Peter McGuire
-
Posts
950 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Peter McGuire
-
-
I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread on Jean Hill:
Gary is in the precarious position of trying to run a neutral museum. The building is owned by Dallas County, and I’m guessing he gets some support from the city because it brings tourists to town. He really can’t lean too far into the CT camp without ruffling some of the feathers of the powers-that-be. He may have personal feelings one way or the other, but because of his position, he has to stay in the middle.
I’ve noticed that several times when I’ve posted questions on here, or Lancer, Mr. Mack has answered me in a private email. He simply gives me the answer that I’m looking for without editorial comment one way or the other. Again, very neutral. However, he does take it upon himself, unsolicited, to give me (and the rest of us) the information we seek. If he was a true LNer, he wouldn’t give us the time of day.
Personally, I’m very glad he’s around, and very glad he runs the museum in the neutral way that he does. Give everyone the information they seek, whether it’s in the form of exhibits or answers to questions asked, and let everyone make up their own mind. It’s the sign of a good educator.
Thanks Gary.
I purchased and read Jeans book at the beginning of the year (2006)
I found the book intriguing as it gives the reader an insight on how (in this case) one of the witness’s life was affected by being in Dealy Plaza on that fateful day.
Apparently Jeans account of that six seconds (or nine) of her life has come under fire due to the fact that her recollections had changed slightly over the years. So what most people’s recollections change slightly over time especially when you consider the very short time frame.
I remember during one of the many re-profiling and problem solving exercises I have sat through in the recent past, a particular exercise had a profound affect on me.
A drawing was shown to us on an over-head projector for a few seconds. When it was removed the class was asked individually to describe what they saw. The people present described seeing either an old or young women. As I saw old women I immediately (in my mind) dismissed the people who said they saw a young women.
We were told that it was a normal reaction to see one or the other. This was not good enough for me until an instructor showed me the young woman’s face line by line.
Jean was for most of her life a lone parent who brought up two children as well as teaching primary school for most of her working life. A full and productive life.
The late Jean Hill was in my opinion a ‘Good American’
Chris Brown
Liverpool England.
JWK
P.S. I was down there a month or so ago, I saw a large and complicated flow chart in the gift shop. It showed who knew who and who was connected to what, and so on. I couldn't buy it, and only had a few minutes to look at it. Has anyone seen this chart? If so, just how accurate is it?
Of necessity Gary's public persona is polished and circumspect.
But you should have been present at his disgraceful performance at the University of Texas at Arlington in Jim Marrs' JFK class in the 90s. About 40 students were present.
RESEARCHERS:
Please review this exchange and Jean Hill's WBAP interviews and let's put this aspect of the operation behind us.
Jim had asked Jean Hill to do a repeat performance of her JFK witness testimony before a new group of students. Jean was always very nice and she always brought us all a batch of her freshly baked cookies. She was relating how she and Mary came downtown and sweet-talked a cop friend into letting them go down into the grassy area WHERE SPECTATORS HAD BEEN BANISHED. She told how she and Mary were there to shoot Polaroid photos of a couple of cop boyfriends, as well as the president. She said Mary took a cop photo of one of the lead motorcycles. Then as the limo came around the corner, she said she saw WHAT SHE THOUGHT WAS A SMALL WHITE DOG THAT JACKIE WAS SHOWING TO THE PRESIDENT.It seems Jean Hill has been rehabilitated as a witness concerning her seeing what looked like a small dog when the motorcade was coming to her. Therefore , her two interviews on WBAP the day of the assassination , are further first hand evidence of other shooters on the knoll.
In the first interview:
Q: "Well, no...Where did the shots come from?"
A: (JeanHill) "The shots came from the HILL"
Q: "From the HILL"
A: (Jean Hill) Yes, ..ah..it was just east of the underpass...and WE were on the SOUTH SIDE"
In the second interview that day:
Q: "You only heard it"
A: (Jean Hill) " I only heard it...and i looked up and I saw a man running up this HILL"
What follows is the despicable behavior of Gary Mack and Dave Perry.
THE LADY TOLD HER STORY AND IT WAS THE TRUTH
How many times do some people need to hear what actually happened that day?
Peter
At this point Gary and Dave Perry (sitting beside him) BEGAN HECKLING JEAN AND LAUGHING. Somewhat flustered at the rude interruption, Jean continued...saying that eager to get a good photo of the president, SHE AND MARY STEPPED OFF THE CURB AND INTO THE STREET. She said she was almost close enough to reach out and touch the side of the limo.
Immediately, Gary shouted loudly..."YOU ARE A xxxx, JEAN!"
She attempted to continue, but again, ..."YOU ARE A xxxx, JEAN!"
Jean burst into tears on the small stage at the front of the large classroom...and fled from the room. The students sat stunned. Jim made an apology, and tried to continue the class. Gary and Perry did not apologize. The class adjourned in disarray. Jim soon thereafter discontinued these JFK classes.
Jack
-
This all points to a domestic action by the agencies of Treasury, Intelliegence and the military.
If the President was struck down by US executive orders on the
pretext of incpacity and loss of security clearance...for "national security"
then this is exactly what we would have, inexplicably bad protection.
Negligence to the point of complicity.
Main points:
Knoll, Railyard, Overpass and TBSD windows...grossly unsecured.
Presidential Limousine Running Boards...standard...not available in Dallas.
Unusual slow detour into triangulated "arcade" of Dealey Plaza.
Motorcycles dropped back. No Presidential SS men near Kennedy.
Johnson and Jacqueline recieving better attention from SS than JFK.
Halting, near stoppage during 18 second barrage of gunfire.
5 to 10 mile an hour pace at beginning of barrage, slow to walking speed
or nearly halted, brake lights on
(downhill-gravity and transmission would have pushed them faster at 20-30 mph coasting)
Lack of security for blood, tissue, ballistic fragments and window glass indicating
ballistic activity....
This is just a thumbnail from memory....the Twenty Fifth Amendmentwould technically serve to exonerate Johnson and Treasury Secretary
CD DILLON if this scheme were ever to be made public...
Coordinated government agency effort are very clear here, sad to say....
It could be said it was illegally based on the 25th Amendment. Problem is , the Amendment requires that it is brought to Congress , there is no provision for Regicide.
-
You can view the 1963 TV interview at the Dallas Radio station, and the 2003 interview at the 6th floor Museum regarding this testimony.
It is very clear from these interviews and the statement to the Dallas County Sheriff's Department
what the Newmans are saying:
THE SHOT CAME FROM THE FRONT
" I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the TSBD. I looked back in the vacinity[sic] of the garden.
At the Garrison trial: "sounded like it was coming directly behind us"
In the 2003 interview, Gayle Newman, in particular, is very clear about her position on the matter.
-
Dear BS:
I can take your advise to research old topics , but the last thing this topic is , is nonsense.
It is The Case. What we see that day before our very eyes. What Kennedy's men did and did not do.
This cannot be explained away.
Peter
-
Thanks for the encouragement, Bill. I will do what I can. I hope we can get this thing to the Grand Jury soon.
Peter
-
Some thoughts on ignored or manipulated physical evidence related to Bill Kelly's proposal. None are developed at any length. I just wanted to note them and pass them on for later development:
* The contemporaneous notes taken by the Bethesada prosectors that were alleged to have informed the JFK official autopsy are missing. What the WC alleges as the basis of the report (CD #397, as I recall) cannot possibly underwrite the medical forensic facts in the autopsy report. Where are they? Did Humes destroy all of the notes?
* A strong and convincing case can be made that the 3 cartridges found on 6th floor of the TSBD were planted; they were never used in any shooting. This argument rests on the dents found on each of the spent shells. Argues that they were simply fired from Oswald's alleged rifle after the gun powder and bullets were removed. Had they been discharged as whole ammo the dents would have vanished as the propulsion power of the explosion would have flattened out the dents. A bit complicated but it can be supported.
* Oswald's paraffin tests on right cheek was negative.No matter how you spin this it exonerates him.
<There seems to be NO case against Oswald Peter>
* The WC and FBI are never able to produce a chain-of-custody case for the so-called "magic bullet." The only one who was involved in handling this bullet and swore that it came from Connally's stretcher was SA Elmer Todd. None of the others Wright Rowley, Johnsen were able to swear that the WC identified CE399 was the one that came from Connally's carriage at Parkland. Only Todd made this identification. He was the agent who got the bullet from Johnsen (SS) who got it from O.P. Wright. Todd then brought it to FBI Lab in WDC. The problem is that the so-called "MB" at NARA does not have Todd's mark on it. If Todd marked the JFK bullet it is not the one that now rests in the archives. This, of course, is the bullet in question that the WC used to tie Oswald's rifle to the assasination. It was the only thing that ties him to the "original sin."
* The same case can be made for the so-called Walker bullet. This bullet was not a 6.5 mm bullet. I have some of this in Breach of Trust and will develop the whole Walker shooting at greater length in a ms I am working on now.
-
I'm not a moderator in this forum, but have noticed some members having trouble with quoting other members when replying, so this is an unsolicited and completely unofficial primer on quoting and posting with the forum software in use here.This article deals with two aspects of forum participation when replying to another member: Thanks Ashton , I needed the help Peter
1. The nuts and bolts of quoting and replying using the tools of this specific forum, and,
2. (Briefly) Conventions of courtesy and consideration for others when using those tools ("netiquette")
1. NUTS AND BOLTS OF QUOTING ANOTHER MESSAGE
Here is the simplest way to quote any text from anywhere, at any time. Just type the following into any message editor, and type it exactly the way you see it in the "CODE" box below:
[quote]This is the piece of text I want to quote.[/quote]
The code word "quote" inside the square brackets at the beginning of the text turns quoting ON. The code word "/quote" (with a forward slash in front of "quote") inside square brackets at the end of the text turns quoting OFF. These are simple ON/OFF switches using simple "programming" code that the forum understands.
If you go into a message editor and type just what you see inside the CODE box above, then use the "Preview Post" button at the bottom of the message editor, you will see this:
This is the piece of text I want to quote.It really is just that simple. There is nothing else to it at all. But there are just a few important things to keep in mind, or you will have trouble with it:
- The single most important thing to keep in mind is that the "quote" and "/quote" codes inside square brackets are ON/OFF switches, and for every ON quote code there must be a matching OFF quote code (and vice versa—for every OFF code, there must be a matching ON code).
- If you have even one unmatched ON or OFF quote code anywhere in a message, it will screw up the the rest of your matched pairs, and nothing you tried to quote will appear properly in quote boxes. Instead you will see a lot of "quote" and "/quote" codes (in square brackets) scattered all over the posted version of the message like bugs on a windshield. That's difficult to reproduce here without destroying this message, but if you've spent any time in these forums, you've seen it.
- To identify the member you're quoting, the ON quote code takes a slightly more complex form, described below. But it isn't really complex, since the forum software creates it for you when you hit the "Reply" button on a posted message. Let's look at that:
Here's an example of the first line of text you normally see in a message editor when you hit the "Reply" button on any forum message:
[quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM']
If it starts to seem awfully complex, take a deep breath and notice that it is nothing whatsoever but a longer form of the simple ON "quote" code above. It still keeps it inside square brackets, but adds information that identifies the member you're quoting, gives a unique "post" number to the message you're replying to, and adds a date and time.
The OFF quote code, described earlier, never changes.
So here's how to use that "long form" ON quote code above to quote some text:
[quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM']This is some text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.[/quote]
If you copy and paste that into a message editor exactly as you see it in the CODE box above, then use the "Preview Post" button at the bottom of the message editor, this is what you'll see:
This is some text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.And that really is all there is to it!
If you're quoting and replying to several passages in the same message from one member, you can use the "long form" quote ON code for the first passage you're replying to, then use the "short form" quote ON code from there on out in your message, like this nonsense example:
[quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM']This is some text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.[/quote] If you aren't who you say your are, why are you saying you are? [quote]This is some MORE text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.[/quote] Adding "MORE" to your nonsense only makes it MORE nonsense!
That would look like this when posted (the lines and indenting are just so designate beginning/ending of posted message, and would not appear):
- ______________________________
If you aren't who you say your are, why are you saying you are?This is some text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.
Adding "MORE" to your nonsense only makes it MORE nonsense!This is some MORE text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.
______________________________And yes, that really is all there is to it even when quoting people quoting other people. In that case, you merely are "nesting" pairs of ON/OFF quote codes inside each other, as in this example (all using just my own Ashton Gray "long form" ON code):
[quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM'] [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM'] This is Ashton Gray quoting something else Ashton Gray said [/quote] [/quote]
Notice that there are TWO ON QUOTE CODES and TWO OFF QUOTE CODES. Copying and pasting the above into a message editor and hitting the "Preview Post" button will give you this:
This is Ashton Gray quoting something else Ashton Gray said
No matter how many such quotes you "nest" inside of each other, the only thing that you must keep in mind is that for every ON quote code there must be a matching OFF quote code
That's it. That's all there is to it. So if you see the codes themselves showing up in your messages after they are posted, hit the "Edit" button at the bottom of your own posts, and go in and find where you have either an ON quote code without a matching OFF quote code, or vice versa. That is the ONLY REASON why quoting fails.
So having covered the nuts and bolts, here are a few conventions of "netiquette" that have developed over many years in many forums and USENET groups:
2. CONVENTIONS AND COURTESY
Although the following points are derived from conventions that more or less prevail across the 'net, obviously there are no hard-and-fast laws governing such conventions, and there are no "Posting Police" that are going to enforce anything written below. It's up to users to try to do what they can to make the forum as pleasant and functional as possible. The guidelines below are purely my own observations of conventional usage.
- When replying to a message, quote only what's precisely pertinent to what you are replying to. If the message you're replying to is four yards long, don't quote all four yards in order to ask a specific question about something in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. Quote the second sentence of the fourth paragraph ONLY.
DO quote specifically what someone else has said if you're taking issue with it. DO NOT rewrite the person and take issue with your own alteration of what they purportedly said.
If you're only adding a non-critical and general comment about something someone else posted, DO NOT quote the message at all. What they said is already in the thread. That's why forum messages are arranged in continuing threads, so there is a record of the discussion. The exception to that, of course, is when a number of messages have intervened between what you're responding to and your response. Just use judgment and quote only what's necessary to have your message make sense in the context of the thread.
DO NOT use color, bold, lines of asterisks, chevrons, quotation marks, or other hacks to quote people. It makes reading difficult enough, and makes standard quoting-and-replying to your messages damned near impossible for others. Just learn how to quote using the tools that are provided. It's really not that hard, and helps everyone.
Using a separate text editor like NotePad (PC) or TextEdit (Mac) can help quite a lot when creating a message with lots of quote-reply sequences, or nested quotes. When finished editing it, just copy and paste it into the forum message editor.
And I hope all that helps someone.
Ashton Gray
- The single most important thing to keep in mind is that the "quote" and "/quote" codes inside square brackets are ON/OFF switches, and for every ON quote code there must be a matching OFF quote code (and vice versa—for every OFF code, there must be a matching ON code).
-
"The primary purpose of the film was to hide the role of Kennedy's bodyguard"
Paul, who was assigned to Kennedy?
Thanks,
Peter
-
Why did the conspirators offer the Z-film?
An important subject, rarely addressed head on. Below, a preliminary sketch of an answer. I leave aside two other obvious motives, as trophy and training aid:
Kennedy had to be killed in a public space to allay suspicion of an inside job.
Yet it had to be an inside job to ensure its success.
How to reconcile these conflicting imperatives?
A false film, buttressed by a series of measures designed to render the location a pseudo- or controlled public space:
1) Location of crime scene at the end of the motorcade route, thus limiting potential number of independent witnesses;
2) Largely portable scene-of-crime, leaving little to examine, provoke reflection or, not unimportantly, clear-up;
3) Further limiting independent witness presence in the chosen public space by misdirection as to the precise motorcade route;
4) Minimisation of independent witness presence at key vantage points through guards at aforesaid key points;
5) Flooding of public space by intelligence assets, using pre-established business proprietaries as thoroughly plausible pretext for presence;
6) Misdirection of independent eyewitnesses (and subsequent enquirers) by use of both planted and/or manufactured witnesses; and rehearsed misdirection actions by motorcade figures designed to support the built-in fall back position (the grassy knoll);
7) Deliberate investigative failure to account for, and adduce the testimony of, all those present: inconvenient witnesses were marginalised, ignored, and/or replaced by more helpful material. The fake film showed only those witnesses the conspirators wanted us to see.
< The primary purpose of the film was to hide the true role of Kennedy’s own bodyguard. >
The second, to inject the required quota of ambiguity and paranoia into the case: the Z-film, in the version we are familiar with, is quintessentially the product of the counter-intelligence mind.
The public understanding of the case would thus be shaped not by testimony, but by the false visual depiction.
Of course, things didn’t go quite according to plan. But the essential task did.
Question from Peter McGuire regarding "The primary purpose of the film.... silly question but which agent was assigned to Kennedy?
-
"flooding of the area with assets"
This was a key component of the plan. Control the area and create confusion. Prouty called the so called tramps "actors". In any event, you can clearly see Landsdale in this picture walking away from his men.
There were a lot of people in Dallas that day. It is a long list.
The Zapruder film? It is clearly altered but still shows the frontal shot.
PM
-
" crummie little Commie's place of employment"
Mole #1
PM
-
For those of you who are looking at the big picture and see that the "why" part is indeed the most difficult one to answer, I can only say you are on the right track. But there are so many reasons why Kennedy could have been killed, so that question may never be answered.
What we need to get out of this question, and the events of that day is, at the very least, the fact that it DID happen; that is, there was an operation to kill our own President, complete with a fall guy and a plan to cover it up.
The plan worked very well , with a surprising number of people actually still believing in the cover story to this day. Many more cling to the notion Oswald had to be involved and was one of the shooters. But what most people can not cope with is the reality of the public and brutal nature of the operation. And the fact that his own men turned on him and allowed him to die.
PM
-
Dear MarK:
I agree with you that there were many situations where it was hard to protect Kennedy. I am sure there are so many examples we could use.
PM
-
JFK also had his publicist write in the New York Times , predicting that ( not exact quote) "if there was ever a Coup D Etat in the United States , to look at the CIA for doing it."
I believe these other stories are put out there to align with the cover story; The absolute false story that Lee Oswald did this. Nothing could be further from the truth.
While there was some recklessness in Kennedy's behavior while in public, his own people got him , not someone willing to sacrifice himself. Quite the opposite , the real perpetrators of the crime not only did get away with it, they are working vociferously to this day to pursuade the masses to continue believing in the mascuerade.
-
Dear Mark:
I have read through the exchange that happened on this forum with Michael Piper and to say I am not impressed by the conduct of some of the researchers here is an understatement.
"Final Judgment" does an excellent job of showing how the Lansky crime syndicate fits in with a lot of the research that is already out there. At the very least , you finally understand who Jack Rubenstein really is.
Until Final Judgment, most people also were not aware of Kennedys conflict with Ben Gurion. And rather than going over, ad nauseum , all the details of the execution day , Final Judgment finally looks at the big picture.
Angleton seems to be the link to the Mossad which makes it a combined CIA/Mossad operation. And the proposed motive is very clear; State Survival.
In any event, with the shut down of protection that day, it is very clear that it was an "inside job". While Johnson was covered by his bodyguards the moment shots were fired, Greer and Kellerman just looked at Kennedy and waited over 6 seconds until he was good and dead. All the other Agents were ordered not to do anything by Agent Emory P Roberts. The world was led to believe Hill actually tried to do something. All he did was cover Kennedys dead body after Jackie picked up her husbands brains. ( Off the BACK of the car) From the shot from the FRONT!
PM
-
As many of you know, JFK came out for Algerian independence in 1956 as a US Senator. Sadly, I believe if Kennedy had lived and implemented a more balanced approach to the affairs in this region, we would not be where we are today. I sent in a petition to President Bush a while back urging peace in the middle east. It included JFK's American University speech. The petition had parts of the speech in it and a picture of our executed president. I have never recieved a response from the White House yet.
-
In the film "Executive Action" there is a scene at Love Field which shows the beginning of the motorcade. However, there seems to be a little more to that clip than was originally shown at the time.
You can see it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...tand+down+video
Also, I heard something very interesting yesterday when talking to a former Mayor of a small town here in Wisconsin. He met JFK when he was campaining for President in the little town of Gays Mills. He was asked an obscure question about the Rural Electrification Program and could not answer it. He told the townspeople he would get back to them. And he did. But what is interesting is that he claims that he saw a shot real time , on TV, in the Grassy Knoll area. Are there other reports of people viewing the motorcade from that vantage point on television?
-
Something I've always noticed from the Z film is that right after the headshot, everyone in the car except for JFK and JBK seem to be thrown forward. Whether this is due to Greer hitting the brakes, or the car slowing down, I don't know.
This will probably prompt a spate of angry retorts...but whatever.
Do you think it's possible that the two SS agents in the front seat were ducking? Like maybe one of them said "Get down!" and they both did at the same time?
I realize that the Connallys appear to be moving forward at the same time but they *might* be ducking down in response to a command to get down, or they might just be moving down independent of the front seat occupants.
They also seem to be ducking down just as JFK's head exploded. I would duck too.
MV
You may rest assured that in addition to some "ducking" there was also some "yanking" going on.
Certainly glad to see that someone here not only apparantly has an understanding of the "basic" male instinct, but also has demonstrated the ability to apply completely independent thought, irrelvant of what we are consistantly "told" that we see in the Z-Film.
You are sooooooooooo close to the truths!
Thanks , Tom.
Now,
Watch this: This may bring us even closer to the truth!
http://www.video.google.com/videoplay?doci...tand+down+video
For a look at the Secret Service at Love Field.
-
Something I've always noticed from the Z film is that right after the headshot, everyone in the car except for JFK and JBK seem to be thrown forward. Whether this is due to Greer hitting the brakes, or the car slowing down, I don't know.
This will probably prompt a spate of angry retorts...but whatever.
Do you think it's possible that the two SS agents in the front seat were ducking? Like maybe one of them said "Get down!" and they both did at the same time?
I realize that the Connallys appear to be moving forward at the same time but they *might* be ducking down in response to a command to get down, or they might just be moving down independent of the front seat occupants.
They also seem to be ducking down just as JFK's head exploded. I would duck too.
Yes, they do look like they are "ducking down" and looking back. But weren't
they supposed to be saving the President, not themselves?
MV
That very thing crossed my mind as well, Mark. Remember that two bullet fragments were found in the front seats, the windshield was cracked on the inside, and there were dents in the chrome strip and the back of the rear view mirror. Greer and Kellerman had to have heard, and maybe even see, bullet fragments bouncing around up there, even if it was only on a subconscious level.
However, the timing of when JBC, Nellie, and the agents were the same. It could have been a combination of the car slowing down and instinctive response of the agents to duck.
JWK
-
I have always been troubled by the fact that Greer did not speed away after the shooting began and that
Kellerman did not move to protect the President and Governor. Isn't that what Agents are supposed to do?
It seems to me from the Zapruder film that both the Agents are looking back until the fatal shot, then turn around and speed away. Senator Yarbourogh and Mrs. Kennedy both made comments about Greer's actions. Yarbourogh suggested more training and Mrs. Kennedy hoped the next President would get a "better driver".
There is also the film showing Rybka and another Agent being waived off the limo at Love Field. These two key Agents were left at the airport and would have played an important role in protecting the President.
Finally, if you look at the photos of the motorcade at the time of the first shot, you can see that while there is a lot of protection around the other cars, there is none around the Presidents limousine.
-
I became interested in the assassination when I viewed a presentation which included the recently released Zapruder film , and evidence showing that so many people linked to the crime were mysteriously killed. I could not believe what I had seen and from then on I believed that something was terribly wrong.
William Greer and JFK
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Hill and or Kellerman COULD have got to Kennedy if that is what they were supposed to do that day.