Rick McTague

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Its NSAM 273.  Unlike others, I don't see that as malignant, I just see that as another draft.

And BTW, in relation to that, I now do not see 273 as a reversal of JFK on Vietnam.  I see that as a material alteration.

Today, I agree with Fletcher Prouty, that it was NSAM 288 that was the reversal of JFK. Up until then, it was done in increments.  It was 288 that was an entire rearrangement.

James,

What about the date of the draft (11-21-63), referencing a discussion and approval of the content of 273 with "the President" who could not have been JFK they were referencing?

"The first sentence is indeed quite revelatory of its dubious nature: “The President has reviewed the discussions of South Vietnam which occurred in Honolulu, and has discussed the matter further with Ambassador Lodge...."

"That is false. The majority of those who attended the Honolulu Conference arrived on the 19th and the remainder arrived in the early morning of the 20th. The conference itself took place on the 20th and part of the 21st. The DRAFT was written on the evening of the 21st. JFK and Jackie left Washington aboard Air Force One for their 2-day, 5-city “whirlwind” Texas trip on the 21st. So, the conference took place all day on the 20th and part of the 21st in Hawaii without the President in attendance. Since he and the First Lady were en route to Texas from Washington on the 21st, it is therefore quite clear that the President could not have reviewed the discussions conducted in Honolulu in depth, nor could he have spoken with Ambassador Lodge in a meaningful way about the conference before the DRAFT of NSAM 273 was written. After all, the attendees were still in Hawaii and JFK was still in Texas on a very tight schedule. The next day he was dead (on the 22nd). So, to which President does this document refer in its first sentence?

The official record can aid us in answering this question. The Gravel Edition of the Pentagon Papers states, referring to the Honolulu Conference: “But the meeting ended inconclusively. After [Ambassador] Lodge had conferred with the president a few days later in Washington, the White House tried to pull together some conclusions and offer some guidance for our continuing and now deeper involvement in Vietnam”. [emphasis added]

As shown above, it could not have been the sitting president, JFK, as he was in Texas at the time. The record confirms that the first and only President to ever review the discussions conducted at the Honolulu Conference and further discuss them with Ambassador Lodge in Washington was LBJ. How do we know with certainty? JFK never survived Dallas. He never returned to Washington to meet with Lodge or anyone else. He returned to Washington in a casket. The only person to whom this DRAFT document could therefore refer by implication, is LBJ." 

Thanks in advance.

James,

I appreciate your research and your involvement here at EF that we all benefit from (sorry for ending on a preposition ..!).

What is your opinion of the Johnson NSAM draft reversing JFK's NSAM (is it #363? that ordered the drawdown of troops from Vietnam) - that was dated 11/21/1963?  Why would that be dated the day before the assassination?  I'm just curious if you've researched this - thanks.

Draft of NSAM 273

13 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

The dims are not the same now as they were then. The entrance/exit has moved more inwards.

I wasn't aware of modifications to the TSBD entrance - when did that happen, and what did they change specifically?

Thanks

Another view from behind the picket fence, more towards the west end nearer the triple overpass.  A shot from here would have entered his right temple then blown out the left rear of his head which contradicts what the doctors at Parkland and other Dallas witnesses (SS Agent Hill, etc.) saw: the left rear blowout.

I've finally found out how to embed images and wanted to post this picture I took January 2018 from a position about 20' from the end of the walkway over the triple overpass near the south knoll that lines up with the path for a front shot to both the throat and right temple > right rear of JFK's head.  In the center lane, the second maroon car (SUV) is just about over the first "X" marking the first shot to hit, and the first maroon car is over the 2nd "X" where the head shot occurred.

Here is a picture of the doorway, taken January 2018.  Like everything around Dealey Plaza, it is much smaller in person than you might think just looking at pictures and film.

Hope this helps add some perspective.

33 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Have a look at what Dan Rather saw in the Zapruder film. What he says is certainly not what we see in the extant film.

 

 

 

Excellent point, Ray.  Unlike the others who described what they saw in the "other" Z film, Rather certainly had a personal/corporate reason to not tell the truth.  This event - covering the assassination - launched his career in the MSM.  The proof of his obedient capacity to lie to the public in this role was provided when he lied about GWB's National Guard record.  The others had nothing to gain by lying about what they saw which leads me to believe they were being truthful in their accounts; none of them describe JFK's head being violently thrust forward.  Trusting the MSM is to trust the machine behind it.

9 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Not lying. Just wrong.  Clearly wrong. All part of the vast conspiracy du jour way of thinking. An example - when David Josephs says that there had to be two Oswalds because, well, there's one photo of LHO with non-sloping shoulders and there's another photo that shows him with sloping shoulders, well, there just HAD TO BE two Oswalds, Josephs isn't lying.  He's just wrong.

Another example - when Chris D says that the film is fake because Zapruder hurried up and turned on the 48 FPS switch on his camera when the car went by, and then when the secret agent took the 48 FPS film and excised 67% of those frames, he's not lying.  He's just wrong.

A third example is when Jim Hargraves promotes the same Oswald clone story, that secret agents found an Oswald look alike youth 10 years before the assassination.  This youth, from Hungary, looked exactly like the Dallas Oswald and even this Hungarian boy's Mom looked exactly like the Dallas Oswald's Mom - except she was frumpy and never smiled. And the secret agents let this clone and his Mom live almost in the Dallas Oswald's shadows. Jim, Sandy, Dave et al are not lying - they're just wrong.

A fourth example is when Chris D says a shot came over spectators' head from over in the pavillion area of Dealey Plaza and hit JFK. He's not lying.  He's just wrong.  And amazingly David Josephs agrees with me on this and also said Chris D is wrong. But of course David Josephs never EVER posts goofy animated GIFs for these guys.  He only posts them for me and others who he can't stand when we call him out on his silliness and multitude of silly theories.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

 

I think I do, David.  Those who disagree with the LN theory are all wrong.  Those who present evidence disproving it are all wrong.  Yes, I understand that is what you are saying.

Do you understand that you are saying that the government would never lie to the American people, they only tell the truth, they would never cover up the truth, they would never stoop to alter evidence and witness testimony, they would never blame the entire affair on one guy then cover up for it all these years?

33 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

That's just it Rick - there IS no other film.

It's clearly explained above in my previous post.  Of course, if you want to believe that there is a second, third, or however many "other" films out there, that's your right. But where is this film? Where is it? Think about it! What could it possibly show other than the 26 sec shooting sequence?  This, too, I've asked over and over again but no one - NO ONE - has ever given a logical or plausible answer here.

If you or anyone here cannot even begin to state with any plausibility WHAT this other film showed, then it's a no-brainer. It doesn't exist.

So William Reymond and Rich Dellarosa were lying?  They were describing in detail something they saw that doesn't exist?

And Dino Brugioni didn't create briefing boards showing events that are very different from the extant Z film?  He was lying about the hours he and his associates spent with a version of the film, working in detail for several hours to create a separate set of briefing boards overnight Saturday 2-23 / Sunday 2-24?

They describe in detail "what it could possibly show other than the 26 sec shooting sequence".  But they are all lying?

5 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Nowhere in the existing film does he "stand up" and that's why witness statements are one of the weakest parts of any investigation.  Watch some true detective shows on YTV where seasoned investigators say the exact same thing.

What you're trying to say here is because a witness saw something then changed his/her mind, it proves that the other evidence like the film has been altered. Nothing could be further from the truth. But this is pretty much how other "researchers" here treat the available evidence which leads to all kinds of crazy and erroneous conclusions.

Hey bud.  Being a "Super Member" doesn't qualify you to state what I'm trying to say.  My comments were directly related to the observances of the other Z film as noted, not the "existing film" with all of its obvious edits.  And what I DID say was that the prevailing attitudes of the times - that the government would never ever lie to the American people - caused a reliable, reasonable, lucid witness to question what he saw with his own two eyes after seeing the extant Z film.

Speaking of "crazy and erroneous conclusions" - this is a perfect encapsulation of every aspect of the LN theory.

David, 

Thanks - I try to reply only where I feel I can contribute something to the conversation; I've been a "lurker" for several months now....

I recall growing up in the 60's-70's that the American public were fed exactly what Cronkite, Hunter, Brinkley, and later Rather, Brokaw, Jennings and their managing editors at ABC/CBS/NBC wanted us to hear.  Can you say Mockingbird?  The advent of cable and now the "alternative media" provide for open discussion of facts rather than spin.

"Your mouthpiece squawks as he spreads your lies, but you can't pull strings if your hands are tied." - John Lennon, Steel and Glass

The coverup was made possible by this; I would dare say that a majority of LN's and those who actively work the coverup long for the day when government controlled the message.  Even LBJ implied as much regarding the need for LHO to be the sole gunman with the sole gun firing the sole bullets at JFK and Tippet.  If the WC was allowed to do a proper investigation, and the truth became known, it would have caused chaos.  Since the government was able to control the message and the evidence, then they could control the outcome of the WC and create this LN fantasy, which the majority of Americans at the time would swallow. With the release of records over the years, we can now see the extent of the coverup and how far our government went to deceive the trust of her people.  That, to me, is the second most heinous aspect of this - trust betrayed.  The first is, of course, the coup that took place 11-22-63.

15 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Exactly Rick McTague! I think in this instance with all of the evidence tampering go back and really pay attention to the closest witnesses at the time. Especially when there are corroborating witnesses. Only in the past decade or so has it been a popular belief that the current Z film isn't authentic. Some still stick to their guns, especially when they have staked their careers on theories that revolve around the Z film timeline of events. But I would say that these days the majority of serious researchers know that it has been altered. How many witnesses in the past have been dismissed entirely because what they said and lo and behold the film showed completely different events. In the words of Yoda "You must unlearn what you have learned" 😀 We need to go back to the basics. To the beginning. Pour over first day testimony that we can consider truths knowing that the alterations exist. 

Another aspect of this view from Bill Newman is the perception at the time that "the government wouldn't lie to the American people".  So - he changed what he saw with his own eyes to match what he was shown in the extant Z film.  I tend to believe first hand witnesses in Dealy Plaza and Parkland over anything that was taken, hidden, owned by the government or her fronts (i.e. Life Magazine). Thinking people cannot discount Horne's uncovering what Dino B witnessed for HOURS at NPIC the weekend after the assassination.  It has obviously been altered to more closely fit the LN theory.

On 2/13/2018 at 3:09 PM, David Josephs said:

Jamey...  a small handful of researchers describe an account of seeing a "zapruder-type" film which was shown to them - each for different reasons.
I post a direct quote/post from one of those who did.... and I believe youtube has content from 1 or more of the others...

The descriptions here relate very well to an "unaltered" version of the Z-film given the specific items seen which are not on the extant version.

You'll have to excuse Mr. Walton and his penchant for posting pure opinion when asked for facts... and for arguing the opposite of something, anything, despite not fully grasping or even referring to the lengthy analysis done to date....   the late Rich Dellarosa was one...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRhcQI4tFTI

You'll find a batch of good videos to watch related to this other film and the general knowledge of what occurred.
Search this forum and you will find some amazing advances in our understanding of what the FBI did to FUBAR the survey and description of the situation...

The Evidence will only show you what occurred within the Conspiracy.... what actually happened - as you say - is a 1000 piece puzzle of which we only have 750 pieces, many of which are not even from this puzzle....  make seeing a picture very difficult.

Something worth knowing and many forget, is that Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, Inc, where Oswald worked a short time, was a highly competent photographic facility...  And you'd never believe how close it was to FBI HQ on ERVAY & MAIN.

Although most of its contracts were with commercial businesses and advertising agencies, it also had contracts with the military.  It handled super-secret projects for the Navy Bureau Materiel and the Army Mapping Service. [14] It set the type that would be used to label the landmarks of strategic maps of foreign countries, including coastlines, sea bottoms, and bds. According to George Carter, a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald, JCS was the one that did the maps of Cuba and Oswald was one of the employees that worked on them. This is confirmed by the timecards, which show that he had in fact participated in the work on these secret projects. On October 16, four days after he was hired, he did a camera job for the Army Mapping Service (AMS). This would have been at the very height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the timecards can be trusted on this point, Oswald did fifteen more camera jobs for A M S throughout his employment at the company.

In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly
appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center
(driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection
is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder
pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised
up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck.

There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo
remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it. The head shot most obviously came from the right front. A
detail that is missing from the motion of JFK in the extant film has to do with the difference between: "back and to the left" --and--"up, then fall to the left".
My recollection is that he was "lifted up" from his seat to a discernible degree before falling to his left. This "body motion" appeared to be much slower than the jerky,
abrupt, "snap" seen in the extant film.

Rich had a few items that I didn't recall and vice versa. For instance, unlike what Rich reported, I don't recall a shot from behind that caused JFK's head to move forward
initially just before the fatal head shot from the front. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just may not have registered that for whatever reason. I also recall that
several Secret Service Agents climbed out of the Queen Mary with (what appeared to be) automatic weapons drawn apparently looking to return fire. They appeared to
be very disoriented. Then they climbed back in and sped off. There was a considerable gap between the time the X-100 sped off and the Queen Mary sped off. Rich
did not recall the agents climbing out of the limo.

FWIW, The "up, then fall to the left" is how Bill Newman described the head shot; he said that JFK "stood up".  Later, after viewing the extant Z film, he recanted and said he must have been mistaken.

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uLHG9QTJ7U8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This recent discussion with Alan Dale and Stuart Wexler covers this topic and points to an area of the south knoll for the location of a shooter (for the throat shot and fatal head shot).  I would place the shooter on the bridge, nearer the south knoll.  Cover, a built-in rest for the rifle with the concrete rail, and easy / fast egress into the parking lot behind the south knoll.

46 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

X = shooters position

The two trees in which the station wagon is between = approx 35ft span. 

The station wagon rear is approx 18ft from the shooters location.

The truck cab is approx 60ft from the shooters location.

Malcolm Summers was the diving man.

I referred to him a few posts back.

Fine tuning distances.

 

Chris,

Wouldn't a shot from there also put Jackie in danger of being hit?  The round would have hit JFK in the right temple then proceed in basically the same direction, blowing out the left side of his head and potentially continuing to hit Jackie.  This isn't what was seen at Parkland, can you help me understand how a shot from this position would have caused a blowout in the right rear of JFK's head?

Thanks

2 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

Rick, I am in no way a expert in any of the fields required to make judgements in this case, but I have read extensively since around 1968 (not that I retain it all).  You might want to research a tangential strike to the right temple if the bullet were fired further down the fence line near the railroad bridge.  With the position of the car, JFK's head angle/tilt and an assassin at this location, I believe it quite possible this bullet path would or could cause the blow out at the right rear of the head and cause the "back and to the left" motion.  Bullets do not always go in a straight line after striking something as solid as a human skull.  I believe there would be a clear line past the middle pillar of the limo and nothing else in the way of the bullet if fired from this location.  It also would have the necessary height to cause a slightly downward angle to the lower back of the head considering the presidents head position.  I think this has been posited by others here as well as on the old JFK Lancer forum.  Just food for thought.

Good points Richard.  Add to this the fact that it was a frangible round that hit JFK in the head - supposedly fired after a full metal jacket round such as CE399 that was supposedly used in the MC by LHO - then the round would not stay intact for a straight / predictable path through the head.  I spent several minutes along all positions of the fence, on the bridge, at Zapruder's location and further down the fence makes more sense than midway down as the 2nd picture shows.  I was mostly wanting to provide current day perspective to the trajectory cone in the earlier post by Sherry Gutierrez.  It would be great if she was still around and could comment on the current pictures.
According to the WC, LHO was so good that he planned to use 3 rounds in a rifle whose (missing) clip holds 8.  And of those 3 rounds, he loaded them in such a way that the FMJ rounds would be shots #1 and 2 (the Tague miss and the magically pristine single bullet of CE399) and the frangible round planned for the head shot #3.  When I go to the range, the only time I am partially loading a magazine is if I'm down to less than what it can hold.  Otherwise, it's fully loaded with the same type of ammo, from the same box / manufacturer.

Thanks

15 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Nice photo. I’ve read research supporting your post. How does this explain the movement of JFK’s body and head back and left?

Paul,

Thanks.  I was pretty focused on the trajectory and the path of the bullet.  I was also thinking about the back and to the left movement and it's tough to reconcile them.  I'm attaching a second pic from the same day, halfway down the longest portion of the picket fence on the north knoll.  It would sure solve the back and to the left motion but then (like I mentioned), the blowout would have been in the left rear of his head.

Maybe that back brace and the way he was slumped down with his head already leaning left in can account for the leftward motion?  Of course, both locations would make the head go backwards.

This picture was taken by me in January 2018, standing on the bridge over the triple overpass, about 20' from the south knoll. The "X" on the street representing the fatal head shot is under the first maroon car in the center lane.  It is also near one of a few 6' tall x 2' wide decorative columns of the bridge where a person could easily stand and rest a rifle on the ledge.  It's toward the left end of the "trajectory cone" shown above, where Main and Commerce come together, directly above where James Tague was standing between Main and Commerce at the overpass; if I was there that day I could have looked straight down and seen the top of his head.

It is the only location where a bullet could enter above JFK's right eye in the hairline towards the temple, and then exit from the right rear of the head as so many witnesses saw.  A shot from the north knoll would have exited the left rear of the head.

I'm curious just how LHO could have used his pistol to shoot Officer Tippet since the pistol wouldn't fire in the theater - it had a defective firing pin.

Bill Simpich and Larry Hancock's excellent and detailed presentation on Harvey, Angleton and Morales' background and involvement in Staff D, ZR/RIFLE and many other topics. Very informative - especially the part with Harvey's personal notes.  Published on 12/21/2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-h0OBHM3P8

On 12/23/2017 at 11:21 AM, Joe Bauer said:

 

5:14

What this CIA Widow Says About JFK, Jackie, RFK, and the Mafia Will Amaze You

 

Jefferson Morley

•

288K views3 years ago

 

EXCLUSIVE FROM JFK FACTS (jkfkacts.org) William K. Harvey was one of the big men of CIA in it earliest days. A former FBI agent,

at 4:51; speaking of Harvey's relationship with Roselli:  "... and he had been recruited against Kennedy .... er ... Castro."

Methinks the truth slipped out there at the end.

18 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I decided to plot the trajectory of the supposed bullet hole in the windshield in Altgens 6. I would think if it is not a bullet hole the trajectory would likely point to some implausible location for a sniper. it might point up in the air or into the ground, or somewhere on the lawn that was photographed and shows no shooter. I  heard it had been calculated to originate from the commerce St underpass but I wanted to use multiple photographs of JFK to see just how accurately it can be plotted. plotting the vertical and horizontal angles I found it leads to the top of the hill in the South corner of the plaza next to the parking lot and about 20 ft East of the railroad tracks. There are two interesting things about that location. First it allows for an almost level shot if the shooter is crouched or prone at the top of that hill. Secondly the shot occurred at the point when  the limo came the closest to pointing directly at the sniper location, about 16 degrees from driving straight at the sniper. 
  When first plotting it out I included the 4 degree slope of the plaza. using 4 degrees the shot could have come from the Commerce tunnel. But then I measured the angle of the limo at the location of the throat shot and although it does not look like a 46 degree angle ,it turned out the limo was moving across the 4 degree slope at a 46 degree angle. Just like a skier that goes straight down a hill is at a steeper angle than someone going across the slope, the limos angle was only 2 degrees from front to back. the other 2 degrees would manifest as the limo leaning 2 degrees from side to side but the grade of the road corrects that. (if the limo was on Main street and sideways in the road, it would have a 4 degree lean side to side while from from to back to front it would have zero angle. So applying a 2 degree lean from front to back moves the shooter location to the top of the hill. The location of JFK's throat was hard to pin down so I gave it a 5 inch box in which it could be positioned. that allows for 4 degrees of variance. Each degree translates to about one and a quarter inches per degree at JFK's neck and 14 feet at the sniper location. The Commerce tunnel is at the edge of that box but the top of the hill seems like a better location as it has a quick exit through the parking lot behind it, a level shot, and minimal tracking of the target as it is movings towards the sniper at the moment of the neck shot. 
 But there is one thing about the windshield theory that  is a problem. it is hard to find a position for Connelly and JfK where the bullet does not pass through Connelly's head. if the shot did happen through the windshield it would have comes very close to JC's head. He never said he felt a round pass by is head which is strange. 
 There is always debate about JC's reactions and whether it indicates he was struck by the same bullet as JFK. But if he reacted to a shot passing right by his head, how could we separate that reaction from his being hit by a round. Besides JC's lapel flipping up and down there is no movement that could not be attributed to the bullet passing by his head.

Each time I go to DP, I try to figure out the angle you describe here, the nearly flat trajectory of a bullet going through the windshield and hitting JFK in the throat.  I think your analysis makes the most sense; there is no angle that works for the throat shot from the grassy knoll / picket fence area.  It seems to me that the shooter had to be lower to the ground than elevated on the overpass.  

For what it's worth, I believe this is the second shot that kit JFK - he was hit in the back and said "My God, I've been hit!".  There would have been no way to say anything after he was shot in the throat.  This is also more evidence against the SBT.  If he was hit in the back (or "neck" as Gerald Ford changed it to in the WCR), and that same bullet exited through his throat, how could he say anything?

18 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Chris,

There have been videos on youtube about this-not naming the theorists that presented it. . . you know who it is...- that the car did go to far and almost stopped or did stop.  Not saying this is my opinion, but, there are theories about this.

Interestingly, it just occurred to me, if it did stop or almost stop, why not shoot him when he is almost stopped right in front of you?

Moreover, if they new the route in advance, why was a practice run not done so that they would have noticed the danger of the hard turn and warned Greer in advance?  Probably just a mistake and coincidence.

Regardless, lets assume they stopped or almost stopped right in front of the depository taking the turn to avoid the side street (I have been there many times and can understand how someone could get confused with this) was that part of a plan or was it a coincidental mistake by the driver Greer?

 

And isn't it convenient that the Zapruder film was edited to remove this precise sequence?

16 hours ago, David Andrews said:

 

It's worth noting that the brave and the shocked didn't just run up the north railroad embankment, but up the north steps and behind the pergola as well.  You can see it between 3:10 and 4:19 in this film melange below:

No conclusive view of anyone in the west pavilion in the Nix film clip herein, however.

Does any film besides Wiegman contain moving images of the Hester couple's reaction to the shooting?  See Bernice Moore's post about the pergola here:

There's a lot of good stuff in this old thread...

I've always wondered about the woman and man calmly strolling east on Elm at 4:30 in that video - when shots had been fired, everyone else was running frantically.  Instead of behaving like everyone else, these two calmly walk away in the opposite direction.  It's abnormal, like the Dark Complected Man and Umbrella man just sitting down on the curb, taking a load off.  Have they ever been identified?