Ian Kingsbury

Kathy The person reminds me of DeWitt too or maybe Roy Hargreaves. Ian

I don't see it either. Me either. I saw it in today's paper and the only interesting thing in the video part is the last line when he says he does not believe Oswald did it. Wonder how this got started. Kelso does humor..... Dawn Maybe Alfred E. Neuman. Jack Jack What me worry?.Maybe they should sit this guy in the front row at Obamas next press conference?. Ian

Bernice That brought back some good memories .I was an impressionable young boy in the sixties and I did not believe there was anything that the Americans could not do .I was mad about science and was allowed to stay up late to watch the launches by NASA and listen to the BBC updates early in the morning.Alas here we are 50 years on and both our countries have struggled to achieve the aims of its peoples.But there is always the future. Ian

More from "Nodule 9" by AJ Weberman Well, Mr. Weberman, I can locate relevant traces of both Art and Robert Simpson, and so I have put together this post. The quote above from Joan Mellen's book is not the "relevant traces" I was referring to. I've located the uncle Art Simpson trial details AJ Weberman said do not exist, and I will post them shortly if there is interest in this post. Aren't the details in the resume of this USAF Maj. General a little too similar to the ones described by Weberman related to Hemming and Oswald to be dismissed as mere coincidence? Bring it on! Bill Hemming suggests other times he met Oswald,Ferrie and Ruby in connection with selling jeeps to the cubans . http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/unpub_testimony/Hemming_3-21-78/html/Hemming_0006a.htm I myself do not know the validity of these claims but if someone could point me in the general direction I will have a good look through so to speak. Ian

Bill The only thing that springs to mind is an endangered species(The Patsy) under threat.But this would mean foreknowledge of Oswalds Imminent demise. Ian

Dave, the Warren Commission tells us that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy or Tippit. Lee You cannot let facts like this get in the way of a good trolling .Dave lives in 1964 .and will support Gary Mack as long as they are on the same team.If Gary Mack ever leaves the sixth floor suppository we may see a change of view. Ian

Dave O.K. you got me just show me the order for the 40" rifle and I and many others will disappear. Ian

LOL. So what? It's still a quote from the REA VP. Probably because the Warren Commission knew that the question of "How Did LHO Pick Up His Revolver?" was merely a side/peripheral matter (at best). IOW--Who cares how he got the gun? The WC knew for a FACT that Revolver V510210 was Oswald's gun and that that same gun was in Oswald's hands at 1:50 PM on Nov. 22 and that that same gun was the gun that killed Tippit. Case closed on this issue. And it doesn't make a damn bit of difference which precise method was utilized by Oswald to obtain that gun in March. And it also doesn't make a bit of difference WHERE and WHEN he purchased the four bullets that he pumped into Tippit's body with that V510210 revolver. Only in the world of "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy mongers is such trivial information the slightest bit important. But to reasonable people--no. Dave If Ruby had'nt shot him you would have been waiting outside with a rope and a posse of L/N's. Innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I would bet money you own a white Stetson?. Ian

Responding to them is also a total waste of time. I'm responding to the responders just to ask why they're responding. What's the point? Shouldn't CTs be totally immune to this kind of ad hominem garbage (we're all just a bunch of irrational idiots) by now? Ron I agree some targets are just too easy .Perhaps I look for the humanity in people and do not like to leave topics with a bad taste .But point taken. Ian

Jesus, Francois. You couldn't keep your pledge for five minutes, could you? Reading your posts is a total waste of time and unless you start discussing the evidence in the JFK assassination sometime soon instead of attacking people for their beliefs I'll urge other members here to ignore you in the hope you'll go away. Because that's what I intend to do. Francois I was going to ask how the dead guy thought he got to the psychiatrist. And I am going to be Critical of your thinking you put too much faith in others the only enthusiasm you have shown in any thread is when referring to your critical thinking authors.Stick with them and you will be ok .Otherwise its a Frenchman having a dull day (see Mark Twain). Ian ( the stupid stonemason)

Are you going to ignore yourself for the same reasons that you listed? Yes for the next 10 years anyway I guess that means no Elvis tickets for anybody...... bugger!

Thats not what Jarman said happened he said Truly let Oswald go but detained them http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html

It said "server not found " in UK yesterday for about 2 hours mid afternoon, I got depressed with nothing to read and thought about going to McAdams site.But the mouse refused.So glad I got a mac. I would watch the weather channel before "going to McAdams site". Dawn Dawn I agree McAdams is infinitely more predictable. Ian

Francis Coli Do you know what evidence is? I dont think you do Send me 9 more emails and I will tell you what evidence is Dean Don't antagonise the guy, Maybe he can get us Elvis tickets? Ian

The person that filled the form in could have misspelt Drittal for Drittle having only heard it or from a mental note to use that name and not seen it in print. Hidell is not hidall is it ?

It said "server not found " in UK yesterday for about 2 hours mid afternoon, I got depressed with nothing to read and thought about going to McAdams site.But the mouse refused.So glad I got a mac.

Dave None of the others were armed were they?.And there were plenty of officers on hand outside even superman James Powell was on his way in .Why not stop the guy nearest the 6th floor its like he knew where the shots came from?.Perhaps the chap in the brown jacket on the 4th floor oh no he just let him go at the entrance. If Only we could tie Baker down to which testimony he prefers or the one that suits you. Ian

Dave Perfect. Are you sure you would not like to form a double act?. we would go down a storm in the clubs you are a great straight man. Ian

Hi Bill, Well, actually I think you've misrepresented my position a little bit on that particular matter. I never said I "supported John McAdams" decision to reject any posts over at his aaj newsgroup. In that discussion with you, I was merely pointing out the basic rules that McAdams lives by at that forum--i.e., you can't get by with calling a current forum member an "idiot" or a "kook" or a "xxxx", etc. He just won't allow it. But I don't recall ever saying that I, myself, endorse such restrictions on posts. In fact, I'll tell you right now that I, for one, think Mr. McAdams is a fool for wanting to take on the task of "moderating" a JFK forum like he does every single day. IMO, such a moderation job is just silly and needless. I say let people say whatever they want. I would absolutely dread the task of turning on my computer and finding 96 new posts in the queue for moderation. And then being forced to read all of them to make sure that no "liars" or "kooks" slip through the cracks. Yuck. What a horrible job. I can, however, kind of admire McAdams for taking on such a xxxxty job. But, IMO, he's nuts for even WANTING to do it every day. BTW: I got a kick out of this part of your above comments, Bill: "I came to his [McAdams] defense and said that he wasn't a Disinformation Agent, but a Disinformation Idiot..." If coming to someone's "defense" is achieved by calling them an "idiot", then remind me to never hire you as my defense lawyer the next time some CTer takes me to court on the charge of my being a dirty rotten CIA Disinfo Agent. ~wink~ BTW #2: Just "for the official record", here's exactly what I said to William Kelly, via two recent e-mails, regarding the topic of John McAdams and the alt.assassination.jfk Internet newsgroup: Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots" Date: 7/30/2010 6:26:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Bill Kelly [exact e-mail address deleted] BTW, Bill, After looking over the post that McAdams rejected at aaj, I can only ask you: Why on Earth are you the least bit surprised that such a post of yours was rejected at McAdams' moderated aaj newsgroup? You, in effect, called John McAdams an "idiot" in your post. Of course it was going to get rejected. What did you expect? "Unless the CIA is paying McAdams to play at his fourm [sic] and publish his book, he's not a disinformation agent. He could be a disinformation idiot, though I like the word Cracker." -- William Kelly DVP ======================== Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots" Date: 8/1/2010 11:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Bill Kelly Yes, he did. That's exactly why he rejected that post of yours. I'd almost bet on it. John McAdams doesn't allow anyone to use that type of remark ("idiot") at the moderated aaj newsgroup if it's aimed directly at a CURRENT MEMBER of the newsgroup/forum, which McAdams, himself, is. I can call DiEugenio and Fetzer "kooks" all day long at aaj (which they deserve to be called all day long too), and the posts won't get rejected--because those people aren't current members at the a.a.j. forum. But I can't ever say that you're a "kook" anymore at aaj, because you're a currently-active member. That might seem like an odd rule--being able to only call people "kooks", "liars", and "idiots" who aren't around to defend themselves from the aaj onslaught, while not permitting those types of descriptive terms to be utilized against people who ARE members, who CAN defend themselves on the forum--but that's the way it is at McAdams' aaj. DVP Dave Its sad that you feel you have to resort to name calling, Try modifying and shortening your posts thats why nobody reads them you are too obvious. Ian

I asked the "other side" why it took the DPD until the 4th of December 1963 to take a statement from Julia Postal, and why it took them until the 6th December to take a statement from Johnny Brewer. The only answer they could come up with was; the DPD were busy. I asked them why the DPD or the FBI didn't interview, look for or even ask for the names of the friends of Johnny Brewer (who worked for IBM) who were in his store when Oswald walked in all "scared" looking. Their answer? None. I asked them why during the fast frisk that Gerald Hill, in an interview with CBS's Ed Barker, describes as; "--an officer checks under your arm pits, your crotch, your pockets, your -- your shirt, your waistband of your trousers, and any place that a weapon could be concealed, that -- even as small as a razor blade, or anything of this type that you could conceivably get to and either hurt the officer or hurt yourself." and they didn't find five .38 bullets in his trouser pocket. The "other sides" answer? They've yet to come up with one. Let's put it this way. Everywhere Gerald Hill is over the course the first 2 hours of the assassination dodgy evidence turns up. We also have testimony that states that Gerald Hill moved the chicken bones and sack before it was photographed. Lee, wouldn't Hill calling in the wrong type of weapon tend to go against his having planted the pistol on Oswald? To put it another way, wouldn't he have described the planted weapon in his call, instead of the one he did describe (an automatic, IIRC)? With the chicken bones, are you saying he moved them around on the 6th floor, or from the 5th to the 6th? I now have extremely strong evidence that the chicken was eaten by Williams on the 5th floor. It is a transcript of the HSCA inteview with Harold Norman, and it will be posted on my website soon. Already posted is the transcript of the HSCA interview with Marion Baker. http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html In this, Baker once again has trouble keeping his story straight and reverts to the truth in one gleaming instance where he states it was the officer who took Truly's deposition on 11/23 who told him his encounter in the TSBD was on the second floor and it had been with Oswald. Prior to that, neither of those contentions existed - that is - not Oswald - not 2nd floor. So much for his testimony that he recognised Oswald, who was sitting in the same small office as him while he gave his statement over the phone to Marvin Johnson. He did not recognise Oswald because it was NOT Oswald he encountered - nor was the encounter on the second floor. It was changed to the second floor bcause of the statement made by Mrs Reid -- and you can see her name hand written at the bottom of Truly's statement. The encounter was also changed from a 30 year old with dark hair weighing 165 and wearing a tan jacket to Oswald for obvious reasons... http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encounters-t42.htm I urge everyone who hasn't read the CBS interview with Ed Barker to do so. It is fascinating. I am intrigued by the adhesive tape marks and lint he finds on the revolver shells that he removes. He also talks about how he urged Joe Poe to not pass him the shells that have been found at the Tippit scene because he didn't need to be added to the evidence chain. And then goes on to describe how he takes the gun off Bob Carroll in the theater (later to change to in the car during his Warren Commission testimony) when he didn't have to insert himself into the "chain." I think Greg and Duke have hit the nail on the head as to why he did though. http://www.aarclibra...es/SGTHILL1.pdf http://www.aarclibra...es/SGTHILL2.pdf Hi Greg, With regard to Gerald Hill radioing through an "automatic" rather than a "pistol", I don't believe that he had any great detailed knowledge of what was actually happening around him and the Oak Cliff events were made up on the fly. I think he only knew he had to make sure there was enough evidence to corner and seal the fate of the "cop killer" on the orders of Captain Fritz. This is why Fritz wasn't in much hurry to go and find Oswald once he was given his name by Truly and Shelley. I even think Fritz was "making it up" as he went along to a certain degree, hence the pocketing of one of the MC shells until it became apparent what the damage was to the President. I am right when I state that according to the dispatches, Hill rang his ID of the weapon through much later than when he had observed the shells with Joe Poe? Hill didn't actually call this through until 1:34 according to the transcripts? So this is before Hill is at the Abundant Life Temple. If Hill is the one collecting "something" at the ALT he wouldn't have known what the "type" of firearm was that he was going to throw on Oswald until he actually had it? If he did pick it up there then he didn't actually have it until after he'd rang the "automatic" call through. As far as Hill moving the bones around, I don't know, I'm just going off what Jim Ewell says he saw. He claims he was outside the TSBD looking up and Hill popped his head out of the sixth floor window shouting that they'd found the snipers nest and had hold of the food items showing them to the crowd below. If we take Hill's testimony as being accurate he had left the TSBD long before Studebaker had turned up to photograph anything, so he is moving evidence around illegally. The evidence you say you are going to post about Bonnie Ray Williams is really intriguing me. I've never believed that BRW was on the sixth floor and have always wondered why the cover-up artists needed him moved onto that floor. I think it opened up some difficulties for the FBI and the WC so there they must have had a damn good reason to want him on the 6th floor. I've just never been able to figure out why? I speculated it was to get rid of the non-Oswald fingerprints on the Dr. Pepper bottle but am I right in assuming that you think these items were still BRW's. They just decided to move them up a floor? The Marion Baker HSCA deposition is a great find and very interesting. I agree with you 100%, the person Baker accosted wasn't Oswald. I think he saw Oswald with Truly on the first floor and it was Truly who, recognising Oswald, switched the people. I still think Truly had something to do with the logistics and planning of the assassination. When will the BRW transcript be on your website? Keep us posted. Lee Lee Craig's reporting of Qswald really did throw a spanner in the works as any truthful report would upset thier proposed timelines for Oswald.Whereas the Mauser report did the same thing Hill did with the auto .Fritz was still working "on the fly" .But if Brewer did not see Oswald who else knew he would be in the theatre?. Ian

I wonder if they will also be supplying the proof?. I would imagine the pentagaon to be one the most secure and security minded of places on earth and surveyed by the minute by a myriad of cctv cameras, but as yet no film of the incident apart from the Wiley Coyote excuse with more cuts than a slaughtered pig.I live in a relatively small town in England and last count on my high street 9 cameras in less than a fifth of a mile .Maybe MI5 has a building there we do not know about?.Mind you it has never been hit by a missile so perhaps the cameras are doing thier job.

Chris Are you using the 18.6 FPS ?. Ian

What's irony? Old trains were irony And I have known a few Brasses but always on my mettle when dealing with them .

What's irony? Old trains were irony

There would be nothing to stop people sending PMs or emails to one of the debaters. There would be nothing to stop them putting this information on another thread. I think it would work if certain rules and principles are agreed on, as well as the questions being debated. The Vermont Rules of American forensics are based on British Parlementary Rules that allow for a wide variety of participants, including teams, judges and evaluations of evidence and even audience participation. The Queensbury Rules only allows for two and the best man always wins. http://iml.jou.ufl.e...ntura/rules.htm Queensbury Rules 1. To be a fair stand-up boxing match in a twenty-four foot ring or as near that size as practicable. 2. No wrestling or hugging allowed. 3. The rounds to be of three minutes duration and one minute time between rounds. 4. If either man fall through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, ten seconds be allowed to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner; and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired. If one man fails to come to the scratch in the ten seconds allowed, it shall be in the power of the referee to give his awart in favour of the other man. 5. A man hanging on the ropes in a helpless state, with his toes off the ground, shall be considered down. 6. No seconds or any other person to be allowed in the ring during the rounds. 7. Should the contest be stopped by any unavoidable interference, the referee (is) to name the time and place as soon as possible for finishing the contest, to that the match can be won and lost, unless the backers of the men agree to draw the stakes. 8. The gloves to be fair-sized boxing gloves of the best quality and new. 9. Should a glove burst, or come off, it must be replaced to the referee's satisfaction. 10. A man on one knee is considered down, and if struck is entitled to the stakes. 11. No shoes or boots with springs allowed. 12. The contest in all other respects to be governed by the revised rules of the London Prize Ring. Bill Its a great idea but I fear some of them would need aid getting INTO the ring let alone being carried out .But yes I would love to see the Heavyweights square up to each other ,Perhaps a call to Mr.Don King would help proceedings?. ps.Please do not stop being funny it gives you an edge. Ian