John B.

 

Are those pink chunks on the back seat pieces of JFK's brain?

I also see similar pink chunks of something in between the seats where John and Nellie Connally were sitting.

JFK's brains also?

If those pink chunks are pieces of JFK's blown apart brain..added together that is a substantial amount of brain matter.

22 hours ago, Fred Litwin said:

As I posted earlier, this is what Stephen Roy (Blackburst) wrote about those notes:

He did not commit suicide. We KNOW that. And so, those notes are not suicide notes.  

My apologies.

How I could mix up JFK with David Ferrie in this Ferrie autopsy brain report is ...well...beyond words negligent.

How embarrassing.

Another reason to consider using a sleep apnea CPAP machine I guess.

Although, wasn't JFK's brain registered in his autopsy report as weighing 1,500 grams?

I know this JFK brain weight issue is not appropriate for this thread. However, can someone send me a link to another thread that is centered on this specific issue? 

Thanks.

4 hours ago, Fred Litwin said:

CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM: The scalp is reflected and the calvarium is removed in the usual manner. There are no contusions in the scalp. There is no fracture of the calvarium. The dura is stretched tightly over the left cerebral hemisphere and a large subdural hematoma is visible beneath the dura at this area. The right cerebral hemisphere is markedly compressed and flattened. The total volume of the subdural hematoma on the left side is measured at 95ml. The brain is removed and weighs 1480 grams.

OMG...my apologies.

How I could mix up Ferrie's brain state autopsy report with JFK's is beyond me.

Has to be beginning dementia.

Interesting differences yet similarities at the same time.

All powerful influences in American history.

Views sought regarding the number of bullets fired at JFK and their sequence.

Which account is true?

3 shots ... with the first shot missing everything and then the second shot hitting JFK and going thru him to hit Connally and the third shot hitting JFK in the head?

3 shots ... with the first shot hitting Kennedy in the back, the second hitting JFK in the head and the third shot...?

4 shots ... the first missing everything, the second shot hitting JFK in the back and on thru to hitting Connally , the third shot hitting JFK in the head...and the 4th shot?

4 shots ... the first hitting no one, the second hitting JFK in the back, the third shot hitting Connally and the 4th shot hitting JFK  in the head?

5 shots ...  better fitting Roy Kellerman's "flurry" description?

Could any of the shots that didn't hit JFK and Connally be the one that made that obvious and substantial damage inner front windshield frame indentation?

I always wish Jim Di's essays would be presented in their full content straight away on pertinent threads versus a link.

For many reasons readers too often avoid opening up extra content links imo.

I've done so, saying to myself I don't have the time or I just want to get through the thread without any extra effort to learn more about it's main OP theme.

However, I more often than not do go right to Jim Di's linked essays.

Because when I do I almost always find them full of valuable and well documented background information that invariably enables me to see much more of the total picture regards the original thread's premises and findings, especially those which are of a highly debatable point of view in their integrity, validity and self-proclaimed promotion as the truth.

Jim's essay here on this thread just blows away the original poster's premise that Clay Shaw was greatly and unfairly persecuted by Jim Garrison through the charges of conspiracy toward Shaw and the trial that followed and especially when the truth is that Jim Garrison was the one being persecuted to unprecedented degrees that make anything Shaw went through look like a cake walk in comparison

I went to see Oliver Stone's film "JFK" when it first came out in 1991.

There was a long ticket buying line down the block which I hadn't seen in many years in our relatively small town. The audience was a mix of people my age at the time ( 39 ) and older and younger to the twenties but no teenagers or younger age children I recall.

The audience was rapt from the very beginning of the film to the closing credits.

The film was very powerful and effecting. The kind of film that you thought about long after seeing it. 

I always felt that Stone's film JFK was like a mass therapy session that millions of American's who lived through and were traumatized by JFK's brutal slaughter finally had where they were directly presented with the true brutality, shock, emotional loss and truth unsureness they had experienced with this murder of their President but had never dealt with in a commonly shared, outside of family way.

Stone's film is still powerful. I have seen this a dozen times over the years and it still holds and in some ways even haunts me.

5 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I have to call foul on the responses here. I think any author who posts here deserves a fail, critical appraisal of his or her work. That cannot be done prior to reading it.

Michael , I agree with you by and large.

I didn't even notice that Mr. Litwin, who recently joined the forum, is the actual author of this book. Don't know how I missed it. I thought he was just a member who had read the book and was promoting it.

Being a forum member he of course deserves his fair respect here regards his personal research findings and this book.  He doesn't attack anyone here, just mentioning his book.

I don't agree with his views, but he's got as much right to post and defend them as anyone else here regards their own JFK beliefs.

He still should be ready however for some serious criticism and debate here.

 

 

HA!

That list of "praisers" is a rogues gallery of disinformation specialists.

And proven xxxx Clay Shaw  (regards his Clay Bertrand alias or even knowing David Ferrie or Dean Andrews ) was persecuted?

More than Jim Garrison himself? 

Garrison was hammered 50X more than Shaw.

 

 

The multiple under oath testimonies given by onsite Dealey Plaza eye and ear witnesses during the time of the shots, and that similarly recollect the latter two shots out of three being so close together they occurred right on top of each other or almost simultaneously is clearly one of the most solid and important pieces of corroborated information that indicates multiple shooters.

S.S. agent Roy Kellerman describes the shot time space sequence between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd shots as a " bang ... bang bang." He also guesses that the time space between the 1st and 2nd shot was at least 3 to 4 seconds.

JFK limo driver S.S. agent Bill Greer stated the last two shots sounding "just simultaneously" in their time frame spacing versus a 3 to 4 second pause between the 1st and 2nd shots.

Nearby train tower control person Lee Bowers stated this to the Warren Commission when asked what he heard regarding the shots:
Mr. BOWERS - "I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together."

Lee Bowers repeated this shot time frame sequence in his "Rush To Judgement" interview by Mark Lane where he again stated there was a first shot, then a slight pause and then the next two shots came "almost on top of each other."

Bowers then physically replicated the 3 shot time sequence by rapping one of his knuckles on the table in front of him.  He rapped his knuckle once, then waited, then rapped again twice with maybe just a 1/2 second spacing between the later two rappings.

Others in or close to Dealey Plaza during the shooting also stated very similar time frame pacing sequences for the three shots.

The very short time space between the second and third shots, if factual, would so obviously prove a second gunman imo.

Because there is no way Oswald or any other possible single shooter could have pulled back their just fired long rifle weapon, ejected a clip - re-injecting another live round, then reset their arms and gun in a firing position and then having to lean into and refocus their scope and aim again and then firing ... in the brief 2nd to 3rd shot time frame all these witnesses swore under oath they heard.

The 3 to 4 second pause between the 1st and 2nd shots would be enough time for a rifle shooter to reset all those gun and shot firing dynamics, but that same in between shots time frame requirement ( 3 to 4 seconds ) would also be needed in between two more shots.

I tried to duplicate this shot sequence myself. I held a yardstick in my arms as one would hold a rifle while shooting with it.

I pretended I just fired the rifle, and as quickly as possible pulled it back ejected the spent clip which re-engages a new clip, thrust the gun back up and forward into a shooting position again, brought my head forward to the scope where I would have to re-site my moving and now farther away target, aim and fire again.

The best I could do in performing all of these rifle resetting, aiming and shooting functions was 4 seconds plus. 

I figured a highly trained marksman probably could perhaps knock a second off of that time in doing these same functions.

However, that 3 to 4 seconds is way more time than these Dealey Plaza ear witnesses described taking place between the 2nd and 3rd shots.

I recommend curious others try this rifle firing sequence duplication themselves.

The bottom line logic with and importance of these multiple ear witness shot time sequence testimonies though is easy to see and understand. 

If their "bang...bang bang", "just simultaneously", "almost on top of each other" and other very similar time space testimony descriptions between the 2nd and 3rd shots versus the time space between the 1st and 2nd shots are true...it becomes very hard to stand on the premise that any shooter at JFK that day in Dealey Plaza could have fired all three shots by themselves to a reasonably believable degree.

 

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

313 was probably the second loud report, with the third coming right after. Connally's z160 semi-fast head turn isn't very convincing next to the mountain of evidence that the first loud report was at z190-224.

Micah, do you think the second loud report was a shot that made the heavy steel damaging upper inner windshield frame indentation?

I know this specific subject has been discussed 1,000 times in hundreds of venues by researchers much more knowledgeable than me.

However, inspired by the recent Vince Palamara posting I again reviewed SS agent Bill Greer's WC testimony from March, 1964 as well as Roy Kellerman's.

It's interesting how much more you see when you go back and review things that you had looked at years previous and not seen.

Like my previous post copying and pasting Roy Kellerman's WC testimony, I want to show "some" of Greer's under oath testimony ( not near as much as Kellerman's) with space breaks where I can interject questions and factual points that show just how inaccurate many key points of Greer's testimony really are.  To the point where you can't help feel that he is lying regards many of them.

It's a good thing the Commission didn't have and show the Zapruder film right after Greer testified. They might have charged him with perjury, or in the least shown that he was a very dumb fellow with a stark case of memory and recollection deficiency just 4 months after the assassination.

 

Greer's WC testimony in part:

Mr. SPECTER. Now, would you tell us just what occurred as you were proceeding down Elm Street at that time? 
Mr. GREER. Well, when we were going down Elm Street, I heard a noise that I thought was a backfire of one of the motorcycle policemen. And I didn't--it did not affect me like anything else. I just thought that it is what it was. We had had so many motorcycles around us. So I heard this noise. And I thought that is what it was.

 

Mr. Greer, are you not trained to react evasively, protectively and instantly toward the President to any loud sound that may be somewhat similar to a gun shot?

 

Mr. Greer: And then I heard it again. And I glanced over my shoulder.

Still no protective measure training action even after you hear a second shot sound just seconds after the first?

 

Mr. Greer: And I saw Governor Connally like he was starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong. I tramped on the accelerator ...

 

You immediately tramped on the accelerator after you saw Connally starting to fall while seeing this during your first turn around?

The Zapruder film doesn't show this. I shows you tramping on your accelerator after the third shot ( not the first ) and after your second turn around.

 

Mr. Greer: and at the same time Mr. Kellerman said to me, "Get out of here fast." And I cannot remember even the other shots or noises that was. I cannot quite remember any more. I did not see anything happen behind me any more,

Again the Zapruder film contradicts you.

 

Mr. Greer: because I was occupied with getting away. 
Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many shots, or how many noises have you just described that you heard? 
Mr. GREER. I know there was three that I heard--three.

You just testified  "and I cannot remember even the other shots or noises that was."

 

Mr.Greer: But I cannot remember any more than probably three. I know there was three anyway that I heard. 
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an independent recollection at this moment of having heard three shots at that time? 
Mr. GREER. I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again, to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after. 

No, the third shot hit JFK in the head "while" you were "fully turned around looking in JFK's direction." The Zapruder film proves this.

 

Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?

Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or four seconds. 
Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time of the third noise? 
Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other, but I don't recollect just how much, how many seconds were between the two. I couldn't really say. 

Was there enough time in the time frame gap between the second and third shot for a rifle shooter to pull back his just fired gun, unload his clip, re-inject another round, reset his arms and gun and realign his gun and scope to a constantly moving and new position target and then fire again which would have taken at least 3 seconds?  Or was it a much shorter time time gap than 3 seconds such as a "bang-bang?"

You recollect the time gap between the first and second shot was 3 to 4 seconds...and you then recollect the time gap between the 2nd and third shots as much closer  - "just simultaneously."  

"Simultaneously" sure sounds like a much shorter time gap than 3 seconds.

Could Oswald have pulled his rifle back, ejected his spent shell, re-injected a live one, reset himself and re-aligned his gun and scope to a target which was moving and had  moved farther away since his last shot, in less than 3 seconds, 2 seconds, one? 

What does Greer's concept of "just simultaneously" mean in seconds elapsed?

In most people's minds, simultaneously means maybe a 1 second pause between shots, not 2 or 3 or 4. And Oswald could not have done all that gun re-prepping and sight aligning and aiming and two shot shooting action in a one second time frame.

Mr. SPECTER. Describe as best you can the types of sound of the second report, as distinguished from the first noise which you said was similar to a motorcycle backfire? 

 

Greer just testified that " I cannot remember even the other shots or noises that was."

 

Mr. GREER. The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I may have gotten a little concussion that made me think there was something different to it.

 

Feeling a physical"concussion" from one shot but not another doesn't make them different than each other? Sounds like the power and intensity difference Roy Kellerman described ( sonic boom versus firecracker ) regards the last two shots versus the first.

 

But so far as the noise is concerned, I haven't got any memory of any difference in them at all. 
Mr. SPECTER. Describe as best you can the sound of the third noise. 
Mr. GREER. Just, to me it was similar, to the first two. They all sounded practically the same to me. 
Mr. SPECTER. You testified that at the second noise you glanced over your shoulder. 
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. 
Mr. SPECTER. Which shoulder did you glance over? 
Mr. GREER. Right shoulder. 
Mr. SPECTER. And describe or indicate how far you turned your head to the right at that time? 
Mr. GREER. Just so that my eyes over, caught the Governor, I could see, I couldn't see the President. I just could see the Governor. I made a quick glance and back again. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was the movement of your head just then approximately the same? 
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. 
Mr. SPECTER. As the time? 
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. 
Mr. SPECTER. You just indicated the turn of your head slightly to the right. 
Mr. GREER. My eyes slightly more than my head. My eyes went more than my head around. I had vision real quick of it. 

 

The Zapruder film clearly shows Greer's head turned almost a full 180 degrees back toward Kennedy and Connally right before and during the 3rd shot. Not a slight "eye" turn around at all.

Mr. SPECTER. Exactly where was Governor Connally when you first caught him out of the corner of your eye? 
Mr. GREER. He was--he seemed to be falling a little bit toward Mrs. Connally, to the left. He started to go over a little bit to the left. 
Mr. SPECTER. And how far did you catch his movement during the time you were able to observe him? 
Mr. GREER. Just a second. He probably hadn't gotten his shoulder, he hadn't fell down or anything. He probably was in a position such as I am now. 
Mr. SPECTER. Did he fall to the rear or to the side or how? 
Mr. GREER. In my opinion, he fell toward Mrs. Connally which would be to his left or to his side. 
Mr. SPECTER. Did he fall then on his left shoulder and arm or in some other way? 
Mr. GREER. He appeared to me to be falling on his left shoulder when I glanced. He had only started to move that way whenever he--when I saw him. 
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to see anything of President Kennedy as you glanced to the rear? 
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't see anything of the President, I didn't look, I wasn't far enough around to see the President. 

 

The Zapruder film shows this Greer statement to be completely false. He was looking directly back at JFK and Connally at just about a 180 degree head turn both before and during the third shot hit. And for much more than a glance.

Mr. SPECTER. When you started that glance, are you able to recollect whether you started to glance before, exactly simultaneously with or after that second shot? 
Mr. GREER. It was almost simultaneously that he had--something had hit, you know, when I had seen him. It seemed like in the same second almost that something had hit, you know, whenever I turned around. I saw him start to fall. 
Mr. SPECTER. Did you step on the accelerator before, simultaneously or after Mr. Kellerman instructed you to accelerate? 
Mr. GREER. It was about simultaneously. 
Mr. SPECTER. So that it was your reaction to accelerate prior to the time-- 

 

Did Greer accelerate prior to the third shot?

No. He slowed after the second shot and even turned around his head again before the third shot. And you don't accelerate while you are turned 180 degrees looking behind you and have even taken your hands off the steering wheel at the same time.

Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. 
Mr. SPECTER. You had gotten that instruction? 
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; it was my reaction that caused me to accelerate. 
Mr. SPECTER. Do you recollect whether you accelerated before or at the same time or after the third shot? 
Mr. GREER. I couldn't really say. Just as soon as I turned my head back from the second shot, right away I accelerated right then.

In Greer's own words when asked this direct question: He says he accelerated after the "second shot"...not the third.

It was a matter of my reflexes to the accelerator. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was it at about that time that you heard the third shot? 
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; just as soon as I turned my head. 

NO, you heard the third shot while you were looking back towards JFK and Connally. The Zapruder film proves that beyond doubt. And you don't hear a shot that close "after" it's already hit it's target.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the speed of the car at the time of the first, second, or third shots? 
Mr. GREER. I would estimate my speed was between 12 and 15 miles per hour. 

The Zapruder film shows Greer slowing the car down almost to a stop after the second shot and while he was turned around towards the back seats and had pulled his hands off the steering wheel.

Mr. SPECTER. At the time all of the shots occurred? 
Mr. GREER. At the time the shots occurred. 
Mr. SPECTER. Now what, if anything, was Mr. Kellerman doing at the time of the first shot? 
Mr. GREER. I couldn't really speak for where he was watching, what part of the street or the buildings or what he was watching at that time. I don't really know. 
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know what Mr. Kellerman was doing at the time of the second shot? 
Mr. GREER. He was sitting there in the front. No, sir; I don't know what his action was then. I was watching the overpass, I wasn't looking his way. 
Mr. SPECTER. When you were watching the overpass at that time, did you observe anything on the overpass? 
Mr. GREER. Not that I can remember now. 
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe that there was no one present on the overpass? 
Mr. GREER. My recollection, there may have been a police officer up there. It is vague to me now everything that I had seen at that time. 
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know what Mr. Kellerman was doing at the time of the third shot? 
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I couldn't say what he was doing. 

Greer reportedly showed great remorse to Ms. Kennedy at Parkland and apologized for not doing something more while her husband was being shot.

Yet, it has been claimed by some that at least one of Greer's children stated in an interview that their father in fact,  never felt guilt or responsibility for what happened that day to JFK.

Greer contradicts the Zapruder film so much and even his side-by-side limo passenger Kellerman ( regards the shot sound differences ) that you wonder what his answers would be after watching the Zapruder film right after he testified.

 

And Greer says he didn't see JFK being shot the second time?  When the Zapruder film shows him looking right at JFK when he is hit in the head with the third shot?

Even Zapruder film watchers clearly see this huge bright pink cloud of blood, brains and bones spraying all up and over everything in the car ( and back toward the motorcycle policemen ) including Greer and his fellow passenger Kellerman?

Fellow passenger SS agent Kellerman described the head mass explosion spray as like "handfuls of sawdust" being hurled up in the air and all around even into the front passenger compartment.

Greer didn't see any of this?  Nothing until he got to Parkland to help unload JFK's body onto the stretcher?

Greer's WC testimony was so scattered and contradicting of the Zapruder film, Kellerman's WC testimony and even himself, you are forced to look at him as a suspicious witness more than an innocent, naive and totally truth telling one. 
 

 

 

10 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Allen Dulles was always an odd, psychopathic bird.

One of the creepiest passages in David Talbot's biography, The Devil's Chessboard, was the story (told by a sister) about young Allen Dulles standing motionless on the shore of a lake in upstate New York while his younger sister was drowning.

Is that drowning sister/no reaction Dulles story true? If so...Dear God!

Kind of reminds me of the story of Barbara Bush and what she put young George through after his sister died.

Like I said earlier..if just 1/3rd of all voting Americans could or would see this documentary...Trump would lose any future elections by a landslide.

My guess is that "maybe" 2 to 3% of American voters will ever watch ( or even know about) this documentary.  As important and truth revealing as the film is, it will never have the impact it should.

Just another great loss due to main stream media and press coverage downplaying combined with typical American citizen apathy.

More Americans worry about the Kardashian's latest doings and Pawn Stars deals than what is happening in our highest levels of federal governance.

Thank you Doug for posting the link to the "Active Measures" documentary.

What is happening in our highest realms of government and leadership today politically, militarily, economically, domestic policy, foreign policy, trade, secret government, corporate power, corruption, influence, power - every aspect - is inextricably linked back to JFK and RFK times and their brutal removal.

Especially regarding the continuous thread of corruption.

We all know that corruption in these highest realms of power and influence was one of the main factors in JFK's and RFK's brutal removal.

Corruption in these domains always carries the highest cost damage and injury risk to every American and our basic Democratic principles, freedoms and rights and this is why this documentary is so important to see.

 

Doug, It's a shame that a major budget/actor film wasn't made about Ms. Clemente.

Our nation young and old needs to know about their true heroes and the sacrifices they make and have made in their endeavors that benefits everyone in our society.

Such as informing and educating the public in identifying what is right and what is wrong in this often confusing world of ours and why it is so hugely important to be informed in this way. 

Unchecked corruption has destroyed many societies throughout history.And corruption at the highest levels for decades has damaged our own way more than most Americans realize or could even imagine.

Doug...have you seen the new documentary "Active Measures?"

I guarantee it will effect you deeply.

 

Using the same exact rule violation reasons cited to ban Alex Jones and other especially aggressive personal character attacking persons in the Trump connected political/social media arena, Twitter could easily justify banning Donald Trump's account for these very same reasons.

Trump does the same things using his Twitter account as did Alex Jones.

He constantly personally insults others ( his enemies ) in extremely derogatory and arguably even abusive degree ways, most of whom are in high public service, legal or press positions.

He posts and promotes conspiracies of his own paranoid creation, most of which center around dividing the public and inciting their angers, fears and insecurities.

He actually clearly slanders many of his perceived enemies using his Twitter account, calling them liars such as the women who assert he had sex with them and crooks referring to Hillary Clinton.

Trump's obsessive and never ending criminal behavior accusatory attacks on Hillary Clinton in particular are so specifically pointed and aggressively personal character defaming they clearly constitute harassment imo.

Trump's Twitter account violations are clearly as real and visible and aggressively egregious and inciting and even harassing as Alex Jones but with 1,000 X the American society impact power due to his massively covered leadership position.

I propose that Twitter ban Donald Trump for the same reasons they banned Alex Jones.

 

Paul, I would love to attend that Talbot/RFK Jr. interview and to meet you personally as I live just 125 miles South.

However, I don't drive on freeways anymore or venture out of my smaller town home area but maybe once a year, and that is usually by train ( which I would take if attending ) or a designated driver which is hard to arrange anymore.

Also that day ( September 12th ) happens to be my 36th wedding anniversary to boot ( it's also the wedding day date of JFK and Jacqueline Bouvier in 1953 ) and my wife would be devastated if we missed out on our traditional KFC splurge celebration dinner.

Can't wait to read your first hand account of this interview when you get back to us here at the forum afterwards.

 

Just viewed the new Trump/Russian corruption documentary "Active Measures" last night.

If just 1/4th of American voting age Americans could see this film, Trump would be crushed in any future election if not pressured to resign well before his current term is up.

I've always suspected Trump was involved with organized crime and for decades, but this film explores and exposes the full scope reality of Russian corruption and Trumps ties to it to a degree beyond anything one can imagine.

If the Trump/Russia corruption information shared in "Active Measures" is just half or even 1/3rd true, we should all be concerned to a rationally sickened, angered and even frightened degree. 

John McCain's presence and comments in the film are made more poignant due his recent passing.

 

 

Obsessively tweeting Donald Trump ( our sitting president!) is just as fringe and inciting as Alex Jones but with 1,000 times the press coverage, air time and impact!

Trump's tweets, rally speeches and actual actions ( on a daily basis ) are often just as divisive , angry, insecurely petty, vindictive and attention seeking, paranoid and delusional and crudely personally insulting and even threatening as Jones's rants but with a force of media coverage that makes the Alex Jones tweet account banning/first amendment rights issue almost meaningless.

I listened to the Alex Jones radio show off and on for a few years ( stopped after he went tabloid nutty ) just as I would occasionally tune in to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Michael (Savage) Weiner, Sean Hannity,  Mark Levine and even G. Gordon Liddy and Bill Bennett's radio shows when they were carried here which didn't last very long.

I felt it was open-mindedly reasonable and responsible to hear the right wing to ultra right wing point of views at least now and then on all our major political, social, economic and moral issues besides the much more progressively liberal ones which I am admittedly inherently inclined to adhere to.

I have always kept in mind not to be totally and blindly fixed and certain on my views to the point of refusing to consider or listen to any other voices all the time no matter how extremely opposite of mine they may be.

That's the democratic principle respecting American way...right?

However, as an avid fan of radio, listening to these right wing voices was almost unavoidable.

For the last 30 years, main stream radio broadcasting in America has been inundated, taken over really,  by this right to ultra right wing political propaganda machine to the amazingly flooded degree that just turning on your radio and slightly turning the station dial you couldn't help finding yourself listening to any number of these dozen or so liberal bashing personalities. Their common liberal boogie man message  ( almost always conveyed in a worked up angry and outraged tone ) is incessant and is broadcast 24/7.  Daily bathing 50 million Americans in a wash of liberal hating and fearing divisiveness.

By disturbing contrast I can't name one liberal national radio political commentary personality who is regularly broadcast.

I sense this is because the radio industry is huge percentage owned by super wealthy right wing individuals who control the political commentary area of this media realm, and who not only block out liberal commentators but also pay their chosen right wing ones massive salaries. Rush Limbaugh makes what...$25 million dollars a year just for his radio talk show gig?

But even so, at times while listening to these right wing propagandists  ( not many ) I did learn some things about major issues that I had not been aware of previously and which were worthy of at least some truth evaluating consideration. 

Several of these right wing propagandists are very bright and knowledgeable.

What confounds me is their often strict, unbending, intolerant and even paranoid "JBS" like ideology and the wealthy class elitist or "Scrooge" one as well.

You'd think such well educated person's would have more open minds.

Interesting how differently shaped in their ideologies similarly well educated persons can be.  I am sure genetics and life experiences play an equal part in determining this part of people's mind sets.

But we can first amendment take outrageous comment making, attention and audience market seeking Alex Jones's as long as they just talk. Their actual inciting factor impact is negligible imo.

Now Trump ? 

His massively broadcast and covered angry outrage incitement talk is another matter. 

 

On 9/5/2018 at 9:52 AM, Joe Bauer said:

 

389 × 150Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More

Look at that relatively large, ugly and starkly obvious inner windshield frame damage and tell us you wouldn't notice it the entire morning of 11,22,1963 if you were the person or persons responsible for securing, preparing and moving the limo and/or driving it through 99% of the Dallas motorcade with it a mere two feet in front of your straight ahead driving gaze.  

Whatever hit that windshield frame did so with such weighted force it lifted, bent and buckled the surrounding steel all around the depressed indentation for inches.

 

On 9/4/2018 at 10:15 AM, Rick McTague said:

 

Regarding the indentation in the upper windshield frame;

This anomaly obviously seemed important enough for the WC to bring it up and ask Kellerman about it.

Of course it was important because the indentation looked as if it could have been made by another bullet other than the ones that struck JFK which would open up serious questions of more more than 3 shots, more than one shooter, different bullet trajectories etc.

Kellerman's answers to questions about when he noticed this frame damage revealed he wasn't sure when this indentation occurred which suggests that it could just as possibly have happened during the volley of shots into the car on 11,22,1963 as any other time.

However, since Kellerman had ridden in the car several times not long before 11,22,1963 and was in extremely close proximity to this windshield frame damage ( right in front of his eyes?)  and he testified he didn't notice this starkly visible bent steel damage and hole until after 11,22,1963, one must reasonably give at least some extra weight to the probability that the indentation wasn't there before 11,22,1963.

And wouldn't it be a basic assumption that a thorough and objective examination investigation of the limo for what it revealed in damage evidence that this windshield inner frame bullet hole appearing damage would be a top priority in this effort?

Whatever caused this indentation into the inner windshield frame came from the same directions as the bullets fired at JFK, and to make an indentation that deep into solid steel and bend the steel all around this must have had great solidity and a tremendous velocity force equivalent to or even more so than that of a powerful arm blow with a ball peen hammer. 

Flying bone alone could not have created that frame indentation.

Was the indentation studied for rim scrapings and residue inside of it?

Too bad the limo was immediately hijacked and torn apart so quickly with very little chance for other forensic experts to study it and report their findings with more thorough and objective analysis and transparency.

43 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

Joe,

In addition to the different sounds of the shots reasonably proving multiple firearms in use that day, I would add the different ammunition types in use also reasonably prove multiple firearms used by multiple shooters.  Full metal jacket rounds that penetrate and keep penetrating (the through the windshield throat shot, the bullet found on the stretcher).  Fragmenting rounds that penetrate then break apart / mushroom (the head shot, the fragments left in JBC's wrist and leg).  

Thanks 

Yes Rick.

The magic bullet fell out almost pristine onto a stretcher after hitting and fracturing bones inside of Connally?

Yet the same type of bullet "explodes" upon hitting JFK's skull bone?

JFK's head shot bullet exploded his head's internal mass out with such force it sprayed brain, blood and bone matter all over the car and it's occupants ( even into Kellerman's and Greer's partition blocked compartment up front ) and even onto the front of the two Dallas PD motorcycle escorts following behind the limo.

And wasn't there even a JFK skull bone fragment found in the street?

JFK's head shot bullet was obviously an exploding on impact missile.

That's such a contradicting impact effect between supposedly similar bullets it's ludicrous to downplay or dismiss this fact and it's importance.

 

On 9/3/2018 at 11:15 AM, Pamela Brown said:

Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, having heard all types of guns fired, most of them, rather, if I recall correctly these were two sharp reports, sir. Again, I am going to refer to it as like a plane going through a sound barrier; bang, bang. 
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you are referring to the flurry? 
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right. 

Mr. SPECTER. Did it sound differently from the first noise you have described as being a firecracker? 
Mr. KELLERMAN.   YES, DEFINITELY. VERY MUCH SO.

In my opinion, this Kellerman answer of the later gun firing sounds being "very much so" different from the first firecracker sounding one is clearly more important in what it implies than not and that it is also absurdly illogical to not recognize and seriously consider this.

This difference in the sounds and intensity of the shots could be solid proof that there was more than one shooter and one gun being fired at JFK in Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963. 

Kellerman's description of the difference using the analogy of the sound a passing jet makes when surpassing the sound barrier versus a firecracker sound may not be the most relatively experienced and understood one but it's clear in it's message that the difference was "significant." 

When I think of a jet flying over me and creating a sonic BOOM I remember this sound as being so powerful you "felt" it's intensity. Almost like a close by thunderclap. Most people instinctively duck down a little from this powerful blast.

Whereas a firecracker sound or even a car backfire sound may startle you also but not near as much as a sonic boom, especially if these firecracker and backfire sounds aren't right next to you.

It's a point and question of intensity.

All three or more shots occurred on Elm Street in a short 4 to 5 second time span and only 75 feet apart ( 190 ft first shot-265 ft last head shot ) and in the same physical landscape tunnel like location where the acoustics ( including echos ) should have been relatively the same.

With no significant difference in shot target and acoustic location ( and alleged origination? ) how does one rationally explain or dismiss Kellerman's firm recollection of the latter shot sounds being distinctly different from the first one - firecracker versus sonic boom?

And many other ear witnesses in Dealey Plaza that day also stated that the gun shot sounds differed, most commonly in their intensity. Firecracker pop ( first shot ) versus BOOM later shots. Echoing Kellerman's WC sworn testimony.

All of which makes it more reasonable to consider different guns were firing at JFK.

 

 

 

On 8/27/2018 at 12:10 PM, Jamey Flanagan said:

I've attached said pic and I was just curious if anyone could tell me where exactly in the Plaza this was taken and at what time. I had heard on a radio program via YouTube that Saint John said the tramp often identified as his father wasn't him but that he has identified this individual as his father. Thanks in advance for any info!

Is this coat ( described as a "Winter coat" ) worn by Cary Grant in the 1963 film "Charade" the same or close to the coat worn by the E.Howard Hunt look-alike in the DP photo?

Or this other 1953 coat?Three In One Coat
Price: $28.50 
Description Button in the collar, put on the belt... it's a winter storm coat. Remove the collar, it's a dressy coat. Zip-out the pile liner, you're ready for spring or fall. Collar-insert of alpaca pile on cotton back. Coat is water-repellent cotton twill, lined with printed rayon. Choose from tan or black.