Ron Ecker

Well, I can't make a screenshot. I press the "PrtScn" key according to online instructions, but nothing is saved in the Screenshots folder. So all I know is what I see on my computer.

Okay, I'll do a screen shot too when I figure out how to do it. We'll have us a shootout.

Well that's weird. On my computer the link is at the top left of the page. I don't even see three horizontal bars at the top right.

I had trouble donating too when I went first to the "Step-by-Step Process" thread, and started clicking on the illustration there instead of the actual links. Make sure you click on the "Store" link that's at the top of this page (not in the aforementioned thread), then you'll see a link that says "Donations." That's the trouble I was having anyway.

Makes sense to me!

That's 11 cents a day, or 77 cents a week, or $3.33 a month. As lone nutters would say, that should be as easy as a shot from the sniper's nest.

Sounds good to me. I'll donate now, then donate again post-September as needed.

Thanks, that article refers exactly to what I'm saying (though I'm not one of the "promoters of the official story"): "Promoters of the official story say Bennett could not have seen that shot because he was too far away. But you can see from the pictures that he was not so far. They also say such a wounding would be too small to see. Wrong again. You can perform your own experiments to see what is visible, and at what distances. Bennett did not describe in detail what he saw, but such a shot would look like a sudden, inward tenting in the jacket." So maybe he saw the "inward tenting." But I'm glad I'm not alone in questioning what he could have seen, though I don't necessarily appreciate the company of promoters of the official story.

Yes, when I said Bennett looked to the left I meant that he looked to the right. I often make mistakes like that. Just like my left hand doesn't always know what my right hand is doing. Just looking at JFK's back in that photo, it makes me wonder more how Bennett could see exactly where JFK got hit in the shoulder. But again, Bennett could be a Howard Brennan wonder.

Two things always bugged me about Bennett's description of actually witnessing the creation of the back wound. For one thing, in one of the photos taken supposedly an instant before JFK is hit in the back, Bennett can be seen in the follow-up car looking at the crowd to the right of the vehicles. Did he suddenly jerk his head around to see JFK shot? The other thing is, if he did look suddenly toward JFK, he would of course see him get hit, he would see JFK's reaction, but from that distance could he really tell exactly where he got hit? From that distance he could actually see a hole created in JFK's coat? Perhaps, I guess you'd have to be there, but it makes me wonder if Bennett's eyesight was as incredible as Howard Brennan's. Edit: And why was Bennett the only one in the follow-up car to see exactly where JFK was hit? In Willis 5, Clint Hill for one appears to be looking straight ahead. Bennett isn't, he's looking off at the crowd, in a seemingly studious fashion.

That would have to be John, since Fitzgerald was dead. But as a reliable witness, Howard Brennan doesn't stand a ghost of a chance. (I don't know what his wife's problem was.)

No, I actually believe in the Two JFKs theory. I'm working on the book ("John and Fitzgerald").

I''m reminded that either Jackie or Bobby (I forget which one) remarked after viewing the body at the White House that "it doesn't even look like him."

While I wouldn't doubt that SS agents were involved (e.g. reducing and the moving the motorcycles, rearranging the motorcade seating at Love Field, slowing the limo to (almost?) a stop on Elm, stealing the body, hiding JFK's clothes), there's no way they acted alone. Was the SS controlling Oswald? Was it in charge at Bethesda? Has it given the CIA standing orders to keep covering up?

Anything is possible. There's a Russian mole in the White House now.

Beto could possibly win the Democratic nomination hands down, if he would just do it. (Keep his hands down.)

To play devil's advocate, I have always interpreted this photo a bit differently. What you and Joe see as a "victory" or "celebratory" wink could be nothing more than a wink of encouragement in light of the job LBJ now faced. Bear in mind that people can do or say some awkward things at funerals or other such solemn occasions no matter how well meaning. (I'm always reminded of the scene in Tom Jones, where a funeral concludes, and the lout played by Hugh Griffith walks up to a grieving loved one and says, "Well, cheer up.") To interpret the wink as "victory" or "celebratory" is obviously to suggest that Thomas knew full well that LBJ was part of the conspiracy and maybe Thomas was too. ("We pulled it off, Mr. President.") I know of no evidence of Thomas as a conspirator. And LBJ is "smiling" at him? A grimace or grim tightening of the lips could cause the cheek to puff out just like a smile. And as low as LBJ was, I have to believe that he had more sense than to openly smile at that moment in front of a cabin full of witnesses. If you want to see someone smiling, look at Lady Bird, for God's sake. Desi Arnaz would have told her, like he used to tell Lucy, that she has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Amadeus, Off topic, I see that one of your interests is "the effects of social media on society." A day or so ago a psychiatrist on TV summed it up pretty well. He said it's like we're becoming a different species. How sad is that?

Apparently there were several Aynesworths, since he was everywhere in Dallas on 11/22/63. Or maybe there were two of him, like Harvey and Lee?

For official government documents as evidence of conspiracy, use the Warren Commission's own exhibits in Appendix Eight of the Warren Commission Report. These exhibits include the statements of the doctors who attended JFK at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, documenting a gaping wound in the back of the head (i.e. an exit wound, i.e. a shot from the front, i.e. conspiracy). Several medical personnel at the autopsy in Bethesda stated seeing the same wound in back of the head (a fact that the House Select Committee on Assassinations covered up, i.e. simply lied about, stating the opposite of the truth, in its own final report in 1979). Needless to say, the Warren Commission in reaching its (foreordained) conclusion simply ignored its own Appendix Eight exhibits.

Thanks. The word "alleged" is obsolete in criminal matters anyway. Today on national TV that "Empire" guy Jussie Smollett was tried and convicted by the police chief of Chicago. The chief told us what Smollett did, why he did it, and how shameful and despicable he is. Now there seems little doubt that Smollett is guilty of filing a false police report, but isn't he supposed to have a trial, and he's "innocent" till then unless he pleads guilty? And the talking heads on TV including "Judge" Napolitano praised the chief for all but going ahead and pronouncing sentence.

I just had a real fright. Or maybe I should say a close shave. First time I have ever seen a "Redirect Notice." I clipped on the link Cory provided and got this message: "The previous page is sending you to http://www.newswest9.com/2019/02/18/oswald-killed-kennedy-thats-not-what-official-marker-says/. If you do not want to visit that page, you can return to the previous page." So do I want to go there or not? Has anything bad happened to those who have gone there?

He certainly appeared to switch sides because of his job, but that's not what he told me.

Do we even know if Oswald ever prayed? If I had been Oswald the one time I definitely would have prayed was when the cops marched me into that basement and Will Fritz immediately got out of the way. Of course there wasn't much time to pray beyond "Dear Lord," or maybe "Lord no, not Jack..."

I'll never forget a live show put on by a hypnotist when I was a kid. The hypnotist was called Preston the Great. The show was in the local movie theater. He would hypnotize people out of the audience and make them do all kinds of things on stage. He hypnotized George Long, a teenager I knew. (My older brother's best friend.) He told George to give an impassioned speech but he could only use the ABCs, no words. It was the most hilarious speech I've ever heard. At one point George even paused to laugh at whatever he thought he had said.