Jump to content
The Education Forum

Evan Marshall

Members
  • Posts

    524
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Evan Marshall

  1. There have been several attempts to explain away this report of a dead secret service agent.

    There might have been something to the story.

    When you put together the pool of blood reportedly found in the plaza, along with the reports of

    people in Dealey Plaza reportedly carrying SS ID, you might arrive at the conclusion that someone

    carrying SS ID was shot and killed in the plaza...could this have been the origin of this story?

    Naturally, if this person was not a SS agent, the death would have to be suppressed in order to be

    able to determine that there had been no conspiracy involved in the killing of JFK.

    Sure, this is speculation, but is it unreasonable in light of those early reports?

    Possibility 1 = Non SS agent with SS "shoes" shot dead and story suppressed. (As Chuck suggested.)

    Possibility 2 = CIA Penetration Agent (infiltrating for life) within SS shot dead and story suppressed.

    Possibility 3 = Real SS agent (whether in on the plot or not) shot dead with telltale high blood alcohol level and/or drugs in his system and story suppressed.

    what blood?where? any photos or reports?

    if somebody actually got wacked I suspect it would have been an imposter as it would have been pretty difficult to "disappear" a SS Agent. Also, was the agent assaulted by the SS early on at Parkland ever ID? Yrs ago, I seem to remember reading something CIA being at Parkland.

  2. [quote name='Don Jeffries' date='Mar 29 2007, 06:50 AM' post='98449']

    I'm not one of those who think that the conspiracy couldn't have been big, or someone would have broken their silence about it. Powerful people have conspired to commit crimes since the beginning of time, and most of those conspiracies were successful. If you control the apparatus whereby the public at large gets their information, then your crimes will never be exposed. Our mainstream media has been controlled by the forces who killed JFK for the past 43+ years, and unless the internet becomes the primary source of information for the vast majority of people, the coverup will never be broken because of this. Personally, I think that the individuals most obviously involved in the conspiracy at the ground level were Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, among the Secret Service agents in Dallas, presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, vice president Lyndon Johnson, and CIA veterans like James Angleton and Richard Helms. Those involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy would probably have included Ruth and Michael Paine, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and possibly George Demohrenschildt and James Hosty. It is hard to imagine that CIA director John McCone didn't know about the conspiracy at least after the fact. Certainly Allen Dulles must have known, and I'm certain Earl Warren must have figured it out. Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63. The list of conspirators, imho, is very long. This was a true coup d'tat, and involved the most powerful forces in our society.

    I concur completely with this view. I also don't think we will ever know the who, just that it was the most powerful and they knew they could count on the media to ignore the lack of investigation. Perhaps the lesson of Dorothy Kilgallen also loomed large. I think it is great that some of today's journalists like David Talbot and Jefferson Morley have taken such an interest. But neither of them are mainstream. Even Sidney Blumenthal who was once knowledgeable on this subject ignores it now. Moved on I guess.

    Dawn

    If you are correct about this, Don - and I think you are - the mystery is essentially solved.

    Since before the time of JFKs slaying, ownership of the US mass media has been dominated by (pick the correct answer from this multiple choice list):

    Islamists

    Britons

    Russians

    Australians

    Mormons

    Protestants

    Africans

    Catholics

    Zionists

    Giving 'Zionists' as the answer to this question - no matter how much evidence is adduced to support the proposition - has characteristically been a career destroying act in the western world.

    I think that confirms what we need to know.

    The assassination of President Kennedy languishes in American history, and has become a caricature of sorts, in the national conciousness. The study of history has one particular limitation when it comes to conveying the reality of past events, irregardless of whether the topic is warfare, the life of a famous person or politics. The limitation is simply that there is no substitute for being there, and with the passing of time, as the persons associated with the subect matter pass into eternity the topic often loses a key component of accuracy. Nowhere is this more clear than with the death of President Kennedy. From a observers standpoint, it would likely appear that the current political situation [with regards to the verbal sparring between Republican’s and Democrat’s] has some bearing in the sense that Republican’s and many conservatives see the historical JFK as the antithesis of all that their dislike towards liberalism settles upon, whereas many Democrat’s see JFK as the embodiment of all that was once noble about America and its place in the world, and that is irrespective towards the issue of conspiracy. To dig deeper, one must realize that recorded historical events are not a final product, frozen forevermore; in the realm of historical study new information about an event such as World War 2 may occasionally rise, and historian’s will have an additional piece of a space-time continuum to add to the mix. There is no such impartiality to taboo subjects, and the assassination of JFK is the ultimate taboo in a country that has been increasingly tilting to the right for four decades and counting.

    What of the issue of the higher-up’s? The apparatus of government in 1963. History bears out the fact that President Kennedy was indeed like Caesar, surrounded by enemies. Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles, J.Edgar Hoover. That these men are directly implicated [Dulles, though not directly implicated, has to be considered suspect with regards to his obsfucation in not providing all the facts and documents pertaining to essential matters re the Castro assassination plots and the maze of disinformation regarding "Oswald" in Mexico City] in the mysterious, and not so mysterious circumstances of his assassination is a historical fact. Yet the subject has become anachronistic in a populace that is well known for a pervasive short-attention span, with regards to history.

    frankly, I did not like JFK and thought he was weak and indecisive in most instances-BUT, we vote the people we don't like out of office.

    I'm sure I'm politically to the right of 99% of the people who participate here, but he was POTUS and he was murdered by a conspirarcy and I want to see the guilty held responsible regardless of their political leanings.

  3. Chuck, I agree with you that the pool of blood and the dead agent are connected. Vince Palamara told me that he was never able to track down who that agent was.

    I suggest that the agent wasn't an agent at all, but a military intelligence operative who was in Dealey Plaza that day. The were 8-12 MI people n the Plaza and according to their commander's testimony before the WC, they may have been carrying SS identification that day.

    Another interesting tidbit comes from Bethesda, where according to David Lifton and Harry Livingstone, the body of an "Army or Air Force Major" showed up for autopsy on the evening of the 22nd. The medical people at Bethesda told these authors that they were ordered NOT to log in the body of the Major, a highly unusual departure from normal procedure.

    It is hard to imagine a motive, other than one sinister, for not following procedure in regards to this body.

    It is again, my opinion, that this body was "used" as a substitute for Kennedys, in as much as the vital statistics (weight of the brain, etc.) was concerned.

    It is also my opinion, that this Major could likely be the misidentified "dead secret service agent" that vanished into history.

    getting the SS agents drunk the night before would have been a great aid in succeeding with the shooting-moving them off the limo was probably the final thing "needed" from the SS.

    while I agree there were two caskets at BNH, I find Lifton&Livingstone tend to create more problems than they solve.

    the fact that the conspiracy had its mis-steps is not surprising. I'm convinced LHO was supposed to be killed in his rooming house or shortly thereafter by the "cops" who stopped by-the backup was probably Tippit and then the Texas Theatre and, of course, finally Ruby. I think Oswald could have proven his innocence and ID'd his handlers and contacts.

    anyway, I love a good mystery and this one is a peach

  4. Thank you, Peter.

    I haven't read Fonzi's book but maybe it was quoted on the Net somewhere. At least I know I'm not going totally balmy. :blink:

    Cheers,

    You haven't James?! I am surprised - only because I thought you would have really and there is a load of stuff on the cubans in there. :) One of the best books written imo on the case. I finished it in a few days whilst on holiday one time as I could not put it down once I started it. I think the other english/americans on the beach thought it a rather odd choice for holiday reading judging from the strange looks I got but still......

    Good is the interview in there with Werbell. I always thought he was brave to meet him in person, sounds like a rather scary figure!

    Mitch was one of many many scary people in this whole affair-unlike many of the "supsects" always felt he was a real one

  5. Can anyone figure out what this guy is saying, or how to answer it?

    Ok now this depends on the level of conspiracy you believe in. If it is 2 or 3 people I could see it happening.

    Now a conspiracy as you seem to be talking about(but whih you seem reluctant to directly talk about) would require more people.

    If evidence was forged, if witnesses were silenced, if there was more than one shooter, if evidence was planted, this involves more and more people. As you are unwilling for whatever reason to specify what level of conspiracy you believe in, I would find it hard to put a number on it.

    With all conspiracies the most important point is"how many people are involved". The wider the conspiracy the less plausible it becomes. How wide do you believe the conspiracy went?

    the people who wacked Hoffa have done just fine, haven't they?

    shooters

    armorers

    paymasters

    transportation

    escape planners

    patsey

    erasers

    maybe 30

    but I personally knew a larger number of guys who were sitting off coast of Israel waiting for a go signal that never came some 35 yrs ago. Most have passed-none have talked-ever-and they never will. worked a training team with their Senior Training NCO for a decade-heard the story nine yrs after we started working together.

  6. [...] Isn't it strange that John Kennedy's assassination didn't put the military on alert?

    ______________________________________

    Charlie said that his base was put on alert after the assassination, though not for very long...

    --Thomas

    ______________________________________

    I think RFK knew who his enimes were and by extension who did the deed-I've always thought the Bay of Pigs/CIA mix is at the center of it. prior to leaving the University of Southern California to serve my Mission I had started to examine the mess known as the Warren Commission and knew enough about guns even then to have real issues with the MC and Oswald. As a graduate in History, I'm fully aware that History is written by the "Winners".

    It severely disapponts me though it doesn't surprise me that Blakey who had worked for RFK whimped out.

  7. ...

    We're living in a rented house here...we can't remove the walls, floors, doors, windows, roof, or ceiling without the permission of the owners. To do so is to run the risk of eviction. Since the rent is reasonable--free--I suggest that we either live within the rules or leave...and I AM a closet anarchist, according to some of my old high-school teachers. But a smart bird doesn't defecate in his own nest, I've been told...and I tend to agree.

    But Mark, if we're in a rented house then it's not our own nest.

    Please watch those mixed metaphors.

    I understand there are students present.

    :ice

    why worry about CIA when the Illuminati flies over my gunshop every night in a black helicopter? :ph34r:

  8. none of this is convincing nor compelling evidence

    It all adds up, like circumstantial evidence tends to do in a crime, even if not enough to convict. I think that anyone who still doubts that the CIA was involved, after everything it has pulled in this case (e.g., Hunt's whereabouts on 11/22/63 which even the Rockefeller Commission couldn't find out, Joannides and the DRE and the secret files thereon, Blahut and the HSCA's safe, the sabotage of the Garrison investigation, Morales' credible if drunken talk about having gotten the SOB, CIA lookalikes standing on Dealey Plaza street corners and later in an LA hotel, etc.) - anyone who still doubts has not been paying attention.

    I happen to think Moralaes, etal, had guilty knowledge-but I've known enough people of similar ilk to be satisfied that while they may have been looking at their watches, none of them where rash enough to be standing anywhere near the shooting scene checking the time or events. JFK's murder was only part of the overall plan-there was still RFK.

    two guys who I know who were involved in the decision to kill Che', were on a seperate continent when it was done.

  9. If Morales was involved in organizing the JFK assassination, the last place he would have been on the day it happened was Dallas.

    I tend to agree. So too Lansdale.

    Seems to me, then, that Morales and Lansdale would have told Rip Robertson to keep his butt out of Dallas.

    robertson.jpg

    Regarding Ron Ecker's comments; so one would think;......Maybe it is not a sexy post on my part but I cannot describe how nicely the 1977 CBS Documentary - The CIA's Secret Army,* dovetails some of the information posted pertaining to this thread.........FWIW

    * hosted by Bill Moyers; I understand

    the program was rebroadcast in February 1981 on his PBS program, "Bill Moyers Journal."

    none of this is convincing nor compelling evidence

  10. I shoot alot of ballistic gelatin and without knowing the %, how it was prepared&stored, whether or not its been properly calibrated, it tells me absolutely nothing. AND I don't believe the SBT

    So are you saying that he purposely deceived us ?

    I'm a retired Homicide Cop-If I thought he intentionally deceived us I wouldn't have been shy about saying so-I'm saying without more info gelatin tests mean nothing

  11. I'm really impressed with this book. Not done with it but it won't take long. I see that the author has answered questions in the forum, but quite a while back. Drat. I'd love to ask him some questions.

    Anyway, his chapters on Tippit were kind of revelatory to me. Maybe familiar stuff to the veterans here, but not to me.

    Pg 87:

    "...Undercover operatives who found themselves in trouble or faced with exposure were to go to the nearest theater, where a handler would make contact. This is exactly what Oswald did. He made for the nearest cinema, the Texas Theater..."

    Has anyone read that elsewhere?

    And he points out that Oswald knew to yell "I am not resisting arrest" when cops came into the theater, which only a trained person would know to do.

    He also presents a scenario for how Tippit fit into the overall plot, which I welcome 'cause that's always been a point of befuddlement to me.

    To summarize, he says (postulates?) that Oswald believed from his CIA handlers that they were using the opportunity of the president's visit, and resulting chaos, to sneak him out of Red Bird Airport to Cuba, knowing nothing about assassination plans of course. Tippit, also knowing nothing about the assassination plans, was supposed to be the one to drive Oswald to the airport. And in fact the episode days earlier wherein Oswald threw a loud tantrum in a restaurant over the way his eggs were cooked was likely set up as a way for Tippit to see Oswald so that he'd recognize his passenger when the time came.

    On Nov 22 there were some spooks keeping a clandestine watch over Tippet's car so they could report back to evil central after Oswald rode off with Tippit. However, Tippit started to get suspicious when he was waiting for Oswald and listening to his police radio and realized he was the only cop not directed to Dealey Plaza. This made him wonder if he was a pawn in the plot and he got nervous. So after he greeted Oswald, who spoke to him thru the car window, he got out and walked towards Oswald in a rather agitated fashion, fingering his service revolver. At that point the hidden spooks got spooked at the prospect of Tippit possibly reaching for his gun, and gunned him down. At which point Oswald of course bolts for the Theater.

    The surprise to me is the possibility that Oswald was supposed to remain alive, and actually fly off to Cuba so the CIA and mafia could have their Cuba invasion. Then of course the Ruling Elite/Wall Street could have their profitable war. So two of the three objectives were not immediately met, though clearly the war profiteers got what they wanted anyway in Vietnam and more.

    I think is sounds pretty solid.

    Whaddya all think?

    Myra...this is all speculation that I first heard about 40 years ago. I think it

    is little more than theory, though parts may have basis in fact. To me, Tippit's

    role remains a mystery.

    Jack

    I doubt the Dallas cops would shed many tears over the pro civil rights Kennedy, but the murder of another officer could provide enough motivation to ensure Oswald did not survive his arrest attempt. I joined Detroit PD in 1969 and it was still uncommon for cop killers to make it to jail.

  12. The late great Larry Howard does a test of the same lot number ammunition

    allegedly used by Oswald.

    His results are compared to CE 399.

    Did his bullet look like the "Magic Bullet" ?

    take a look and see for yourself:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxt_ChhcgQ

    I shoot alot of ballistic gelatin and without knowing the %, how it was prepared&stored, whether or not its been properly calibrated, it tells me absolutely nothing. AND I don't believe the SBT

    www.stoppingpower.net

  13. Here is an article for those afraid to click. What I find interesting is that he had severe coronary artery disease, yet died very suddenly in his sleep. The timing of this is also interesting, what with Stockton writing his book on Harvey, and dying before it could get released, and Hunt writing his book, and dying before it could get released. And here, Harrelson dies, and the article on his death fails to relate that Harrelson at one point claimed to have killed Kennedy.

    Woody Harrelson's dad dies doing 2 life terms

    From the Associated Press

    9:15 AM PDT, March 21, 2007

    Charles V. Harrelson

    Charles V. Harrelson

    click to enlarge

    DENVER -- Actor Woody Harrelson's father, Charles Harrelson, died of a heart attack in the Supermax federal prison where he was serving two life sentences for the murder of a federal judge, officials said today.

    Charles Harrelson, 69, was found unresponsive in his cell on the morning of March 15, said Felicia Ponce, a Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman in Washington.

    Fremont County Coroner Dorothy Twellman said an autopsy showed Harrelson had severe coronary artery disease. She said he probably died in his sleep. "It appears it was very sudden."

    Charles Harrelson was convicted of murder in the May 29, 1979, slaying of U.S. District Judge John Wood Jr. outside his San Antonio, Texas, home. Prosecutors said a drug dealer hired him to kill Wood because he did not want the judge to preside at his upcoming trial.

    Charles Harrelson denied the killing, saying he was in Dallas, 270 miles away, at the time.

    Wood, known as "Maximum John" for the sentences he gave in drug cases, was the first federal judge to be killed in the 20th century.

    Charles Harrelson was transferred to Supermax, the highest-security federal prison, after attempting to break out of an Atlanta federal prison in 1995. Other inmates at Supermax, about 90 miles south of Denver, include Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, Oklahoma City bombing coconspirator Terry Nichols and Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph.

    His son got his start in acting as Woody the bartender on "Cheers" beginning in 1985 and went on to star in films including "Natural Born Killers," "White Men Can't Jump" and "The People vs. Larry Flynt."

    Woody Harrelson's publicist did not immediately return a call seeking comment today.

    The actor was just 7 when his father was first sent to prison, for murdering a Texas businessman. He was in college when his father was convicted of the judge's assassination.

    I couldn't find any article on google news that mentioned Harrelson's likely role in President Kennedy's assassination.

    That is an interesting observation you make Pat. President Kennedy's birthday coming up on May 29. Two big books, David Talbot's "Brothers" and Bugliosi's "I'm a CIA Whore," coming out in May as a result. Two almost certain conspirators/murderers dying shortly before.

    Granted they were old. But it's always good to note context in JFK research.

    since everyone in prison has been wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't committ I'm sure some one will ad this to the "suspicious death" catagory

  14. some eye witnesses are very unreliable and I found along time ago that you want to seperate them before they can pollute each other recollections. the reccollections of professionals like the Emergency Room Dr's at Parkland I have great confidence in.

    So I guess I have a simple question too. How many times do people see the President of the United States murdered in front of them?

    Additionally, I learned at Homicide you need to ask very specific, very narrow questions. Every witness has a speck of gold on them and with the right questions, it might turn into the mother lode.

  15. I dont believe he was lying, or trying to manufacture more into his story, than what it was, and what he saw. Im sure if you take just about anybodys testimonies who were witnesses [or where involved in anyway with the assassination] and look at them over the years, Im sure you will find some differences, and slight changes in their stories that I would think would happen to just about anybodies testimony. You hear it every day here on the Forum. [people claiming how people changed their stories over the years, and did so mostly for the glory of making themselves seem more important than they really were]. I truly dont beleive this was the case with Roger Craig.

    Michael,

    In Craig's case, the changes were more than just slight.

    The Rambler:

    Craig, WC testimony:

    Mr. BELIN - Did it have a Texas license plate, or not?

    Mr. CRAIG - It had the same color. I couldn't see the--uh--name with the numbers on it. I could just barely make them out. They were at an angle where I couldn't make the numbers of the--uh--any of the writing on it. But---uh---I'm sure it was a Texas plate.

    Craig, Shaw trial testimony:

    Q: Can you describe the station wagon in any great detail?

    A: It was a light green Rambler station wagon with the luggage rack on the back portion and it had out-of-state plates on it and the reason I know this is they were not the same color as ours and I couldn't read them because of the angle of the car and the traffic movement.

    The Rifle:

    Craig, WC testimony:

    Mr. CRAIG - Well, there was just--uh--of course, everybody stayed there, you know, and sort of mingled around and--uh--I then went back downstairs after the weapon was picked up. The identification man from the city of Dallas then, after he took his pictures, picked the weapon up and handed it to Will Fritz.

    And I then went back downstairs and over to the sheriffs office.

    Craig, Shaw trial testimony:

    Q: While you were on the sixth floor and in your presence was any rifle found?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And did you personally find the rifle?

    A: No, sir, I did not but I was about eight feet from the gentleman that found it.

    Q: Did you ever get closer to the gentleman holding the rifle?

    A: Yes, sir, I did.

    Q: Approximately how far?

    A: About one foot or one and a half foot. I was standing next to him.

    Q: Do you recall the man who was there?

    A: No, he was an ID man from the Dallas Police Department, however, he did not find the rifle, Eugene Boone, a Deputy Sheriff, he found the rifle.

    Q: What do you mean an ID man?

    A: An identification man from the Dallas Police Department.

    Q: Approximately how long did you view the rifle at this time?

    A: Just two or three minutes. They took it away immediately, they held lit up by the strap and then took it away from there.

    Early reports said the rifle recovered on the 6th floor of the Depository was a Mauser, a British .303, and “foreign make”. Craig’s interview with the Los Angeles Free Press in March 1968 ."PJ" is Penn Jones.

    FP: Did you handle that rifle?

    RC: Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south.

    But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon.

    FP: A Mauser on the roof? Who found it?

    PJ: I don't know who found it, but I do know that a police officer verified its existence.

    In later years, however, Craig's account changed and he adopted the version that has the Mauser found on the 6th floor. In his manuscript, Craig says

    "Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt. Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz agreed with him. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. The Mauser on the roof, which Craig didn't claim to have seen, had become the Mauser on the 6th floor. A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and saw the notation "7.65 Mauser."

    The Rambler plates were Texas plates(or same color as Texas plates), then they weren't. He didn't handle the rifle, then he did. There are many instances of complete opposite statements, not slight changes. The only reason I would tend to believe the Rambler story is because it was corroborated by other witnesses.

    Another BTW, the Jack Beers photo of Craig in the Homicide office was taken on Saturday the 23rd, not Friday the 22nd.

    RJS

    Very nice work Rich! Im impressed. Ive never heard those testimonies before. There was so much confusion those first few days, and if you have ever given a deposition, or have been ordered to tetify in a case such as this one, [ I have] there is alot of pressure. Im sure he made some mistakes, and you can find many in alot of peoples testimonies, [Helen Markham for example], but all in all, I do beleive he did the best he could under the circumstances. I think the point im making here is that he really didnt sway from his basic story of what happened. Many other officers , Im sure were ordered to change their stories or to keep their moths shut, and Roger didnt. Im not going to make excuses for Roger, or continue trying to defend him, but I truly beleive he stayed with his basic story and did his job [wasnt his fault Lummie lost maybe a very important witness that day- or maybe Lummie was told to lose her! who knows??] I dont think someone would have endured what he and his family did, all those years, if he wasnt just being an honest Deputy doing what he thought was right. Alot of people would have kept their mouths shut after being threatened, or shot at the first time. He never did. He endured all of the harrassment, ridicule, lose of county job, eventually his wife, and many jobs. But he still maintained his basic story of what happened that day. If it wasnt for Penn Jones helping the Craigs out over the years, who knows what may have happened. Thats all. I dont want to keep going back and forth on this subject. You did a good job making your point and I applaud you for that. That s what is nice about this Forum, we can discuss things in a gentlemanly way, and make our points and move on. Not argue and continue to drag things out into shouting matches as some seem to do here. Just may opinion FWIW.

    thanks-smitty

    while I certainly want to believe Roger Craig there are some serious discrepancies in his various versions of the truth-as someone who was assigned to Detroit Homicde twice during a 20yr career I would have to talk to him and get an explanation for the "drift" in his account. Sadly, that's not possible. I saw cops go being stars to bums over and over again and mostly it was their fault.

  16. Hi Frank

    At least you and I agree with the general physics of the matter.

    However we apparently interpret JFK's reaction differently. What "I see" when reviewing the film at full speed, is not only the reaction of JFK's head.....BUT his entire body being slammed against the rear seat cushion and then bouncing off. I don't have a great deal of time at the moment, but Dr. David Mantik states (I think in all three Fetzer assassination books), that he also feels that this is too strong a reaction to have been caused by bullet impact. This had been my contention for many years prior.

    At the risk of being even further redundant, I have stated in many of my prior posts on this subject, that it appears to me, as if a force not unlike a Barry Bonds homerun swing, is "lifting" and pushing his entire body to the rear and left.

    I suppose that we will have to differ on this point as I interpret the "entire upper body" being violently moved. When I realized that a bullet should not impact with such a force, I could find no other explanation except.....this is when I personally first considered film manipulation. I have long maintained that frames were removed which

    produced this "undesired" visual effect. The only reason that I have been able to come up with is that, even tho they knew that the removal of these frames would produce an abnormal anomaly, what the "removed frames" depicted was something much more damning than this anomaly. Since they did not realize at that moment, that this film would someday be shown to the world....they chose, what they felt, was the lesser of two evils.

    So Frank, it isn't that I am this adamant in explaining the laws of ballistics to the forum, but what is beyond and above my physics argument, is my contention that frames have been removed from this film.

    I appreciate your response and agreement on the physics issue of impact vs. recoil, because until others grasp at least this, my feelings regarding the Z film will not seem plausible to many.

    Charlie Black

    Well, I suspect I seen more people shot 1st hand than most of the people here and went to several hundred autopsies and a 1,000+ homicide scenes and have been involved in fatal shootings. I agree that my BA in History and MA in Criminal Justice don't make much of a Physicist, but time after time I've seen people shot whose reaction was immediate and extremely violent.

    so you obviously didn't go to ifilm.com and watch the violent reaction-far beyond the recoil of the same rnd at the shoulder-two tours in Detroit Homicide and assignments in the Crime Lab, CSI, Tac Unit, dept sniper, and SWAT taught me that the more I see the less I'm sure of. I've personally been involved in deadly force events where handguns impacts were not seen nor a reaction noted. Conversley, I've been involved in other incidents where the weapon deployed was a .308 or .300 Win Mag sniper rifle or a 12 gauge shotgun with slugs and the reaction was immediate and pronounced just like on the ifilm videos.

    my dad spent most of his professional life at Stanford University involved in high energy physics research and his response to a life time of research-was, "Maybe we're finally starting to learn something-maybe".

    again I think we have alot more to focus on-like who really shot JFK and who could control the evidence and coverup the conspirarcy.

  17. Evan & general membership

    I feel that I should give up on this subject. I have "begged" forum members to do research on this matter, however all that I receive are opinions basd on the speculation that a bullet should violently move the object struck. I have even suggested films that are often available on TV. But rather than anyone bothering to state that they have looked into the matter, I get further "conjecture".

    Evan Marshall recently stated "...I've seen people hit in the head with high powered rifles"

    So have I Evan ! Are you telling me that the persons which you saw struck duplicated the VIOLENT

    movements which we see in the Z film. SHOW US !

    There must be deer hunters on this forum ! Have you seen a deer projected and propelled in the manner of JFK's body ? Of course you haven't because it does not happen . Some blame it upon a tangental strike....others on "exploding" bullets, but the real explanation is..... that it did not and does not happen!

    You can within your own minds make up any possibility that you care to. What you wont however do, is show me an actual unadulterated film in which a 170 pound animal is propelled and projected as is JFK in the Z film.

    Anyone can talk in circles ! NO ONE has produced the proof. Killing is common. There are literally thousands of films available on humans and animals being shot. Have any of you seen an animal react as does JFK "in an unaltered film"? I have been speaking of 170 pound animals. But I doubt if you can prove it with "any" reasonably sized animal !

    If a few of you do the modest research necessary, you will look at the assassination in a much different light. You will KNOW that what you "seem to see" in JFK's reactions following the "real time" ( not a slow down or frame watching ) playing of Zapruder, after frame Z312,...did not occur.....Unless of course JFK is the only 170 pounder to react in such a way to a hit by a 6.5mm bullet.

    In some of my prior posts I have referenced sources which may be referred to.

    This little bit of investigation may be the most important that you will ever do in this case.

    In any event, I have tired of my own redundancy on this matter. If you don't want to SEE.... continue to "not look"!

    Charlie Black

    Charlie-relax-take your socks off&massage your feet-I'm talking about personally being present when people where shot with high powered rifles-in one case I was the backup sniper and had the guy in my scope when he was hit. I don't believe the Z film either, but there's a big difference between those who have accepted their imminent death and those who are bent on murder. As a rookie cop I responded to the shooting of a police sgt-we grabbed him and rushed him to the emergency room-the cops on the scene shot the bad guy 13 times including once between the eyes-he survived.

    do a search for police sniper shooting video on the web-if I can find the NM Bank shooting I'll email it-the guys had a toupee and phony mustache on-his head goes one way violently and the toupee goes violently in the opposite direction.

    animals are not people and they only know they don't feel good. I had a partner in the Tac Unit who had been hit 3 times with a .50 machine gun n Vietnam and survived. another partner was hit in the head with .45ACP and fortunately the round rode around the outside of his skull and exited.

    we just have to focus on what happened-what really happened-and remember you and I are both looking for the people who really killed JFK.

    have a great day and keep up the good work.

    FYI, go to iflim.com and search under sniper shootings you'll see several violent reactions of real people being shot-watch the "sniper eye view" video and the one where a soldier survives a sniper hit.

    also ifilms,com, watch "Juba shoots a Marine" if you think head shots with rifles don't cause a violent reaction.

  18. Evan & general membership

    I feel that I should give up on this subject. I have "begged" forum members to do research on this matter, however all that I receive are opinions basd on the speculation that a bullet should violently move the object struck. I have even suggested films that are often available on TV. But rather than anyone bothering to state that they have looked into the matter, I get further "conjecture".

    Evan Marshall recently stated "...I've seen people hit in the head with high powered rifles"

    So have I Evan ! Are you telling me that the persons which you saw struck duplicated the VIOLENT

    movements which we see in the Z film. SHOW US !

    There must be deer hunters on this forum ! Have you seen a deer projected and propelled in the manner of JFK's body ? Of course you haven't because it does not happen . Some blame it upon a tangental strike....others on "exploding" bullets, but the real explanation is..... that it did not and does not happen!

    You can within your own minds make up any possibility that you care to. What you wont however do, is show me an actual unadulterated film in which a 170 pound animal is propelled and projected as is JFK in the Z film.

    Anyone can talk in circles ! NO ONE has produced the proof. Killing is common. There are literally thousands of films available on humans and animals being shot. Have any of you seen an animal react as does JFK "in an unaltered film"? I have been speaking of 170 pound animals. But I doubt if you can prove it with "any" reasonably sized animal !

    If a few of you do the modest research necessary, you will look at the assassination in a much different light. You will KNOW that what you "seem to see" in JFK's reactions following the "real time" ( not a slow down or frame watching ) playing of Zapruder, after frame Z312,...did not occur.....Unless of course JFK is the only 170 pounder to react in such a way to a hit by a 6.5mm bullet.

    In some of my prior posts I have referenced sources which may be referred to.

    This little bit of investigation may be the most important that you will ever do in this case.

    In any event, I have tired of my own redundancy on this matter. If you don't want to SEE.... continue to "not look"!

    Charlie Black

    Charlie-relax-take your socks off&massage your feet-I'm talking about personally being present when people where shot with high powered rifles-in one case I was the backup sniper and had the guy in my scope when he was hit. I don't believe the Z film either, but there's a big difference between those who have accepted their imminent death and those who are bent on murder. As a rookie cop I responded to the shooting of a police sgt-we grabbed him and rushed him to the emergency room-the cops on the scene shot the bad guy 13 times including once between the eyes-he survived.

    do a search for police sniper shooting video on the web-if I can find the NM Bank shooting I'll email it-the guys had a toupee and phony mustache on-his head goes one way violently and the toupee goes violently in the opposite direction.

    animals are not people and they only know they don't feel good. I had a partner in the Tac Unit who had been hit 3 times with a .50 machine gun n Vietnam and survived. another partner was hit in the head with .45ACP and fortunately the round rode around the outside of his skull and exited.

    we just have to focus on what happened-what really happened-and remember you and I are both looking for the people who really killed JFK.

    have a great day and keep up the good work.

    FYI, go to iflim.com and search under sniper shootings you'll see several violent reactions of real people being shot-watch the "sniper eye view" video and the one where a soldier survives a sniper hit.

  19. I truly understand the conjecture.

    I understand that a back brace "might" make some "small" difference.

    I understand that the validy of the Z film has been "conjectured" to the extreme.

    BUT what I absolutely cannot understand is the reluctance of almost all forum members to make a brief study of the immediate reactions of larger animals (170 #) to direct gunshot wounds. This is a form of research that could cost no or very little money....and not much time.

    I know of no films that show men being shot who are wearing a backbrace.......however there is a wealth of films which show men shot, who are carrying 40-60 pound military back packs, which I feel would

    depict a similar restriction.

    Even if one doesn't care to look at the gruesome films of soldiers and other humans being killed, there is another alternative. To those of you who have shot adult deer, has ONE of you ever seen one of these animals projected by a bullet impact. For those of you who have not, I am certain that you have an acquaintance who is a hunter that has seen deer shot. When you finally find no evidence of such a violent reaction "ever" being observed.....

    why would you not concede that JFK's head and body should not react any differently to any other equally sized two or four legged animal.

    I am not trying to convince anyone that they should take my word for this. But since most here on the forum spend many, many hours investigating all different aspects of this case, I do not understand the reluctance to investigate this one aspect. This one aspect "might" indicate to you that what "seems" to be JFK's reaction to a bullet strike is very likely not that, and is caused by "something else".

    I am not asking anyone to denounce their religion. I am saying that if you are "researchers", why "neglect" what might be the most important evidence in this case.

    I keep pleading for this because I would like someone after all these years to prove me wrong.

    No one has ! The only answer that I get is that the Z film is unalterable beyond human detection. I see human detection that something is wrong.

    For a short period of time....open your minds...forget about jet effects and backbraces.... and see if you can find proof of such a reaction in any man sized animal that has been shot with a rifle or a pistol. If this reaction is natural..... there should be literally loads of proof which will discount what I have been sermonizing.

    If you find NONE...what should that indicate?

    Prove it for yourself....not for me!

    Charlie Black

    already mentioned that I've seen people hit in the head with high powered rifles AND you can do internet searches on police sniper shootingd-the

    Albuquerque Bank Hostage Taker is a classic example.

  20. a last effort to market his name and make some money for his kids.

    Did he ever get his kids straightened out about where he was on 11/22/63? He testified that he had trouble convincing them that he wasn't in Dallas, when he had testified earlier that the kids were with him that day. I imagine this only confused the kids more than ever.

    ego is a fascinating human fraility and I would suggest that it often drives people to admit things they would have denied in saner moments. Friends of mine who were contemporaries of Hunt at CIA have little good to say about him and one argues that Hunt was told disinformation because he often could not keep his mouth shut.

    One said that he had no idea who killed Kennedy and admitted there were some folks inside the organization who were capable and probably willing to kill JFK, BUT Hunt would screw up a one car funeral on a one way street.

  21. Evan Marshall

    I have absolutely no problem with our "agreement to disagree" as I have found you to always be quite gentlemanly on this forum.

    I would like to refer to two points however in your most recent post. I stated that some of the Nazi's prisoners were struck point blank by Mauser RIFLES, as well as others who appear to be shot with 9mm Pistols.

    My other point being the connection to the spine is moot.....as all the shot humans were connected to their spines.

    Charlie Black

    I guess we saw different atrocitie films-the one I remembered where pistols and submachine guns

    still military is not the same as jhp ammo

    so you think JFK was shot with a bazooka or perhaps the film has been fiddled with?

    I think the film is suspect simply because we have a lousy chain of custody

  22. Hello Evan

    I acknowledge your police experience and I own two of your books.

    I do dispute the violent reaction captured in the xtant Zapruder film as typically being assciated with a gunshot (I am not certain however that it was a rifle), and I agree with most ballistics experts with whom I have conferred, this strong a reaction is highly unlikely to have been caused by the strike of any hand held or shoulder fired firearm.

    Before attempting to dig out some of my old correspondence, I will quickly refer you and all who might be so interested, in the works of both Dr. Mantik and others which you may most easily find in the books ..."Assassination Science"-- "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"---and "Murder in Dealey Plaza". I unlike Bill Miller and a few others on this forum, find these works, along with the work of Jack White (to name but one) to be quite credible.

    I was looking over "The Goat Shotings" in one of your works....I did not find mention of any reaction similar to what is observed on the "Z" film. It was my understanding that the choice of the use of "goats" was because these animals were thought to replicate the reaction of bullets to those of humans.

    I have seen "all" forms of larger animals shot with a variety of weapons, and have never observed such a violent natural reaction.

    I would like to refer you and whoever might be interested, to something which I have on many occassion been critcized by Bill Miller and associates. I feel that you surely have seen depictions on TV's History Channel...Discovery Channel and PBS of films shot in Nazi concentration camps during WWII. The films that I am specifically referring to are the ones which usually picture prisoners both standing and kneeling before previously dug "grave pits". They are then shot in the posterior skull with either 9mm Lugers or German Mausers at Point Blank range (only inches from weapon to skull) .

    In EVERY case these victims fall forward from their standing or kneeling positions into the grave. Not one has displayed anything remotely similar to the reaction of JFK in the extant Zapruder film .

    Another film which the world was "overly exposed" to a few years back, which I don't feel that anyone has missed, was the horror of a South Vietnamese Officer shooting point blank thru the temple of a, presumed to be, very young Viet Cong. You will notice that although the bullet passes thru his skull....his head is not propelled in ANY direction.

    Even in TV depictions of Melons being struck with rifle bullets, how many have noticed that although the melon explodes.....the base of the melon usually remains on the table top...not propelled.

    I have, do, and will continue to maintain that the seeming reactionary propelling of JFK's head and "BODY" could not have been caused by a fired projectile from a weapon smaller than an "artillery piece".

    Charlie Black

    Charlie-I guess we'll have to agree to disagree-I've seen two hostage takers hit in the head with Federal .308 Match jhp and a number of people shot with M16's and the reaction was immediate and dramatic-people fell into the ditch because of gravity-handguns are very weak animals and the difference between handgun impacts and rifle impacts are world apart.

    frankly, I think it was an AR15/M16 that fired the fatal head shot and it was from in front.

    Melons are not attached to a spinal cord and do not reflect the reiststace of the human skull. Even ballistic gelatin has its limitations and I shot close to a 1,000lbs a yr of the stuff.

    People keep ignoring the fact that Oswald was a Marine when the Corp focused on everybody being a rifleman-he may have been less than a expert shot but he knew what quality, accurate rifles were-I cannot believe that a man focused on murdering the President would balk at stealing a quality rifle.

    none of the goats were shot with rifles-I've seen people virtually decapitated by a high powered rifle hit in the head.

×
×
  • Create New...