Paul Baker

Hi Pat and Ray, Do either of you have a more rational explanation for the wounds sustained by Kennedy and Connally? I haven't heard one yet. There seems to be emphasis on discrediting the people that support it, rather than providing a reasonable alternative explanation. I hope you both understand, I'm not towing any particular line here. I'm quite able to change my opinion. So if either of you can provide a convincing alternative explanation I would dearly love to hear it. Kind Regards, Paul.

Ok, so I need to couch my words in more precise terms. If Connally was merely reacting to the sound of a shot, how do you account for that anguished grimace? Was that 'Oh no! Someone's shooting!', or 'S**t, that hurts'? Look at his expression.

Are you aware, Ron, that sound scientific analysis has proven the so-called 'magic bullet' theory? If you're not, and you think there is a more rational explanation, I'd like to hear it. If all of the shots didn't come from behind, where do you think they came from? There was no grassy knoll shooter, unless you really do trust the likes of Jean Hill (changed her story in an effort to seek publicity) and Gordon Arnold (a retard who wasn't even there). The head shot. Do you believe that came from the front? If you do, I'll show you why you're wrong. It's really quite simple. Sound science has thoroughly debunked the SBT from the beginning. No it hasn't. If you want to ignore the scientific analyses of the assorted bullet fragments recovered, that's fine. Let's forget about that. How then do you account for the film that shows Kennedy and Connally reacting to a shot at precisely the same time?

How do you account for the fact that Frazier said the package was not long enough to have contained the broken-down rifle? If you've seen The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald, you'll recognise that Buell isn't the sharpest tool in the box. That's why he worked in the TSBD. Though at heart he is clearly an honest person, he's one that could probably be easily cajoled into saying anything. A smart attorney will twist him around his little finger. Gerry Spence plays with heartstrings. Bugliosi works with facts. The question stands. What was in that paper bag? My God, what nonsense! The only people who saw something said it wasn't what the Warren Commission claimed it was. That's the whole point. Can we say they might have been wrong? Yes. But should we ASSUME they were wrong, a la the Warren Commission? NO. No one knows what was in the bag, but Buelll Frazier has said from day one it was far too small to have held the rifle. He was a country boy, scared of the police. They pushed him around and tried to get him to sign a confession. And yet, he stood his ground. All these years later, he is still standing his ground. I've met him twice and have talked with him for over an hour. I've also met his son. They're as patriotic and straightforward as can be. Assuming Frazier was wrong is no better than assuming he was lying... I suspect--no, scratch that, know-- those assuming he was wrong or lying do so for their own selfish reasons... "Hmmm...I think I've got everything figured out, but this guy won't tell me what I want to hear...SO, he must be a bumpkin, an idiot. Yeah, that's it. Frazier was too stupid to be able to tell the difference in a relatively small bag made of thin paper and a bag at least twice its size made of thicker paper. And let's not mention the drive out to Irving--y'know, the one where Frazier failed to notice a 38 by 17 inch piece of crisp shipping paper folded in eigths and stuffed in Oswald's clothes. That happens everyday, right? Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you have never worked in a warehouse and never handled shipping paper of any kind. Am I right? Because if you had, you'd know the Warren Commission's assumption Oswald made the bag at work on the 21st and smuggled it out to Irving in his clothes without Frazier or anyone else noticing is one of the lamest most unrealistic conclusions in the whole report. As Frazier told me. "That did not happen." Hi Pat, How lame is that assumption, that Oswald made a bag and managed to smuggle it out of the building? It seems perfectly feasible to me. Paul.

It was a high velocity bullet. A little streamlined piece of metal designed to penetrate flesh. What's magic about it? If you watch the Zapruder film in slow motion you can see both Kennedy and Connally reacting simultaneously. How do you account for that?

My impression is that Oswald blurted that out, and that it wasn't planned in advance. I do think you have to ask the question, why would he say that if it was true? And, why didn't he elaborate? His persona was of a cowardly nature, he was simply trying to exonerate himself. He perhaps hoped that a jury would ultimately decide that there was more to this event than the obvious. Paul.

Are you aware, Ron, that sound scientific analysis has proven the so-called 'magic bullet' theory? If you're not, and you think there is a more rational explanation, I'd like to hear it. If all of the shots didn't come from behind, where do you think they came from? There was no grassy knoll shooter, unless you really do trust the likes of Jean Hill (changed her story in an effort to seek publicity) and Gordon Arnold (a retard who wasn't even there). The head shot. Do you believe that came from the front? If you do, I'll show you why you're wrong. It's really quite simple.

Hi Ray, thanks for your reply. So in your opinion, Lee didn't take his rifle into the TSBD that morning. If he didn't take it in that morning, how did it get there? Do you think he took it on a different day, or did someone else take it in to help incriminate him? Perhaps you believe it was never there at all, I'd be interested to know. Paul.

How do you account for the fact that Frazier said the package was not long enough to have contained the broken-down rifle? If you've seen The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald, you'll recognise that Buell isn't the sharpest tool in the box. That's why he worked in the TSBD. Though at heart he is clearly an honest person, he's one that could probably be easily cajoled into saying anything. A smart attorney will twist him around his little finger. Gerry Spence plays with heartstrings. Bugliosi works with facts. The question stands. What was in that paper bag?

Hi Ray, are suggesting that Buell and Linnie were coerced into lying about the package? What's your stance? Was there a package, or wasn't there? Yes or no will suffice.

Thomas, I rely on the weight of evidence. If you're suggesting that Lee wasn't carrying a package that morning, how do you account for those people that saw him carrying one?

I think that Martin's review is flawed. I don't have time to pick it apart, because there is too much to pick apart. So I'd like to focus on one part of Martin's review. Then, like a house of cards and a breeze, it all falls flat on its face. That package. It's not too hard to tear apart any argument about its perceived size, or what it contained. In hindsight, of course, we all like to pay special attention to that package. At the time though it probably wasn't considered important by anyone that noticed it. Lee told Frazier that it contained curtain rods. This is a lie. Why? Because: * Lee didn't need curtain rods. * No curtain rods were found anywhere in the TSBD in the wake of the assassination. * Why on earth would Lee make a special journey to get some curtain rods that he didn't really need? If he did need them (which he didn't) why didn't he just get them during his usual weekend visit? It's really a no-brainer. So we know that the package didn't contain curtain rods, but we know it existed and that it contained something. So what was in that bag if it wasn't Lee's rifle? One thing you can't accuse the the authors of is failing to apply basic common sense. Package argument destroyed. My, that was quite easy! Paul.

I'm sure you are. Who did you ask? Paul.

Thanks, Jim. I hope you eventually discover what really happened on that fateful day. No hard feelings, all the best. Paul.

I'm drowning in an ocean of irony! I've asked for my account to be deleted, due in large part to your aggressive and threatening behaviour. No doubt that makes you feel rather happy. Paul.

Hi David, Do you believe that the limo was stationary at the moment of the headshot, and that the Zapruder film was altered to conceal that? And therefore do you believe that the other films that show the limo in motion at the moment of the headshot were also altered? Paul. According to the 5 witnesses I interviewed back in 1971, the car stopped (momentarily), and some said that was to permit Clint Hill to climb on board. As I'm sure you know, 15 mph ~ a four minute mile. Even if you knock off 25%, none of the witnesses I interviewed perceived the assassination to have occurred that way. FYI: I interviewed both Newmans, John Chism, Jack Franzen, and Mary Moorman. I'm relating what I was told, which sparked my original interest in this area. Ultimately, the film will be impeached because of other evidence--i.e., optical evidence and/or credible accounts of where the work was done, and by whom. Film alteration and autopsy fraud are the keys to the truth about the Kennedy assassination. DSL 4/5/13; 7:30 PM PDT Los Angeles, California Hi David, Thanks for replying. Do you believe that the limo was stationary at the moment of the headshot, and that the Zapruder film was altered to conceal that? And therefore do you believe that the other films that show the limo in motion at the moment of the headshot were also altered? Paul.

Thanks Pat, for a reply that is considered and not a rant. You're in a special minority here. I see your point, and I confess that I don't know what American children are taught at school. So the history textbooks that children read say categorically that Oswald did it alone? That's interesting. I'd suggest though that a mind that has been exposed to the subject briefly at school could be easily swayed by the general consensus. So if what you say is correct, i.e. children are taught the official story, why do three-quarters of the American public believe in a conspiracy? I can't imagine for a moment it's because all of those people have thought about it, in the same way that some of the people on this forum have. Maybe it's simply because there is still this automatic disbelief that one little scumbag could do something so drastic on his own, almost on a whim. I guess once you factor in Jack Ruby, for some people it's almost a no-brainer. Paul.

If you think you somehow irritate me with your inane drivel, David, I'm afraid you're wrong. If truth be told, I feel sorry for you.

Jimbo, I'm sure even you and I could agree on this point: The vast majority of JFK assassination literature is conspiracy oriented. I'm simply proposing that it is that fact which, in turn, skews the results of surveys. How is that rubbish? Paul.

I was interested in how different people interpret that meaningless statistic, I suppose. I used a quote from Mark Lane to help reinforce my point, which I thought was reasonably concise. Perhaps I could have been clearer. You've responded with a spattering of disjointed crap and an accusation of trolling. Aren't you the clever one?

Hi David, Do you believe that the limo was stationary at the moment of the headshot, and that the Zapruder film was altered to conceal that? And therefore do you believe that the other films that show the limo in motion at the moment of the headshot were also altered? Paul.

I'm listening to Mark Lane talking to Len Osanic on Black Op Radio (Show #622, March 21 2013). He says: Time and again we hear this statistic, or variations of it. However, it is meaningless because the vast majority of American people do not know enough about the assassination to make an informed decision. What they do know is what they learn from mostly conspiracy orientated documentaries and books. There's no balance here, so that statistic proves absolutely ziltch. I just wish you CT lot would stop using it Here are some of Mark Lane's words in the same interview: I find it incredible that one of the most respected, perhaps even revered, individuals in the realm of JFK conspiracy research could come out with something like that. So, you see, between 75 and 80 percent of American people believe in a conspiracy not because there was one, but because they're getting fed xxxx like this. Paul.

I'm a huge Paul Simon fan, and I've never heard that before. He also wrote The Late Great Johnny Ace, which has a more obvious reference to JFK. A gorgeous song.

Hi Steven, They do look different, don't they? I'd argue that this is mainly due to different viewpoints. Taking that into account, I don't see any discrepancy between the two films. The film alteration argument is an extremely lame one, probably the lamest of them all amongst conspiracy theorists, regardless of the technology available at that time to produce a convincing fake, and of the time it would have taken to produce one of these fakes in the limited time available. Just think about it for a moment. There is a sizable film and photographic record of the assassination. Was it really part of the conspirators plan to: 1. Obtain every film and image of the assassination in its immediate aftermath without arousing undue suspicion? 2. Alter them as necessary to ensure they are all consistent with the story they want to convey? 3. Get them back to their respective owners without arousing undue suspicion? It's crazy, isn't it? Think about how that could go wrong on so many levels, even if it was technologically possible. You would assume that if this was something that had to be achieved, the conspirators would instead decide to kill Kennedy in a less public place, or perhaps at night. If you'd like a really good sense of how stupid this all is, get hold of a copy of Murder In Dealey Plaza and flick through the shiny photographic section penned by Jack White. Or if you're sitting down, try The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Healy's chapter is always good for a chuckle. Do you want to be counted amongst the zanies, Steven? Those at the wrong end of the CT credibility spectrum. If you believe there really is a truth to out, you won't find it by looking for anomalies in the photographic record. Paul.

<sarcasm> </sarcasm>