracies don't really exist is truly pitiful.

CNN called the movie JFK as " spinning wild theories" about the execution when talking about the upcoming film about the assassination of current President Bush.

I too, wish I lived in the fairy tale world of LT denial, rather than knowing Kennedy was lured into an ambush by his own people. And that the operation was covered up by the use of the media who can not print or say anything other than the pre-arranged cover story.

If anyone else tried to frame someone with that backyard picture and insist there were no shots from the front with so much evidence proving this, they would be laughed at.

My only question at this point is WHY?

Was there a violation of National Security by Kennedy and he was deemed a threat? Possibly because of his contact with so many women, including an East German spy and numerous other , unknown women? Now this, perhaps is a wild theory, not the reason outlined in JFK.

But it isn't the "Why" CNN is attacking, they are saying Lee Bowers was mistaken, Jean Hill was nuts because she claimed she saw a dog in the car and umbrella man had a reason to be there and so forth.

In JFK and Vietnam by John M Newman , chapter two, Landsdale " Lone Wolf and Operater" Newman writes:

" By April 27 Landsdale knew his influence on Vietnam policy within the Kennedy administration was, for all practical purposes, finished. He goes on to say; For Landsdale, being removed from influence by Kennedy was a heartbreaking experience. Under these circumstances, then , it is perhaps not surprising that Landsdale wrote the first document urging a large U.S. troop commitment to Vietnam. He was embracing more powerful patrons, those who would have their way in the end."

Landsdale , who, with his deformed hand was photographed shortly after the murder walking away from three men who are known operatives of the CIA.

Wild Theory? I dont think so!

The legal term Jack is looking for is the Pinkerton Doctrine, which at least one currently working US Attorney advocates applying to the JFK Assassination. This assistant prosecutor has been invited to detail his proposal at this November COPA meeting in Dallas.

Rather than ignorant internet trolls however, he believes those who assisted in the assassination could and should be prosecuted today.

The legal RICO tools used against organized crime and the even more heavy Patriot Act terrorist measures can and some day will be turned around and retroactively usde on solving cold case terrorist acts - like the JFK Assassination.

And Gee, I didn't know that Jack and Apolo photos could arrouse such emotion. At least you know you can get a knee jerk reaction from any idiot.

BK

Good point Bill:

This thread does have relevance. But if was up to me , I would prosecute the ignorant trolls also. Because without the Von Peins, Koenigs and our beloved BS er , the truth about the matter would have a better chance of finding it's way to the people. They are effective at what they do.

Thank God for the ignore feature on this forum... I have two posters ignored at this time and I believe that that figure is about to grow.

"NO BS , Just the facts. Ma'am"

Peter

I have a hard time buying the idea that Kellerman and Greer were accomplices. Given the amount of bullets flying in to the car from all directions, it was a fluke that neither were hit.

I'd have to agree here....they would have to have unusually strong nerves and almost unlimited trust in the ability of the snipers if they were 'in on it'. While I don't rule out that some SS men might have been in cahoots, I doubt the two in the car with JFK would have been or could have been. They would have worn hardhats and bulletproof vests....and been drinking while driving. Their statements on their accounts of the number and timing of bullets adds a bit to my feeling on this also. If they were told there would be a 'hit' the only way would have been to tell them it was to be at a completely different location when they were not to be so close....as some speculate about JC.

WHOA!

The slow turn, the braking, the failure to even coast at the cruising speed of a limo downhill,

the failure to secure overpasses, windows, fences, the RYBKA stand down, the POTUS in the lead car,

the braking and stopping/near stopping in the fire zone, the slow cruise after the initial throat shot to

Kennedy, the failure to etc...........

Shanet:

This is what I am getting at. There is too much denial regarding the Agent's behavior. You have outlined just a fraction of the Secret Service's unusual behavior which is written off as "mistakes" or excuses using a theory about "human behavior".

At the very least these folks should have been fired for their incompetence. Their stories made no sense and some were even promoted in later years. (bad things happened to a few)

Vince Palamara goes into this in great detail but I will address a few of Shanet's points.

1) The slow turn. Car should not go below 44 miles per hour, if so , protection needs to be "poored on"

( Prouty)

2) Greer's BRAKING , not even coasting. An automatic vehicle , like the limo, would coast downhill 20 miles an hour or more depending upon the idling speed. Whatever, it wouldn't be zero miles an hour. ( if you want to split hairs and come up with another figure! )

3) The lack of protection in the killing zone. Basic security was not present that afternoon. It was called off to enable the shooters to do their job. Protecting the President is what the Secret Service does. To suggest they did not realize something was up is ridiculous. Greer had 6 or 7 seconds to get out of there. He did not. Instead , he braked the car. Take a look at Reagan's assassination attempt. That is protection. That is what happens when shots are fired. NO ONE MOVED when the shots rang out in Dallas.

If Greer thought he might be driving into an ambush, and that gave him pause, why didn't he say so? Instead he chose to categorically lie under oath by saying he stepped on the gas and got out of there as soon as he knew what was happening. The WC had the Z film and knew Greer was lying to their faces.

Wouldn´t Greer have known what was happening even before the head shoot?

He would have heard the "shots" that many spectators thought where firecrackers.

Should´t he have heard both JFK and Connoly (bad spelling) beeing shot.

Connoly even yelled out, "Oh my god they are killing us all"

And then realised whats was going on?

Dear Jorgen:

Of course he would have. But this is why the plan was so successful. It is so hard to believe , even when presented with imperical evidence , that one's own government would do this to it's President. So we all say "there had to be a reason, they were hungover, hesitant or poorly trained".

Greer and the other Agents were told to behave this way. They were simply performing their job.

Lee Oswald was framed for this murder. He was the patsy. Why would a serious researcher spend time, in 2006, talking about him? If you want to exonerate him you may want to talk to his girlfriend that he spent the summer of the assassination and get the true picture of the man.

FYI: Paraffin tests were negative for Oswald firing a rifle. There is no such a thing as a false negative in the real world.

Peter

HELLO PETER,

IN ANSWER TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION, WHY WOULD A SERIOUS RESEARCHER SPEND TIME TALKING ABOUT LHO, THE PATSY FRAMED FOR THIS MURDER - WELL, ONLY HIS FRIENDS COULD FRAME HIM FOR A HOMICIDE, SO IN ORDER TO GET TO THE GUILTY YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH OSWALD.

THE PURPOSE ISN'T TO EXONERATE OSWALD BUT TO IDENTIFY THE GUILTY.

AND WHOSE THE GIRLFRIEND HE SPENT THE SUMMER OF THE ASSASSINATION WITH?

JUDITH?

THE CIA DID A FIVE DIFFERENT DEFECTOR STUDIES OF NOSENKO, EACH WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH.

THE ONE THAT MADE THE MOST SENSE, AT LEAST TO ME, IS THE ONE THAT EVALUATED THE INVESTIGATIVE LEADS AND DAMAGE DONE FROM THE RESULTING NEW INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THOSE LEADS.

WHILE REAL HONEST SOURCES SUPPLY INFORMAITON THAT CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED FROM OTHER SOURCES, THOSE THAT DON'T FAIL THE TEST.

AND WHOSE THE GIRL IN THE PHOTO AGAIN?

BK

Hi Bill:

Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the explanation as to why there is a need to still study the man.

Yes, the girl in the picture is Judy Vary in 1961.

Peter

Deleted post