Shots from inside the presidential limo

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, please correct me if I am wrong on what follows.

In order for the (ridiculous) Greer shot Kennedy" premise to be true, these points must be true:

(1) At least two if not three of the motion pictures taken in DP had to have been altered.

Yes: but worth reminding ourselves of the duration of those films. They're not exactly of epic length.

Nix himself claimed his film had been tampered with; Zapruder was manifestly confused before the Presidential Commission when confronted by what purported to be "his" film. His descriptions of his own film do not match the film we have today. Even more bizarrely, Moorman reportedly told the FBI she hadn't taken any film of the assassination. And so on and so forth.

(2) Since none of the limousine occupants reported seeing Greer shoot Kennedy or hearing a shot from within the car...

Do we know this for sure? How do we know what was said in private by the limousine occupants? Do we have a full picture of what private pressures to conform were exerted? I must put it to you that we have scant knowledge of these matters.

...then it follows that Kellerman must also have been part of the conspiracy since he would have had to see and hear it...

A fair conclusion; and, yes, I believe he was. There can be no doubt, surely, that Kellerman was part of the cover-up?

...and that Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy who at least most probably would have seen or heard the shot must have kept their mouths shut for a reason you cannot suggest.

Oh, but I can suggest - two of the profoundest reasons of all - politics and fear.

In so doing, they knew they were letting the man who shot their husband escape criminal prosecution.

Yes; and saving their country from potential tumult.

Moreover, you must admit, I think, that none of the witnesses (one exception I think) said he or she saw a gun in the limousine.

Fair point: I make no bones about it, I would like more. But again, this is hardly dispositive since a) none of the alternatives are significantly better; and we have abundant proof of widespread tampering with statements. How many eyewitnesses were asked the relevant straight questions?

You must also admit you cannot really suggest a cogent reason why Greer would kill the man he was sworn to protect.

I admit nothing of the sort: I have. What you're really saying is that you don't agree. That's a different matter all together.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

Unfortunately, for once I must agree with Gratz.

No witness and no limo occupant was aware of such an activity. A gun FIRED IN THE CAR

WOULD MAKE A DEAFENING SOUND.

And what, Jack, are these witnesses saying?

(Paul Rigby @ Aug 26 2007, 09:15 AM)

1.Bobby Hargis (Police motorcycle outrider, left rear of limousine):

Mr. Stern: Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the shots?

Hargis: "Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me," 6WCH294.

2. Austin Miller (railroad worker, on triple overpass):

Mr. Belin: "Where did the shots sound like they came from?"

Miller: "Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car," 6WCH225.

3. Charles Brehm (carpet salesman, south curb of Elm St.): "in front of or beside" the President. Source: Dallas Times Herald, November 22, 1963, cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.

4. Officer E. L. Boone (policeman, corner of Main and Houston Streets):" I heard three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President's car was," 19WCH508.

5. Hugh Betzner, Jr. told the Dallas County Sheriffs Office that he "saw what looked like a fire-cracker going off in the President's car and recall seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in or somewhere immediately around the President's car," 19WCH467.

6. Jack Franzen: "He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and ...small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile," 22WCH840.

7. Mrs. Jack Franzen: "Shortly after the President's automobile passed by…she heard a noise which sounded as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President's automobile…at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President's automobile," 24WCH525.

7. Clint Hill (on the second shot, the fatal one to the head): "It was as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object," 2WCH144.

8. James Altgens: "The last shot sounded like it came from the left side of the car, if it was close range because, if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy," 7WCH518.

Moving on...

If having Greer fire the fatal shot WAS PART OF THE PLAN, it is the most stupid thing imaginable.

To the contrary, it's audacious, certainly, but infinitely more logical than relying on an external assassin, firing from a greater distance, at a car whose speed the conspirators cannot control, in a motorcade teaming with potential obstacles, not least motorcycle outriders, and the general public. Now that really would make nonsense of all the other pieces of careful planning.

If the plan was to have Greer do the deed, it did not need to be in a motorcade in Dallas in Dealey Plaza. He could have done it at any time anywhere.

Not so. Once the conspirators decided upon a public execution, everything possible had to be done to minimise the risks of failure. A loyal chauffeur-cum-bodyguard, a la De Gaulle in August '62 at Petit-Clamart, could not be permitted.

Everyone is entitled to analyse the facts and theorize what happened. But the only theory dumber than this is that Jackie fired the shot.

Jack, that's forty+ years of tired, fruitless, and, for the most part, unexamined, orthodoxy speaking. You've never hoved to the easy, safe consensus on the photographic record, and I urge you to take that same invaluable spirit of critical enquiry into the province of the mechanics of the assassination.

Paul

[Bill Miller]

Nix himself claimed his film had been tampered with; Zapruder was manifestly confused before the Presidential Commission when confronted by what purported to be "his" film. His descriptions of his own film do not match the film we have today. Even more bizarrely, Moorman reportedly told the FBI she hadn't taken any film of the assassination. And so on and so forth.

All you are doing, Paul is showing how witnesses can make errors as to what they recall seeing. I mean this goes right into the face of the joker who said the SS agents piled onto the car ... what an odd approach to understanding the evidence you have.

Do we know this for sure? How do we know what was said in private by the limousine occupants? Do we have a full picture of what private pressures to conform were exerted? I must put it to you that we have scant knowledge of these matters.

Well, it seems to me that Jackie would have had a bone to pick with the agents had she felt they just gruesomely murdered her husband. I might also seem that the Connally's would be a bit aggitated as well seeing how the Governor was wounded so badly, but I understand thats my world and not necessarily yours.

A fair conclusion; and, yes, I believe he was. There can be no doubt, surely, that Kellerman was part of the cover-up?

I must smile at what you wrote ... especially when I think how easy it would be for people to say the same thing about the claims you have made. You see, part of the cover-up could have been damage control and what better way than to make CT's look bad than to be making claims that Greer shot JFK and that the the reason we do not see him (Greer) shooting JFK it on any film or photo is that they have all been altered to hide this revelation. Give me a break!

..and that Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy who at least most probably would have seen or heard the shot must have kept their mouths shut for a reason you cannot suggest.

Oh, but I can suggest - two of the profoundest reasons of all - politics and fear.

The Connally's were afraid to speak out due to politics and fear, but were not afraid of those same politics and fear when saying that John was shot by a separate bullet than what hit JFK, thus debunking the SBT - This makes little sense to me.

Bill Miller

Edited August 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

No witness and no limo occupant was aware of such an activity. A gun FIRED IN THE CAR

WOULD MAKE A DEAFENING SOUND.

And what, Jack, are these witnesses saying?

FWIW ... I heard a motorcycle once backfire down below the knoll as it rode down Elm street and I was up near the entrance to the colonnade and it sounded like a loud blast had gone off beside me.

Bill

[Tim Gratz]

It is good to be in agreement with Jack! I bet we may agree on more than he thinks. I agree with him that Paul's theory is about as looney as one can get, so looney that Bill sincerely believes he has a secret agenda to embarrras us.

I do want to point out one thing. I asked him how many shots he thinks Greer "got off" since he labeled the thread "Shots From Within the Presidential Limousine." I was assuming he would say that was just a typographical error. But no, he says he thinks Greer shot twice.

As ridiculous as most agree his theory is, I must admit I am curious why he says Greer shot twices. Paul, did Greer shoot Kennedy twice, or did he shoot JFK once and Connally once?

So now there would be TWO deafening shots!

Paul has never commented on my theory that if Greer shot JFK, he passed the gun to Ruby at Parkland and Ruby used it to shoot Oswald. I mean if we are going to turn this Forum into Looney Tunes, why not go all the way? I would submit that Ruby passed his gun to Greer on Thursday night.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Miles Scull]

It is good to be in agreement with Jack! I bet we may agree on more than he thinks. I agree with him that Paul's theory is about as looney as one can get, so looney that Bill sincerely believes he has a secret agenda to embarrras us.

I do want to point out one thing. I asked him how many shots he thinks Greer "got off" since he labeled the thread "Shots From Within the Presidential Limousine." I was assuming he would say that was just a typographical error. But no, he says he thinks Greer shot twice.

As ridiculous as most agree his theory is, I must admit I am curious why he says Greer shot twices. Paul, did Greer shoot Kennedy twice, or did he shoot JFK once and Connally once?

So now there would be TWO deafening shots!

Tim,

What if Greer used a silencer?

Hardly audible!

[Peter McGuire]

All you are doing, Paul is showing how witnesses can make errors as to what they recall seeing.

Great Job!!!!

[Mark Stapleton]

Paul, I applaud your research and your ability to think outside the square.

This idea is too much for me, though. I think there were things that occurred in DP which have been concealed from the public but this isn't one of them. JBC, Nellie and Jackie are going to see the driver shooting at them and if they did, no amount of pressure or intimidation would have prevented them from saying so. And Jackie's gonna let Greer tearfully hug her later at Parkland? No.

"My God, the driver's going to kill us all".

Thumbs down.

[Tim Gratz]

"My God, the driver's going to kill us all".

Now in my younger days that was said to me on more than one occasion.

[Bill Miller]

As mentioned in a previous thread, Paul apparently takes the position that many of the motion pictures taken in DP were altered. He is forced to take that position since, as Dr. Thompson points out in an essay on the Zapruder film controversy: "When it became clear that the Nix and Muchmore films matched the Zapruder film, they too were branded "fake." But surely all the films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza cannot be 'fake.'"

No truer words by Josiah were ever said. In fetzer's hoax book - one segment says the Altgens #6 photo can be considered genuine and be used against the other assassination images. When I pointed out to jack that Moorman and Hill's shadows were coming from the grass - Jack claimed Altgens #6 faked as well. So the approach seems to be - Just say a film is altered and if proved to be incorrect, then claim the photo debunking the film is altered. That way one is always on a winning team.

Bill

[Jack White]

It is good to be in agreement with Jack! I bet we may agree on more than he thinks. I agree with him that Paul's theory is about as looney as one can get, so looney that Bill sincerely believes he has a secret agenda to embarrras us.

I do want to point out one thing. I asked him how many shots he thinks Greer "got off" since he labeled the thread "Shots From Within the Presidential Limousine." I was assuming he would say that was just a typographical error. But no, he says he thinks Greer shot twice.

As ridiculous as most agree his theory is, I must admit I am curious why he says Greer shot twices. Paul, did Greer shoot Kennedy twice, or did he shoot JFK once and Connally once?

So now there would be TWO deafening shots!

Tim,

What if Greer used a silencer?

Hardly audible!

Have you ever seen a silencer for a revolver? They are about six inches long. And "silencer"

is a misnomer. They MUFFLE the sound, but do not silence it.

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

I want to pause to reflect on the morality of Paul accusing two men who are deceased and cannot defend themselves of participating in a murder of the President of the United States, on the basis of the slimmest possible evidence--in fact most would conclude no evidence at all. What evidence does he have? That one witness (only one by his admission) claimed to see a gun in the limousine, but that witness did not even place it in anyone's hand. The evidence to the contrary, including the silence of Jackie, is simply overwhelming.

Paul, you do not know whether Greer or Kellerman have any children who are going through extreme mental anguish knowing their fathers' name is being sullied on a public forum read around the world.

If they are innocent (and they are) Greer and Kellerman had each pledged to die in the performance of their duties and they took a job that might well have required them to make the ultimate sacrifice.

All I can say is by what moral standard do you justify dirtying the reputation of these men based solely on your "hunch" or "suspicion"?

[Jack White]

I want to pause to reflect on the morality of Paul accusing two men who are deceased and cannot defend themselves of participating in a murder of the President of the United States, on the basis of the slimmest possible evidence--in fact most would conclude no evidence at all. What evidence does he have? That one witness (only one by his admission) claimed to see a gun in the limousine, but that witness did not even place it in anyone's hand. The evidence to the contrary, including the silence of Jackie, is simply overwhelming.

Paul, you do not know whether Greer or Kellerman have any children who are going through extreme mental anguish knowing their fathers' name is being sullied on a public forum read around the world.

If they are innocent (and they are) Greer and Kellerman had each pledged to die in the performance of their duties and they took a job that might well have required them to make the ultimate sacrifice.

All I can say is by what moral standard do you justify dirtying the reputation of these men based solely on your "hunch" or "suspicion"?

How about Oswald's children? Their innocent father was falsely branded as the assassin of the president

by the government, media, and the sheeple.

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Jack the difference between the evidence against Oswald and against Greer exceeds the differrence between our political opinions on most questions, so there is a bit of a difference.

Never would I raise the argument I did against Paul against anyone who argues that Oswald killed JFK.

Now, Oswald may very well have been framed. In fact, I think that would be another position we would share. So if he was innocent, we can deeply regret what his children must have gone through, and we can (and should) work to rectify that wrong.

But marshalling the evidence against Oswald is a far cry from labeling Greer and Kellereman murderers with no evidence to support that!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

As mentioned in a previous thread, Paul apparently takes the position that many of the motion pictures taken in DP were altered. He is forced to take that position since, as Dr. Thompson points out in an essay on the Zapruder film controversy: "When it became clear that the Nix and Muchmore films matched the Zapruder film, they too were branded "fake." But surely all the films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza cannot be 'fake.'"

No truer words by Josiah were ever said. In fetzer's hoax book - one segment says the Altgens #6 photo can be considered genuine and be used against the other assassination images. When I pointed out to jack that Moorman and Hill's shadows were coming from the grass - Jack claimed Altgens #6 faked as well. So the approach seems to be - Just say a film is altered and if proved to be incorrect, then claim the photo debunking the film is altered. That way one is always on a winning team.

Bill

It would certainly appear that you have the "logic" of this one fully resolved!

Was not there something which once said:

Rule#1: The Boss is always correct!

Rule#2: In event the Boss is wrong, see Rule#1.