John Cotter

On 4/5/2024 at 3:25 PM, Joel D. Gruhn said:

That's right. O'Donnell believed shots, or at least audible gunshot sounds, had been fired from the GK. 

Beyond dispute, many earwitnesses placed audible gunshots as coming from the GK.

In addition, many witnesses (including law enforcement officers and veterans) smelled gunsmoke in DP, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA. 

Others placed gunshots as coming from the TSBD.

Of course, you can have audible gunshots coming from both locations, thus creating confusion.  There may have been other gunshots, from weapons using silencers. 

-----------

I have read that the primary concern of a sniper is exfiltration after firing.  The GK is very exposed to DP.

Wouldn't an experienced planner/sniper want to have an accomplice plant a few squibs on the GN to make smoke and sound, to distract the crowd? There is evidence that the CIA used squibs in Saigon to redirect attention during Buddhist protests.

Wouldn't an experienced planner/sniper want to use the advantages of height and concealment offered by the buildings behind the limousine?  We do have evidence of James Tague's injury and testimony.

What evidence do we have for assuming that the sounds and smells from the GN came from a firearm?

Joel G

 

 

Presumably you accept that it doesn't matter whether the grassy knoll activity was related to one or more shots being fired from there or a diversion. Either way, it's proof of a conspiracy.

On 2/13/2024 at 2:39 AM, Matt Allison said:

 I wonder how much Putin pays Greenwald to be a fake journalist fascist stooge lol

Seeing as the Pope has suggested that Ukraine should sue for peace and that the Russian invasion was not unprovoked, do you also wonder how much Putin pays the Pope to be a fascist stooge?

On 1/29/2024 at 12:00 PM, Paul Rigby said:

 

That's so true. How did they expect people not to get sick of the monotonous non-stop Trump bashing?

Deleted.

2 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

But no more keen than you, for whom it is an apparently obligatory feature of just about every contribution to this forum that you make. An obvious question arises: why do you constantly share a legacy media strawman?

It’s particularly egregious in this instance as you’re replying to someone who had nothing whatever to say on the matter in the course of his posts in this thread. You, yet again, introduced it. Might not your putative “reasonable, intelligent member of the public who has no particular interest in, knowledge of, or opinion about the assassination,” considering your obsession, reasonably conclude that you are either disturbed, or worse, that your real function is to attempt to police a debate in the service of the perpetrators?

A second question occurs: Why on earth are you worried about the opinion of the legacy media? After all, it lied about the case long before Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the kisser, or Capricorn One hit cinemas. What exactly is the basis for your belief that if only other researchers fell into line with your strictures the legacy media would reverse its position on the assassination? The proposition is so full-moon unhinged that it brings nothing but discredit upon researchers of every stripe, gender, and headwear. Have a word with yourself - and bill for the full hour.

Well said.

Another reason why the EU and its members should have thought twice before slavishly giving their unconditional support to the US's proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

Amen to all of that.

On 11/28/2023 at 7:10 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Irrelevant to the point Leslie. You’re blowing a blizzard of snow.

The issue is should hypothetical possible embarrassment to allies today justify refusal to release certain records related to the JFK assassination from sixty years ago. And the answer must be no. 

Let the truth come out. Let there be sunlight. If uncomfortable, let there be a national soul-searching and reckoning. But enough of the apologia for continued holding of secrets surrounding that assassination by decision of gatekeepers themselves not above suspicion of institutional interests in the matter.

Amen to that.

12 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Hypothetically, if the remaining records pertain to foreign governments that were and still are our strongest international allies, would Trump and Biden be justified in refusing to release the final tranche.

If RFK2 only views the assassination in Dallas through the constricted lens of THE CIA, THE US Military, THE US Government and disgruntled Cubans, I can see why he might fail to recognize there could be another persistent threat to national security: the collapse of critical international strategic and diplomatic alliances.
 

What if the files expose, for instance, that elements inside the governments of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, France, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Chile, Egypt, Israel and/or South Africa, or Ukraine and NATO, were complicit in their silence or worse.
 

Can we in fact be certain “our friends allied against ‘communism’” are not still withholding records of what they knew of the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. (I’m thinking in particular of the Vatican, SDECE / DST, and INTERPOL.) What might have been the contemporary repercussions of those revelations during the chaos of the Trump administration. Could Biden risk the fragile global balance while cleaning up after Trump.
 

Perhaps Robert Jr.’s myopia is reason for concern. Who is he listening to.

 

You're grasping at straws in trying to defend the indefensible.

60 years today, and the murderous regime is still in situ and unaccountable.

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

  Reducing our efforts to train, equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. 

You don't seem to have read this extract carefully enough, Michael.

What JFK is saying here is that there will be no reduction of US "efforts to train, equip, and assist" the South Vietnamese military.

This is clearly not the same as saying there will be no reduction of US combat forces in Vietnam.

The consternation expressed by some ROKCers over the damage allegedly caused to the JFKA “research community” by Alan Ford’s heretical exposition is laughable.

If the MSM were bothered to search for material which they could use to discredit the aforementioned community, they need look no further than the mudslinging and personal attacks constantly emanating from ROKC, which unfortunately has largely overshadowed the constructive contribution of ROKC to the JFKA debate.

The fact that the JFKA research community appears more riven by infighting than Monty Python’s People’s Front of Judea is due in no small measure to ROKC’s flawed zero-sum approach in JFKA research matters.

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Well, this thread has taken a (to me) most unexpected turn! And it all started with my misunderstanding a suggestion from Mr. Price. Ain't that a thing...........

Despite the desperate well-poisoning (for the want of a rational alternative) in your respect by self-appointed archons of the JFKA cannibalistic “research community”, I can’t help being impressed by the clarity of your reasoning combined with your inimitable (by the aforementioned community’s standards at least) ability to illustrate your reasoning with very effective pictorial representations.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Show me which post in our (mine and your) conversation is about the two-headed Lovelady. You can't because it's not there. <roll-eyes>

 

Ipse dixit.

20 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Meanwhile over at ROKC, I see that Greg Parker is fulminating like mad against Alan Ford and me over the sanctity of how what even his own crowd have acknowledged is a “fuzzy picture” should be interpreted.

He doesn’t seem to understand the logic of the post by me which he quoted.

Greg Parker has replied to this at ROKC.

Contrary to what he says, I know what he means by “more than a fuzzy picture” and I agree with it. The problem is that while ROKCers say they’re not 100% certain Prayer Man is Oswald, some of them behave as if they are, as evidenced by the vehemence and illogicality with which they attack any hypothesis, such as Alan Ford’s, that a fuzzy figure in the TSBD doorway other than Prayer Man might be Oswald.

GP says I’ll be celebrating if he fails in his mission to have the JFKA case reopened. This is a quite perverse claim to make for someone who talks a lot about the importance of evidence, since I never suggested anything of the kind.

I wouldn’t have emailed the FBI repeatedly this year about how the testimony of railroad workers recorded by Mark Lane constituted irrefutable proof of conspiracy if I didn’t want the case reopened. GP seems to have not noticed my mentioning this in this forum.

Everything isn’t a zero-sum game.

27 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Your posts would be funny if not being damaging to the standing of this forum. You are now on your own with this thread; you would not hear to any arguments to the contrary of your views anyway. 

This thread and the one on Carl Jones's arm are the two biggest lows of Educational Forum.

 

There are other people here besides you, Andrej.

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

'Prayer Man is more than a fuzzy picture, ok? Also, if you refuse to bow down to our fuzzy picture we will denounce you as an infidel'

The Kamp frame episode, and the reality-denying extended tantrum we're seeing now, remind me of the anguish Mr. Brian Doyle went through after he himself posted a picture of Mrs. Sarah Stanton disproving his own theory that she was Prayer Man. Poor man still hasn't recovered...........

Meanwhile I see that Alex Wilson has weighed in with his trademark appeal to ridicule “logic” for the amusement of the peanut gallery.

It’s a pity he spoils the fun by the manner in which he mangles some people’s names, which is really beyond the pale of decency.

Meanwhile over at ROKC, I see that Greg Parker is fulminating like mad against Alan Ford and me over the sanctity of how what even his own crowd have acknowledged is a “fuzzy picture” should be interpreted.

He doesn’t seem to understand the logic of the post by me which he quoted.

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

@John Cotter

Here is our entire conversation. Neither of us even mentioned the two-headed Lovelady issue. But I did show in my first post to you that I was talking about the collar-line issue.

So, yes, you did change the subject. You were apparently unaware that you did. And so was I... till you finally mentioned it in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you're strawmanning my argument, since you've left out the Alan Ford post about the two-headed Lovelady which you were purportedly rebutting.

Please desist from cluttering the thread with irrelevant nonsense.

6 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I explain it by pointing out, yet again, that Alan Ford is using a poor quality image to draw absurd conclusions about what's happening therein. As Alex Wilson eloquently summarizes on ROKC, "it's the clumsy, counterproductive, sometimes downright amateurish and embarrassing efforts, coupled with the extravagant claims" to which serious researchers object.

Another Jonathan Cohen disruptive special. Instead of posting a substantive argument, he quotes a non-substantive argument by someone else.

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

We were talking about Prayer Man's collar. Why are you now changing the subject to the double-headed Lovelady?

 

I wasn't changing the subject, Sandy. The two posts I was referring to, Alan's and yours, relate to the double-headed Lovelady.

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Just to be clear, my position is not dogmatic.

 

If that's the case, why have you strawmanned Alan Ford's latest painstaking elaboration of the double-head effect on Billy Lovelady?

23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

They are fuzzy, but I can make out a collar-line.

 

Yes, but the fundamental problem remains: adopting a dogmatic stance one way or another on the basis of just a fuzzy picture is untenable.

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't object to other fuzzy pictures. What I object to is a copy of the video that shows a collar-line that is rounded and extends around the back of the neck. I object to it because it s inconsistent with the extant copies of Darnell. In contrast, the extant copies are consistent with V-shaped opening in the front.

 

Since you accept that they're all fuzzy pictures, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to be so adamant about what any of them appears to represent in detail.

51 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Don't worry, Mr. Cotter, this is far from my first rodeo with the smug low-information 'nothing-to-see-here' type. As his posts on this thread show, Mr. Cohen is an empty vessel.

(Hello, by the way!)

Howdy, Mr Ford. I’m intrigued by your exposition.

I haven’t been so intrigued by anything here since the original Prayer Man thread led by Sean Murphy 10 years ago. I don’t see your line of argument as threatening to the Prayer Man thesis as others do, since the main thrust of that thesis is that Oswald was out in the TSBD doorway (as subsequently effectively proved by the Hosty note discovered by Bart Kamp in Malcolm Blunt’s papers) rather than up on the sixth or second floor.

Whether Oswald was actually Prayer Man or another “fuzzy” figure in the TSBD doorway is of secondary importance. I don’t understand why people are so hostile to the idea that Oswald could be a fuzzy figure other than the one they insist he is. Such hostility seems to contradict the “more than a fuzzy picture” Prayer Man thesis, as above explained.

Anyway, keep her lit. I’m looking forward to more of your instalments.