Bernice Moore

Hi Duncan.

I also had the same problem, so i went back and deleted my previous attachment's.

Now i can " UPLOAD " images to the forum once again.

Hi Robin:

You mean you had to delete all your previous work, and your upload space was not used up..??

What a waste....but it worked...??

B.....

Hi Jack:

This may help..though I did not have the time for any deep research, right now......re your study....

The man in the trenchcoat in the top photo...Beers....on the right, is Ike Pappas WNEW Radio..he was holding a mike out to LHO..at the shot, he immediately went down on one knee and and did his recording.....

The man seen below in your study of the Jackson..is I believe Bob Huffaker KRLD TV......he is seen as Pappas went down on one knee, Huffaker stepped forward.

#5 Appears it could be...Tom Pettit feeding NBC

From "President Kennedy Has Been Shot" .Bk 2003...

"When the News Went Live" Bk 2004..

Below the 2nd photo I found shows Pappas also with mike being held out.towards LHO.

B.....

Jack...

B..

Jack.....

B...

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s143/Be...ghttest2J.W.jpg

Thanks Chris for posting those brilliant images. Although they are not a correct match with Moorman, the wall area is close enough for comparison purposes in my opinion. The Arnold floating torso is still as small as ever compared to the man in your photograph.

Duncan

Is anyone else getting this message when trying to upload an image?

"Upload failed. Please ask the administrator to check the settings and permissions"

***********

Hi Duncan....

No I do not get a message ,it uploads, but not there when finished,

B..

Alan,

I'll post a few examples going forward.

If I change the aspect ratio, I will say so.

chris

Put your cursor arrow point on top of Newman's head. Then watch

the tiny women come into view during the dissolve, and note where

the Newman cursor is. Does this suggest anything to anyone (besides

me and Bernice)? Why is Newman gigantic compared to the women?

Jack

Because the focal length in each photo is different?

Riddle me this.

If the people behind the wall in Chris's photos are twice the size of "Arnold" already, what changes will we see if we could bring the focal setting close to Moorman?

Think about the tiny women & how they'll grow to Newman's size & then think about the men behind the wall who are already too big.

Alan

*****************************

Alan, & All......

Thought.....FWIW..

Bear with me.......if all the people in the new photos, are twice the size of Arnold now.......Then would it perhaps not help if Chris or whomever,

took Zapruder & Sitzman out of the Moorman photo and transposed them behind the wall area.....to see what their approximate

size would be, they also appear to be small, imo.....and are they not approximately or in the area of the same distance in the Moorman

photo...as he would have been at the wall....I am not sure but could it not be....??

Recall also, that there has been much work done on that particular area of the knoll due to heavy rains which hit some years back, creating

mud slides with the hills, and which then was all rebuilt, to a higher degree, steps and all etc...parking lot also.....so no new photo, I do not think will ever

give you anywhere near when compared to what was taken back then....unless there is one out there that has not come to light??....

So could you not use the Moorman that you all have....within itself, to come to some conclusion, or there abouts..??

Here is another of peoples heads seen at the fence line, but it also appears to have been taken not too many years ago.

B...... FWIW....

The photo showing the view of Lee Bowers from the Tower, with text....

I believe was either scanned from " 6 Seconds In Dallas " , or one of Mark Lanes

books...not positive..wherever an early photo and comment.

I have neither at hand, next time I get to the book room... I will double check..

and pass along the info, if it can be of any help..

B.....

*************

I have done a search and the photo with the X, is marked, LaneX.....

so that is one of his....

The photo showing, the dotted line and the text reading the info, to

Bowers view being cut off.......is not Thompsons as far as I have

found..

A similar map is seen in 6 Seconds, though not the same, however, it does have the same

markings.....and LOS.....

Lee Bowers: " At the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves,

the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area..".6H288..

Just look at the photo, and draw your LOS....

BTW Miles : I do believe the Mod Kathy, mention the same to you about bringing

posts down some time ago.....in another long thread....That is what I recall, and

I am not going on a search for

such, though I could be in error, the point has been made and accepted....and I do

believe we appreciate that fact........

B.....

The photo showing the view of Lee Bowers from the Tower, with text....

I believe was either scanned from " 6 Seconds In Dallas " , or one of Mark Lanes

books...not positive..wherever an early photo and comment.

I have neither at hand, next time I get to the book room... I will double check..

and pass along the info, if it can be of any help..

B.....

I see the man with the tripod and camera directly behind the ZAP position

packing up and breaking down

shanet in atlanta

Shanet,

if you are talking about the same shadowed "figure" that opened the thread, then can you point these particular things you see out to others so that we can see them too?

Somehow I doubt that you can because I have a sneaking suspicsion that half of what you see is in your mind.

It would also be be interesting to learn why you think(if you are talking of the same guy) he would be packing up his camera before the head shot occurs.

Anyway(& it almost seems off-topic now but),

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/2561/nixmixhm2.jpg

The comparison shows quite a contrast in quality does it not?

*************************

Alan:

Thanks for the Nix frame comparisons, I have found similar, and it seems no two are

the same....??

B.......

Rich only banishes someone

for abusive behavior or trying to sabotage the website.

I think that is what has been said. DellaRosa looks at anyone who challenges your alteration claims a direct abusive sabotage of his website. However, he has been known to wait until one's donation check has cleared his bank before actually banning that member.

Well, if that's the case, he put up with Bill Miller's "direct abusive sabotage" for many many months and therefore must be a very patient man. Miller had ample opportunites to make his opinions known on that forum and he took advantage of them.

Maybe DellaRosa just objected to people like Bill posting on the wrong thread.

********************

Hi Mike,

Millie is just trying to start another round on another thread by stirring the xxxxe pail...and

disturbing the E.Forum all the more, one thread isn't good enough, he has got to try for two.

sheesh this is such an old tactic....

You know how it goes, he goes digging finds and brings up a nasty ole thread

to try to make a point, it is so old and such an ugly trick that some resort to....

He is also it seems at least ten posts behind in his knowledge, in the other thread ..no suprise...

Cheers.........B

PS I was not aware that Mr. Simkin was ever a

member or that he was "banished".

Jack is either lying or has a faulty memory

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=7039&st=30

GROAN.....!!!!........

B.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Rich's site can be accessed by anyone for reading.

But only "members" can REPLY to certain topics.

"Membership" is very easy to acquire. The main

requiement is NO DISRUPTIVE PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Rich has a very large archive open to all, as I recall.

Jack

PS I was not aware that Mr. Simkin was ever a

member or that he was "banished".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi Jack:

Rich's has always been available by anyone for just reading....after

they joined.....

Before, when a donaton was asked for, only members could post..

Now all can join and post...

and yes, that has been mentioned on here before about John, you should be aware.

**********************

Quote Len :""Since you had to join to even read his forum there was no way for people not willing to pay to judge

what goes on there but on the reports of others. ""

Len : All anyone had to do, was use a real email ad, not a yahoo or such..

and your real name, same as on this fourm as well as at Lancer...

that was never a problem...

You did not have to donate anything to read..and as I mentioned above, if you asked for a dispensation for

whatever reason, he admitted you without such...

but yes to read you did join, and that should not have been a problem for anyone.

""I also find it odd I’ve never heard similar things said about alt.jfk, jfkresearch (Yahoo) or this forum.""

You need to get out more, I think..

""In any case I only reported that was his reputation and Dixie confirmed that she has heard such rumors as well.""

Oh yes those great gossip funded rumours, how do people live without passing them along and believing what is

whispered, and not finding out for themsleves.

And yes Len,.........Rumours about this F as well as La, and the Alts and all, abound.

out on the web.....

The trouble is with the people who pass them along, and or add to when they are repeating what they heard,

and yet have never taken the time to find out for themselves..

Hope all this has straightened out some of the rumours, see something good always comes out, eventually, perhaps.

B.....

Would these perhaps help..........??

Miles,

For heavens sake, can you stop, copying and bringing down previous posts continually.

It is extremely wasteful on your part and deliberately so of Forum space and resources, seeing that this has been requested

of you in the past by administration.

I take it that you do not care.....It does make the information so difficult to follow, that people have stopped

reading your posts, for your information.....duh......

Or is this just a part of your plan to Bug the ever loving xxxxe out of all..

All this does and has is turn people off, but oh is that also a part of your aggravating plan...??

Get real......your not doing yourself any favors, nor your research...when people are ignoring...you..FYI.

B....

There are several people here who seem to be a few bricks short of a full load.

Names not necessary...just try comprehending what they write. Their elevator

stops only at the thirteenth floor.

Jack

Thanks Jack, that was needed IMO.....

Gee Mike, that was very thoughtful of you to acknowledge Bernice, Myra and myself, as respected members of DellaRosa's forum...as well as, regarding our female intuition...:-) There are some other females of Rich's forum that would also agree with us.

Mr.Hogan, a Nod.....and Myra as well....

As to both Craig Lamson and John Simkin being banned from Rich's forum, we also know the reasons...but then, it is just not my inclination to tell these facts. But, in the case of Craig, I most likely don't need to state the reason anyway....although I have personally never had a conflict with Craig. I also don't believe Rich would ban anyone over just one incident. There have been some banned members (from all the forums) that I hated to see leave, but most of the time the whole forums applauds. Quite often, what I later hear from that person, is not the way it actually was. However, I also belive sometimes some things can be misunderstood or misintrepreted.

Yes, there were reasons, and when such does occur, well it is always amazing, I find, that later on, the explanations given by those who were, seem to have a habit of becoming distorted, by the deletions of many of the attributing reasons that seemingly disappear from memory..Has happened on many Forums, and will continue...I have never read of one, ever admitting that they did deserve such, ever.....

As I previously mentioned, I am a member of several forums and actually enjoy them all. Each seems to have a different approach to various so-called theories. I personally find this to be

quite necessary to my own ways of thinking. Or I should say, to not get bogged down in tunnel vision.

Many opinions, read, create, a deeper analyisis, of any research given, and does make people think, of the other side of the coin, instead of becoming bogged down, in one train of thought..

Rich has extended an offer for all (except the paat banned membsrs) to join his forum. It is no longer necessary to pay the donation, as before. Although some still wish to do so, to help with his expenses of operating the forum all on his own. Rich is a good man, but he won't take any crap from disrupters.

The Forum has been open, for some time now, that has been announced on here in the past, perhaps a reminder is needed....whatever....

.......Yes, some do contribute, I wish personally more did, as in the past even with the donation being asked for, only 11% of the members did, support the forum for all....

So no, it was never and has never been a money making scheme as has been thrown about at times, on this and other forums, and hashly, though those that did, knew better....That has and always was a false accusation.......

We are all aware, that medical bills are extremely astronomical, and he has always given a fee membership, in the past, to any student, pensioner as well as people on disability....knowing what that means himself...

Just setting a few repeatedly uttered untruths straight here.....for all........All opinions have always been respected and given the floor, as they say in their posts...the onlys that complain that they have not ,are those that have been booted.....same as on other forums..People never it seems own up...the egos get in the way of course, human nature reigns...and..

Yes, he is a very good man, and why should he take any crap...?..others do not....

.

Some of you might find this to be humorous! At one time Bernice, Terry Mauro and I, were known as "Jack'S Girls" (Meaning Jack Ruby's Girls). Then since we three were about the only females on Rich's forum at that time, we decided to become known a s"Rich's Girls." This was mostly just for fun and not actually a part of the forum itself. Sometimes we would help Rich out with some project though. Then once Rich was interviewed on Black Op Radio. He mentioned Rich's Girls and even mentioned our names, as his helpers. We were surprised, but got a big kick out of that. But actually I think we mostly put a lot of laughs and humor in his life, since he is not a well man! But things change and also several other females began joining his forum, so we got away from that classification of being Rich's Girls....although sometimes we still joke about it.

Aw Dixer, "Jack's Girls" those were the days, of the Pink Cadillac, and Mink coats...... Well, hecker I am still a Rich's Girl, am not about to give up any titles that have been hard earned, in past years, as well as what may come along in the future.....even the ole "Witchy B.... of the North".....

I do wish the Nix photo discussion and the other film discussion was on differnt threads, since I feel there is possibly more to discuss about that photo.

But there is always another aw,.....Notice how good the Some are at "Hijacking a Thread", on purpose, never worry never fear, they will do so again, in the future.. ...same old story......nothing new.....

..They will never change as that is what they set out to do.....with their nasties......let's fool them and get back on the subject title and choose to ignore, ?? sheesh, now that would be different....

Now, are we all having fun...sheesh.....Carry on carrying on.......

..

Thanks again Mike!

B......

____________

Dixie

FALSE, Bill. See post 23 (page from TGZFH) where Rich describes the three

occasions that he saw the other film...twice at U of Maryland and once while

in the air force in a classified job. And you are wrong about the memories

matching:

1. All reported SEEING THE LIMO TURN THE CORNER

2. All reported SEEING THE LIMO STOP

3. Plus other less important points.

Check the facts before posting misinformation.

Jack

Let DellaRosa make the entire "other film" archive seen by all and I'll help your memory along. All reported seeing the limo turn the corner? No kidding?? (sigh~) I didn't know anyone said the limo didn't turn the corner, but I remember some back and forth posting where one person who claimed to see the 'other film' ... his tale had Connally reacting to being shot during that turn. Some who claimed to see the 'other film' had given a longer stopping time for the limo than other alleged witnesses to this 'other film'. In fact, I responded 'How many other films can there be with so many variations being discussed?' I remember thinking that it was funny to see how those who immediately claim alteration when a witness says something they believe doesn't jive with the Zfilm and yet the alleged 'other film' witnesses had several various versions on certain aspects of the shooting going on and those same individuals considered all the claims being made to be support of them all seeing the same 'other film'. I bet DellaRosa left that part out of his recollection.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

""Let DellaRosa make the entire "other film" archive seen by all and I'll help your memory along. All reported seeing the limo turn the corner? No kidding?? (sigh~) I didn't know anyone said the limo didn't turn the corner, but I remember some back and forth posting where one person who claimed to see the 'other film' ... his tale had Connally reacting to being shot during that turn. Some who claimed to see the 'other film' had given a longer stopping time for the limo than other alleged witnesses to this 'other film'. In fact, I responded 'How many other films can there be with so many variations being discussed?' I remember thinking that it was funny to see how those who immediately claim alteration when a witness says something they believe doesn't jive with the Zfilm and yet the alleged 'other film' witnesses had several various versions on certain aspects of the shooting going on and those same individuals considered all the claims being made to be support of them all seeing the same 'other film'. I bet DellaRosa left that part out of his recollection.""

I didn't leave anything out Miller. Understand this: I related what I saw because

I felt it was important. But I don't care if anyone believes me.

About 10 years ago the researchers who had the opportunity to view the

"other" film submitted their recollections. Of 6 people, all the descriptions

matched in all the key details. William Reymond and I were nearly in lock

step in our descriptions. All of this occurred long before you darkened our

forum so don't post messages like you remember it. NONE of the descriptions had Connolly reacting to being shot at the turn onto Elm.

The extant Z film does not show the turn -- that is one significant difference in

the "other" film. Please stop making crap up and by all means do not misquote

me. I will be glad to answer any questions from bona fide researchers. I invite

all to join my forum. Former members booted for cause (i.e. they couldn't

behave and play well with others) are not welcome. Awwwwwwwwe Miller they all

can join -- but you can't.

http://www.jfkresearch.com

Think about it: 6 people saw a film, some saw it on multiple occasions, in various

locations around the world and their descriptions all match and the film was very

different from the extant Z film -- but not just different -- it matched exactly what the

closest eyewitnesses reported on Day 1.

Please read this article by the late Phil Melanson:

http://www.jfkresearch.com/melanson.html

I know there are several excellent researchers on the education forum. I have no idea why any would lend you any credence. You are often in error, but never in doubt.

Rich DellaRosa

P.S. If registrations were not closed on the Ed forum, I would join and address these issues there. But no matter -- my door remains open.

B.......

Greetings also Charles:

Well I am one of those, that think if the person is available, such as he is

and he has and is willing to reply to questions posted....on his Forum...

Then any suppositions or questions asked on another forum are really fruitless, and it seems to me unfair..

If you do not ask the source then you may never access the information, that you seek.

Instead many end up just reading others thinkies and or snide personal remarks.....and come away

with the impression that they wish them to have, to me that is allowing someone else to think for you,

and is a no no.

And also as a member you have yourself never asked him, but that is your perogative, of course..

Dr.D.Mantik's personal experience of no access, reminds me somewhat of one of William Reymond's, in that

shortly before he was actually going to receive a copy of the other film..provided by a very nervous man whom he had been

in touch with several times,..well..short story....

William came back from a short trip, and learned that the man had been murdered..

Your coincidence re Princess Diana...A Flash of light, amazing isn't it, that was reported immediatley...

But was also followed by a repeated deny,deny,deny....the witnesses are as a rule in error....and so it continues....

B.....

It seems to me that there's a simple way to approach this problem.

Is Mr. DellaRosa being truthful -- to himself and to us? Or is he a victim of creative memory. Or a xxxx?

From what I know of the man, I am persuaded to take him at his word.

So ... With what are we left?

Mr. DellaRosa's memories, plus those of others. I'm thinking of the exquisite, troubling Milicent Cranor, who also claims to have seen a motion picture of the assassination from a Z-like perspective but not the historic Z-film (Millie says she viewed the material at the Time-Life HQ, if I'm not mistaken; check with her).

The issue of the "phantom" camerman is beside the point. Does the alternate film exist?

Charles

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Hi Charles :

You seem to have many questions pertaining to the other film....

You have asked

""Is Mr. DellaRosa being truthful -- to himself and to us? Or is he a victim of creative memory. Or a xxxx?

From what I know of the man, I am persuaded to take him at his word.""

So I take it that you neither, have ever bothered to you go to JFKresearch.

Join and ask the man for information, that perhaps others would also contribute..to..

Instead of on another forum of which he is not a member..

The answers you seek are not to be found here and imo will not be forthcoming...

No one speaks for him....or any of the others...

B....

Len Colby said...

"As for DellaRosa I know nothing about except for his reputation for not allowing dissent on his forum, this suggests a narrow minded person locked into his beliefs to me. It's not a leap to image that such a person could be "a victim of creative memory"."

I take it then you have never been a member..?...But believe gossip..?..Passed along by those who have a grudge to settle...

Keep it up, this attitude will take you far in life...

B......

Short explanation first.....

The Nix frame that I have, I have had for some time, I am sorry I do not know where or from

whom it came from...originally....I have been searching in an old folder of photos..trying to find

more information..

The lines were there, I have been puttering with it, and them for some time, and lightened as best I could

to see if it was a man..enlarging an well just studying..

I really have no idea, and only present this with other's encouragement..and I have also been trying to find him

in more recent frames of the Nix film...You will note Zapruder and Sitzman,are on the pedestal as, I

see it, appearing as a blob....

The first photo comp.is what Jack has sent to me, the others are a couple of what I posted earlier this evening on

the JFK Research Rich's Forum...that Jack saw...and contacted me....FWIW....

B...

Jack........

B..

Jack......

B..

Well, if you think I was trying to "put words in your mouth" then I am both:

APOLOGETIC

and

CONFUSED.

I am not a woman and don't know much about pregnancy but I do know it is an either/or

proposition. I am told that a lady is either a lady is pregnant or she is not. Bernice can correct me if I am wrong.

You know the same thing is true about the proposition that their was secret service complicity in the assassination. It's an either-or proposition. You either believe it or you don't.

So are you now telling me, Bernice, that you agree with me that there was no secret service complicity? In which case I apologize profusely.

Or DO you in fact assert their was such complicity (as I think your post pretty clearly implied)?

Are you upset because the theory of secret service complicity becomes ridiculously absurd when you take time to think of all that it meant: e.g., not one agent who was approached was unwilling to participate in a murder; each one approached was willing to risk his freedom and his family on the premise that no other approached agent would go to the authorities; and Greer and Kellerman were willing to ride in SS100 through the ambush. I mean, tell me someone who can really believe those things because if you provide me with their names I have this great bridge for sale that links Manhattan to Brooklyn, and I'll make a quick and cheap sale of it to both of them and I'll give you 25% of the profit for the referrals!

Even most (probably almost all) lone nutters agree that separate shots to JFK and JC equal two shooters and ergo a conspiracy. Well Kellerman testified that he was sure (pretty sure?) JFK and JC were hit by separate shots. Now that MUST mean that he was NOT part of the conspiracy. (If he had been surely his payors would have told him if he did not change his story about the shot sequence when he testified before the WC they would sue to get their money back.)

So I guess his failure to react immediately must not have been because that was what he was paid to do. He must have been simply negligent or a coward. Well, then, wait a minute, maybe there are benign answers for the other agents as well.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I am not upset Tim, I had thought the way you posted you knew something about the research within the SS areas......

but apparently you were surmissing......I was disappointed , if anything..

Moreover weren't the agents with LBJ supposed to stay and protect LBJ and not try to jump out and save JFK?

You mention LBJs SS agents....more of your ??????

I gave you the information of what they were trained to do and did not, and made no suppositions ......

that you did in your foolish reply..........I stated to check for yourself, in the research....

.......I guess that was too hard to decipher.....??

So carry on with your thinkies..... I do not....I find it a waste of time.

B......

So, Bernice, you think that these seven agents all knew the assassination was going to occur and were instructed not to do anything? All but SSA Hill, that is? I suppose Hill was not told about the operation because somehow the conspirators knew that only Hill would object and report them? The conspirators were so prescient that they knew that every other agent would agree to knowingly assist them in the murder of the man whose life they were pledged to protect?

You think Greer and Kellerman agreed to ride in the presidential limousine when they knew ahead of time it was going to go into an ambush with "cross-fire" from two directions? Their role in the conspiracy was not only to not protect the president but to ride along and take a hit, if necessary, for the sake of whoever told them the assassination was going down? Boy, to risk their own lives they either must have hated JFK with a passion or been promised a heck of a lot of money.

But Kellerman ordered Greer to take off but did not immediately turn and jump on to JFK to take the fatal bullet himself? So because he ordered Greer to take off you've cleared him (like Hill) or was he part of the plot as well because he did not jump on JFK?

So all the other SS agents (except Hill and maybe except Hellerman) agreed to aid and abet a murder because: a) they'd voted for Nixon; they didn't like JFK's womanizing; c) the price was right? Thirty pieces of silver, perhaps? Or maybe they owned stock in a defense contractor and their contact told them they'd get rich from the War in Vietnam once they got rid of that JFK peacenik?

Do you suppose that since all the others must have known their partners were also being asked to participate not one of them had any concern that one man among them would go to, say, RFK and then rather than getting their thirty pieces of silver they would spend the rest of their life in jail, losing their wife and children as well as all of their earthly possessions?

All I can say is: Bernice, what flavor Kool-Aid have you been drinking? Not only do I find your scenario impossible to believe, I find it almost impossible to believe that you really believe it!

I can just see one of the conspirators sitting down for his chat with Greer:

X: Got something to tell you, agent. We need your help on something.

Greer: Oh, yeah, what?

X: We know you don't like Lancer.

Greer: That's no secret!

X: We're going to take him out in Dallas.

Greer: The hell you say!

X: No, it's going to happen next week, and we need your help.

Greer: My help?

X: Yeah. You see we are going to shoot him from a tall building in Dallas while you are

driving his limousine.

Greer: What?

X: We think our sniper is a pretty good marksman but when you hear the first shot we

want you to slow down and make sure our guy got Kennedy in the head. If he didn't,

that'll give him a second chance.

Greer: Hold on a minute. You want me to drive into an ambush and then slow down in case

your sniper misses? What if his first shot misses and hits me?

X: Well, then, you won't have to slow down in that case. But don't worry, we'll still give your

money to your widow.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

My My, we are testy aren't we Tim.......??

I said none of the above, as you are well aware........

Shame on you, for trying to put words into other peoples mouths.

That's not research....

What I did say, was.........""Check it all out for yourself...""...

B......

There is of course no evidence of complicity of the Secret Service.

com·plic·i·ty (kəm-plĭs'ĭ-tē) Pronunciation Key

n. pl. com·plic·i·ties

Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or a crime.

Accomplice,aide,helper,abettor,...

In any way......

Your glib answers in letting the SS entirely off the hook, deserves a reply.......

None.

Zip.

Zilch.

Nada.

I know, I know, Greer slowed down the car.

He certainly did.....

Well how many of you conspiratorialists think the throat shot (perhaps the first shot) came from the front? Probably MOST of you do.

The Warren Com never proved it did not, in fact they all but ignored the wound...

So what if Greer realizes there has been a shot from the front? Would you expect him to continue into the line of fire?

Aw, I think you would expect the Secret Service to move, and do what they had been trained to do, including him..

So maybe the sequence is frontal shot to the throat (Greer slows SS 100), followed by rear shot to the back, after which Greer, realizing there is a crossfire, thinks for a couple of seconds about what to do, then decides it is best to floor it to get out of the ambush. But in that short delay the fatal head shot is fired. Also remember that Greer would have HEARD the rear shot only AFTER Kennedy received it--I'm sure I am right about that, keeping in mind the adage that one never hears the shot that kills you.

Approx...Seven Seconds....an eternity in that situation....You talk or seemingly to, of the actions of One SS Agent..........I talk of, 8.......not including SS Clint Hill........The Queen Mary was approx 5 feet from the X-100....when shots rang out.

..It carried, SS Agents...McIntyre, Hickey, Bennett, Landis, Ready, SSIC Emory Roberts........and making up the 8 .in the X-100 front seat , SSA Kellerman..and SS Greer as driver....

The only one that attempted to do what he had been trained to ,was SSA Hill, and he heard SSAIC Emory Roberts as he called back SSA Ready, who did attempt to move...but stopped........but SA Cint Hill continued..

The basic training of the SS is to move and bodily Protect the President, at all costs and to take a bullet for him if need be....

.........None of the others moved, including SSA Kellerman, who was good at turning around, to see how things were progressing in the back seat, ducking, and finally telling SSA Greer to get out of there .

Which Greer, BTW....in denying a direct order from his suprerior SSA Kellerman, did not...

and SSA Greer not only turned around once but twice, to see what was happening....in the back seat of the X-100........

True only after the final head shot to the President, did the thought occur to SSA Greer, he has only one way out, straight ahead, and finally acknowledged that direct order from his superior, that had been given previously, and who sat beside him.....in that front seat.

SSA Kellerman's job was to have moved over the back of the front seat, over the Connallys, and throw himself on the POTUS and protect him bodily, at the sound of those shots, he did not.........

Check it all out for yourself......

The Greer shot JFK is old, and has been around for a number of years, seems it has been brought out of the woodwork and redone..To try to add some, new confusion to the pile....Though as Vince says there is some new information within........

B.....