Ron Ecker

I'm not "calling out" Rich and Greg about anything. I don't know what they saw. But compare "the other film" to a scientific theory. A theory to be valid is supposed to be testable. It has to be subject to verification. Well, a film that is claimed to show certain things has to be viewable. It matters little if some people viewed it at some time in the past. What if they're mistaken about what they saw? If no one can view the film in question to verify what it shows, the notion of what it shows can't be tested. The existence of the film itself can't be tested if no one even knows where it is. It seems to have just gone poof.

Quoting Reagan: “I still can't get over the fact of the delay between when I know now that I was shot, but didn't know then, and the feeling of pain,' he said. 'I always just assumed if you were shot, you felt it, felt it right then. But it was, I was all the way in the car, and then suddenly this pain, and that's why I thought that the agent (Jerry Parr, chief of the White House Secret Service detail) who jumped in and shielded me had maybe broken my rib when he, because, obviously, I was shot outside the car. We know now where, and I still can't get over that period of delay in which there was no pain.” https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/03/30/President-Reagan-contrasting-the-attempt-on-his-life-a/7341386312400/ Your explanation makes sense (as yet another remarkable coincidence, a presidential assassination attempt not only with the rarity of feeling no pain when being shot but with an almost miraculous ricochet bullet that found its mark) if Reagan was shot precisely when the government says he was shot, by the person who the government says shot him. Another magic bullet, ammo so common in these incidents that in the case of Reagan the magic hasn't been worth noting.

How do you explain the fact that when Ronald Reagan was shot, he didn't feel any pain till he was inside the car and an agent fell on him?

He apparently wanted people to believe he was hiding in the bathroom.

David, Fascinating stuff. Thanks. If your account is accurate, it suggests to me that LBJ was literally a hands-on conspirator.

No problem, didn't sound cross to me. Actually it was Z's secretary Lillian Rogers who urged Z to go get his camera. Of course old J.Walton could have put her up to it. More likely, it was all planned. Z would "forget" his camera, his secretary would urge him to go home and get it, and Z caught a ride there and back in Ruth Paine's station wagon.

I'm not familiar with Moore's call to Zapruder. Is there a post about it in the thread that you linked? (Or in this thread? Maybe I missed it.)

I can hear Zapruder telling Sitzman, who was standing behind him to steady him, "Now whatever you do, don't turn loose of me when the shooting starts. Keep me steady." She says, "What do you mean 'when the shooting starts'?" And he says, "I mean when I start shooting this film."

I was wondering where you've been. Now I know.

My memory is hazy, but as I recall there is no longer pedestrian access to the south end of the overpass. I think it is fenced off in some fashion. Was there a particular reason for that (like maybe to prevent people from snooping around about a possible south knoll shooter location)?

My main question, if Bowers's suspicion was true, is how conspirators managed to poison him at a place where he stopped for coffee in Midlothian. Was he a regular customer where he stopped? If so, I wonder how much you would have to pay an employee there to poison him.

Excellent info. Thanks.

David, You win a free chicken dinner.

And seeing is believing. Surely someone, somewhere on God's green Earth, has a copy of this film if not the original, and wouldn't mind sharing it, for truth if not for fame and fortune.

He says that he's been put on a list of members who are only allowed one post a day. Which is a new one on me.

He says he was never banned here.

Apparently so. He says no reason was given.

Mike can no longer post on the forum, so your why's are all futile.

Mike, why did you start a thread like this with that pretentious title?

I need my memory refreshed. Who exactly had their cameras seized at the scene? As I recall, Moorman was approached not by police or SS but by a newsman. Did Willis, Altgens, or others have theirs seized, or were their pics made available later? As for Zapruder being conspicuous, like an elephant in the room, how about Dark-Complected Man calmly sitting down on the curb and using what looks like a walkie talkie, alongside Umbrella Man taking break from his bobbing umbrella? Then they stroll away, DCM with what looks like some kind of apparatus on his back, supposedly hidden under his jacket. I can certainly see how some individuals at the scene might have been strategically ignored in plain sight. But did every cop there know that DCM or UM or Z was supposed to be ignored?

This is confusing. The judge ruled that there was "no public benefit" in the CIA releasing the Joannides records. Yet according to the article, Morley prevailed in 2008 and Joannides records were released. But obviously only some of them. So is the CIA now allowed to decide which records are of public benefit and which aren't? Another question: If the CIA didn't assassinate JFK, why has it insisted and persisted for over half a century in acting like it did?

Paz, Good suggestion, though even with evidence there are those who would call a theory "crap." One of the best books on the assassination is James Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable. And perhaps the best sentence in the book is on page 42: "We have no evidence as to who in the military-industrial complex may have given the order to assassinate President Kennedy. That the order was carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency is obvious. The CIA's fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it." Yet there seems to be those who think that to say "the CIA did it" is almost as loony as to say "Oswald did it." (And others who think that to say "Oswald did it" isn't loony at all!) That's the way it is. But I certainly agree that evidence is just as important as language here.

I too believe that language matters. I believe in polite and civil discussion, and have been slow to respond because I don't know what else to say. Such belief should go without saying, the question is what to do when a poster simply doesn't share that belief. I almost left the forum once due to one poster's vile statements and accusations directed at me with impunity (about matters not even related to JFK). The offender left at some point thereafter, apparently of his own accord. Parting is such sweet sorrow. Some moderation seems necessary. (I believe in "moderation in all things.") Perhaps if other forum members would promptly call out a poster for being impolite and uncivil, that would solve the problem without having to depend on otherwise busy moderators. Perhaps a motto of the forum in this respect should be "nip it in the bud." If a poster ignores the admonitions of fellow members, treating such admonitions as no more than personal attacks deserving the same, then moderators should take action.

Okay, thanks. I'm having a hard time keeping my teeth straight.