Richard Price

1 hour ago, Paul Cummings said:

 

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

The Head of the Secret Service, Jim Murray has also announced that he is not going to retire at the end of July after all.

If he retires, he can't control the flow of information.

I say that President Biden should give his best rendition of Trump (and I would enjoy it) in this case.  YOU'RE FIRED!

If this is supposed to buttress the "magic bullet" fact, as depicted in the Warren Omission, it does the opposite.  Note the location of the bullet mark on JFK's back as both he and Gov. Connally react.  Now realize that this is AFTER the fact.  Kennedy was sitting calmly waving prior to the shot, therefore the "bunching" and upward movement of the mark/bullet would NOT have been present.  Now you would see that the mark/bullet would be inches lower.  You cannot have Kennedy in this position until AFTER he was hit and began reacting to the wound.

On 7/18/2022 at 10:46 PM, Greg Doudna said:

The corner of Ross and Lamar is only about 6 blocks, about 0.3 miles, from Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club at 1312-1/2 Commerce, where Curtis Craford aka Larry Crafard, with self-professed hit man experience, recently arrived to Dallas, was living.

I know many years have passed and things have changed, but how are you arriving at 0.3 miles.  Using Google maps it shows approximately 2.5 miles between the two addresses.  Lamar (N. Lamar and Commerce cross approximately 4 blocks east of the TSBD building.  I had to look it to to try to acclimate myself with your arguments on how the gun got to the place it was found.

20 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Seriously, the decision to prosecute or not prosecute the Jan. 6th insurrection's leaders is our Constitutional democracy defending Waterloo. imo...anyways.

In my opinion, if we fail to bring to true justice, those at the top of the insurrection, we have already lost.  These same individuals or others like them will see the weakness and proceed to attempt the same or worse acts.  I think we all remember those moral story movie moments that Joe mentioned (and more).  Whether you choose to view them as moral stories or propaganda, the underlying basis is true.  How many of the "villains" would walk away without having been thoroughly defeated?  In the case of the movies, most of the time, the villain had to be killed/confined to prison to stop the process they had begun.  Since the antagonist was/is amoral and without scruples, this may will likely be the outcome in this event.  Those who have chosen to reject the democratic republic we have had all these years must be made to come out in the open on the laws terms and not be left to eschew their plans further with the intent of further provocation at a time and place of their choosing.  If we must fight another "civil war", we must choose the time of reckoning and not those who fomented, instigated and participated in the attempted coup.

10 minutes ago, Robin Unger said:

Is it possible for some reason that someone snipped off a tiny sample for some sort of forensic testing in the lab.

Not that my opinion/voice is needed on this, but that's exactly what I noticed.  Maybe this is where a sample was taken to try to find metallic traces that could be tied to the bullet or to match fabric found on the bullet (CE 399).

42 minutes ago, Michael Davidson said:

The 2 buildings behind the DalTex have an excellent line of sight

The Dal-Tex building has a perfect view all the way down to the triple underpass.  I have an image taken from the TUP area, but haven't been able to upload it yet.  I will try again later.

2 hours ago, Robin Unger said:

Yes that's the Babushka Lady she was wearing a tan coat and pink head scarf and had a large carry bag with a strap slung over her right shoulder.

I think most on the forum already know, but in the blow up picture you can easily see that she is carrying a camera in her left hand.  It appears to be either a box camera or possibly a Polaroid that made the "instant" pictures.  In some of the films/pictures she seems to be making a picture just as the limo passes through the area she is standing.  Unfortunately, up until this time, she has not definitively been identified, nor has it been determined if she took a picture, nor it's whereabouts if it exists.

2 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

I wonder who the guy in the dark suit was (head down), he certainly looks suspicious (or very shy...)  in not wanting to be on film ?

If I am not mistaken, this video was once posted in relation to the "pool of blood" on/near the sidewalk.  The man is looking down at the puddle of liquid.  I do not know who he is either and cannot say for sure he is one of the witnesses to the pool of blood, or as it was later deemed, a red colored soft drink from the overturned or broken bottle in that area.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My guess is a civil war is not really possible in the US...the geography does not work out, and the 1/6 scrum a one-off. An insurrection is impossible, given the vast forces available to establishment Washington.

The 1/6 scrum was only possible due to extraordinarily light security at the Capitol that day, which then stood down.

Benjamin, I must respond and disagree once again.  W. Niederhut has already made a similar point while I was having to shut down and start over on this posting due to a computer problem.  Civil war IS possible, just not as you seem to view it.  It doesn't have to be one group against another and trying to hold onto regional territories.  The current war being stoked is not for this reason.  It is about creating anarchy in which a functioning democratic republic cannot be sustained, thereby creating a need for a security state doing away with most, if not all our historic liberties, rights and freedoms.  Into this void a strongman can get established and turn the country into his own kingdom.  If you actually look at the history, you will see this threat has not come from the "radical left", but from the RIGHT almost exclusively.

Your 01/06 scrum, as you prefer to call it, was possible because the person at the top of the chain of command was the fox in the hen house.  In a coup, the leadership is usually the current leader who has decided NO ONE could lead as well as he, or a high ranking military officer.  In this case, technically ONE person fits both positions, since we have (supposedly) civilian control of the military through the President.  If the "former guy" could have found just one more malleable person in the chain of command, he may well have succeeded.  Had he gotten to the point of mass resignation in the DOJ or the military hierarchy, all bets would have been off.  Things would have spiraled quickly out of control and a declaration of martial law, the invocation of the insurrection act or anything could have happened.  We have never had a time without an officially designated leader of our government.  So, yes an insurrection/coup is possible when it originates at the top of the chain of command as this one did.

I am always looking for links between involved parties in the assassination.  The possible association of LHO with the Dodd Committee makes sense to me.  It makes me wonder, who in the planning of the assassination, may have been aware of this and potentially use it to frame him with the very evidence he was developing as an agent for the committee.

28 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

In my opinion the reason Tippit got shot was to pull everyone out of Dealey plaza and allow the actual assassins to  get away and/or dispose of evidence on the scene, from a depository that was not sealed.

Thank you Allen.  In all my years reading and studying the JFKA, for some reason, this concept never entered my thought process.  Always good to find new thoughts about old events.

4 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

This is not a hypothesis. 

In the Nix film, you see a shot from the pergola window.  You see a gunman exit the pergola. You see another gunman shoot and create a vapor trail.  You then see the gunman exit the pergola.

Last call on this topic.  I do not see any of the above in the photos/film.  It may show movement and there may have been people up in that area moving, but that does not mean they are gunmen.  The film is all too grainy to make any valid judgements, only conjecture.  I will continue with my belief that the shot came from behind the fence on the knoll, the angles, blood splatter and witnesses fit that scenario much better.  Best of luck with your hypothesis.

Thank you, Douglas.  If this could be arranged, I will personally donate the 1st book for his cart.  Any Dr. Seuss book of his choice, since I'm pretty sure that is his reading comprehension level.

On 7/4/2022 at 10:50 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

I enjoy reading other people's viewpoints, including yours.

Ditto.  It doesn't demean me to have others disagree, it strengthens my resolve to find the common ground or even better, to solidify and reconstitute my opinion with any new facts uncovered.

3 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

The pergola seems to be the perfect place for the gunmen.

I am not an expert on this, or any other aspect of the JFKA, but I have to disagree with your hypothesis on this.  If you look at the inferred angle of this shot, it would have been really close to 90 degrees to JFK's right side.  From what I have studied, I would say the shot came from down the fence line past the walkway steps.  I come up with this based on the following:  the many witnesses who thought the saw movement in the area; the possible smoke coming from under the trees; the pictures of JFK with a possible small entry wound in the hairline on the right of his head and the blow-out on the right rear of his head.  I know bullets do not necessarily travel in a straight line, and I am not saying this one did.  If a high powered rifle shot entered the right front of JFK's head on a downward angle from the elevated knoll/fence line in the area where the muddy footprints and "movement/smoke" were noticed, it would be virtually straight and would exit at a point lower on JFK's head.  The position of his head when the shot occurred would cause the exit point to be at or near the base of the skull and it would have continued on towards the left rear taillight on the limousine.  This is why so much was done to obliterate the location as reported by Parkland doctors.  The location of the blowout in combination with the small entrance hole at the hairline and the position of JFK's head (downward and facing toward the left) all agree and point to one small area ONLY.

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The evidence is Trump had nothing to do with the unarmed scrum the Capitol--and yes, why did the 3,500-officer Capitol Police hardly show up on 1/6, and then stand down? That is suspicious also. Think of Secret Service protection on 11/22.

Continued...

Specifically, what evidence is there that Trump had nothing to do with the "unarmed" scrum at the Capitol?  The only thing I see is the fact that he DID nothing at all that day - EXCEPT - watch the unfolding confrontation from the dining room off the Oval Office.  This is hardly evidence of having nothing to do with the "scrum", but rather the contrary.  You say to think of SS protection on 11/22.  I do.  Just like on 11/22/63, when the SS did nothing until JFK was assuredly dead, Trump did NOTHING until it was evident that the coup had failed.  The only difference was in the outcome and I'm sure he was livid that he couldn't go with his "loving" crowd down to the Capitol to assure success.

The end.

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Much of the coverage and 1/6 activity is simply sloppy, such as thrusting a largely unvetted hearsay witness on stage suddenly, possibly as she was photogenic and said the right things.

Continued...

Third,  this statement is so full of inconsistencies as to be almost absurd (sorry Ben, but it insults my sensibilities).  A riot cannot be covered in a scripted professional way as you would a debate.  The actors in a riot cannot be controlled by those filming and recording events.  The people filming and recording cannot know for sure what actions the rioters (who are ALL around them) will take and are subject to the same violence they are attempting to record.  They are trying to record while staying out of the focus of the rioters, lest they become targets.  This sort of takes your focus off making a "perfect scene" as you film/record.

Fourth, I don't know why you would say "unvetted hearsay witness".  The witness had already sat for hours of deposition.  By the way the people she named as speaking to her about events she did not witness, as well as some if not all those whose actions and words she was a direct witness to have either been deposed or have refused to give a deposition (or testify live).

Last thought on this subject:  The fact that she is "photogenic" to use your word has nothing to do with her telling the truth because it IS the right thing.  Is her being "photogenic" going to make the rest of her life as a right wing Republican, dare I say "Trumpian" any easier?  She is very young and has made a choice to DO the RIGHT thing when it will cost her much over time, particularly if delusional Republicans are not stripped of power.  In my opinion she should get a JFK Profile In Courage award.

Continued...

We'll see if this works, I'm not very proficient with making posts to address multiple issues without becoming too wordy and focused.  Because of that, I'm going to address or ask about items in your post individually.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I read news coverage, generally from better publications and independent journalists.

First why do you only read coverage from "better publications" and "independent journalists"?  I read any published accounts on subjects of interest.  I trust my own instincts/intellect to dissect and determine right from wrong (in my opinion), false narratives from true and to understand the "spin/slant" of various journalists/media corporations.  This is in my opinion a much more balanced way to understand the full scope of an issue.  This is not to say I give full credence to every opinion or narrative, but I do not give a blanket dismissal until the source proves itself to be pure propaganda with no basis in truth.

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Perhaps I have become too skeptical in the last 20 years, the decades in which I gave up on the D-Party, which I used to support, and even financially (modestly, I was always a middle-class guy, if that).

Second, and last in this post.  I too gave up on the Democratic  Party, but in my case it simply my independence.  I was and am a registered Democrat, but have always voted for the person I think would do the best in the position I am voting for or was less corrupt than the other.  I have always been more of a loner/go my own way type of person.  I think that any organized group tends to lean toward the lowest common denominator even when headed by a very talented, determined and persuasive individual.  This is not saying that the best way in our current world is for an authoritarian to guide us, but it is the reason we wind up with far less advancement of idealistic goals than we should.  This also is not a totally bad thing.  It is exactly what is codified in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the US.  The founders were warding off ways for men to individually yank the government from one direction to another too quickly, like a pendulum out of control.

More to come...

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Query: Do you think Trump (and not the vast shadow government) arranged for Capitol security to be scant, and then stand down on 1/6?

Yes.  Can you show any different?  Trump was (supposedly) the commander in chief.  In a normal administration, one command from POTUS and there could have been plenty of enforcement in place almost immediately.  In this case, HIS personally appointed lackeys were the leaders of all the agencies needed.  They way they crawl to kiss his (A$$) ring, the crowd could have been dispersed with ONE word from him as well, but what we got was SILENCE.  No phone calls, no tweets, no immediate speech, NOTHING!  When you see what he did to get a photo op carrying a bible in front of a church and substitute this situation, you can plainly see the difference.  On January 6 he didn't even ask if they could "just shoot them in the knees", these people were "loved". 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If I see something that makes no sense, I want to understand why. That's just the way I am. (Which is why I became a research engineer.)

Sandy, I agree with your assessment.  I didn't become a research engineer, but I also am led to research things which just don't seem to add up.  I know different people/agencies made the pictures.  It would seem to me that if you wanted to prove the initials are on the bullet, that you would take pictures from as close to the perspective in the older photos as possible to avert the possibility that there are two bullets.  This to me would be similar to identifying the lands and grooves on a subject bullet.  I know it is not quite as simple as it is shown on tv, but when it is shown, the bullet is shown magnified on two screens then the screens are placed side by side to show the whether they match.  With my not being able to see a similar match, I am not convinced these pictures are of the same bullet.  I guess I should have been born in Missouri instead of Georgia.

After reading many headlines from various sources, I come away with one overarching impression.  The majority, if not all seem to be stressing "lurched" at the steering wheel.  I reviewed her testimony and found that this is (as I remembered it), not what she said when paraphrasing what she was told had occurred.  She said Trump "reached" for the steering wheel and used the word "lurched" only in describing what she was TOLD the President did next.  She said as the agent held his hand away from the steering wheel, Trump "lurched" towards him with his free hand.  That would seem an accurate word in that if one of your hands/arms is being held, you would appear to lurch if trying to use the other.  I am an inveterate parser of words/phrasing in establishing the intent of what is being written, so this stood out to me.  People who learn to use language well, can turn the meaning of something by what they leave out or by the stress they put on something within the whole.  These headlines are damning her for something she did not say and that she readily claimed was told to her by someone else.

Pete, I can't speak to 1960's C.O.D. handling directly.  I do know that some things changed when the Post Office Department was changed over to USPS, but I am pretty sure handling of C.O.D. packages was not substantially changed.  The package was handled as what was known as "accountable" mail.  The sender paid a fee on top of postage so the post office would collect the money and send it back when the package was delivered.  It had a number assigned and as it flowed from sender to receiver it was tracked on a paper record.  When it arrived at the delivery post office, it would have been recorded and a notice placed in the recipients mail receptacle.  The notice would have included where the package was from, the amount due to the sender and the payment options (if any).  The item itself would have been stored at the post office with a date of its arrival and for its return (usually 30 days although the sender could specify less).  Items remaining in the post office for five (5) days would be marked with "2nd Notice" and another notice would be put in the recipients box.  This notice would show the specified return date letting the recipient know that if the item was not picked up it would be returned no later than that date.  If not claimed by that date, it would be returned to the sender as "unclaimed".  I think until relatively recent times no other entity had access to PO box delivery.  Until the USPS signed contracts with UPS/FEDEX only postal deliveries were allowed to PO boxes as well as residential mail boxes.  Non postal deliveries are still not allowed to be made directly into "mail receptacles" by the outside agencies.  The outside agencies must present mail to postal employees for the actual delivery inside a post office.  Even residential delivery cannot be made by non postal employees into mail receptacles (mailboxes) and has to be delivered to the door/porch or other location.

4 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Damn,looking at the Gawler's First Call Sheet,the shipping casket was not purchased at Gawler's.I was always under the assumption that it was.Back to the dog gone drawing board.

Michael, officially there was no shipping casket, period.  There were only two caskets, the one ornate casket purchased in Dallas in which JFK's body left the hospital, flew on AF-1 to Washington, was then brought to Bethesda and offloaded at the morgue and then the casket purchased for his body to lie in state at the White House East Room and the Capitol.  There can be no record of where the shipping casket came from as it did not exist to anyone except those that saw it enter the morgue at Bethesda.

On 6/2/2022 at 3:54 AM, Michael Crane said:

It's now very clear that the Nash Rambler that Ruth owned is not the same one that Tosh Plumlee showed pictures of.

Michael, I think you have gotten the vehicles mixed up.  The Nash Rambler was not Ruth's car, she had a station wagon, but it was a 1955 Chevrolet (light green).  When LHO made his remark about not bringing her (meaning Ruth) into this, I believe he had only heard part of a conversation that a station wagon was seen stopping near the TSBD.  The fact that it turned out to be a Nash Rambler per the witness(es) is the second part of the story, I believe.  That's when people trying to trace who owned the Nash Rambler found what they believed to be the same car at a local college/university parking lot and tied it in to some of the names on the periphery of the assassination.  I think it also had an earlier link to persons in the anti-Castro or pro Castro groups, I forget which.  Hopefully this will help your quest, I have been down so many rabbit holes over the last 50+ years that it is impossible (at least for me) to remember 5% of the information I have encountered along the way.