Shots from inside the presidential limo

[Tim Gratz]

Terry wrote:

The idea of Greer and Kellerman being party to a shoot-out occurring in the limo at Greer's hand is, and for all intents and purposes, remains the most preposterous idea to come down the pike regarding the assassination, to date.

It's just this kind of asinine speculation that libels our asses into being regarded as nothing more than cannon fodder for the likes of the Bugliosis', the Posners', and the McAdams' white-washers.

Thomas wrote:

And the more that the fools yell, the less likely any other dedicated investigation would appear, and any valid reasons for a new investigation are lost among the rants and ravings of fools.

Terry and Thomas (hey, that sounds like a movie star!), you are both ABSOLUTELY correct about this. I want so badly to have a new investigation, if for no other reason but to set the historical record right about things. As you know, there are two new scientific challenges to the NAA and the acoustic evidence relied upon by the HSCA for its finding of a second gunman in DP has been both attacked and supported. A new investigation ought to be able to resolve these controversies if nothing else. And they are important. While the NAA is not conclusive support for the SBT, it is at least strongly supportive of it. And the HSCA acoustic evidence, if validated, is proof positive of a conspiracy. It is interesting that the test results may be mutually exclusive UNLESS one accepts the copnclusion of the HSCA that the shot from the grassy knoll missed.

But the lunatic rantings (and the rantings are lunatic even though their proponents are sane and presumably of some level of intelligence) may kill any chances for a new investigation. As you know, Bill Miller even suggests that some people may be posting with a hidden agenda of discrediting the "conspiracy community". I can see why he coukd reach that conclusion.

However, I will continue my efforts for a new investigation. It may be the last chance we have.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Paul Rigby]

Well I, for one, cannot believe this thread has come this far.

The idea of Greer and Kellerman being party to a shoot-out occurring in the limo at Greer's hand is, and for all intents and purposes, remains the most preposterous idea to come down the pike regarding the assassination, to date.

It's just this kind of asinine speculation that libels our asses into being regarded as nothing more than cannon fodder for the likes of the Bugliosis', the Posners', and the McAdams' white-washers.

Who the hell ever thought up such a ridiculous concept and why, is beyond me.

As has been stated, Jackie, Connelly, Nellie, Moorman, Hill, not to mention those closest to the limo as it was passing, would've seen something, or caught it on film. Instead, what we have is idle speculation, or hallucinations brought about by some wise-guy thinking he sees a flash he would love to prove to be muzzle-fire from a pistol, when in reality the flash of light is coming off a piece of metal either on the windshield or the roll bar of the vehicle.

I can't believe we've degenerated down into this form of muck and mire at this stage of the game.

By happy coincidence, I took receipt yesterday of the editions of The Minority of One which more or less complete my collection. (Ah, the wonders of ebay...) Flicking through them late last night I came across the following letter from a Chicago-based gentleman named Harry Zitzler. Shrewd guy, Harry:

“My own personal experience in such groups taught me that dissenters are frequently only inverted conformists…That is to say, he desperately wants popularity, attention (& sometimes even prestige) so that while he is willing to fight an unpopular cause, he struggles for personal popularity within the band of common dissidents…The result is that…the dissenter takes over the tactics and procedures of those he opposes.”

Harry Zitzler, “From Readers Letters: The Conforming Dissidents,” The Minority of One, May 1962, (Vol 4, No 5 [30]), p.15:

[Terry Mauro]

Well I, for one, cannot believe this thread has come this far.

The idea of Greer and Kellerman being party to a shoot-out occurring in the limo at Greer's hand is, and for all intents and purposes, remains the most preposterous idea to come down the pike regarding the assassination, to date.

It's just this kind of asinine speculation that libels our asses into being regarded as nothing more than cannon fodder for the likes of the Bugliosis', the Posners', and the McAdams' white-washers.

Who the hell ever thought up such a ridiculous concept and why, is beyond me.

As has been stated, Jackie, Connelly, Nellie, Moorman, Hill, not to mention those closest to the limo as it was passing, would've seen something, or caught it on film. Instead, what we have is idle speculation, or hallucinations brought about by some wise-guy thinking he sees a flash he would love to prove to be muzzle-fire from a pistol, when in reality the flash of light is coming off a piece of metal either on the windshield or the roll bar of the vehicle.

I can't believe we've degenerated down into this form of muck and mire at this stage of the game.

By happy coincidence, I took receipt yesterday of the editions of The Minority of One which more or less complete my collection. (Ah, the wonders of ebay...) Flicking through them late last night I came across the following letter from a Chicago-based gentleman named Harry Zitzler. Shrewd guy, Harry:

“My own personal experience in such groups taught me that dissenters are frequently only inverted conformists…That is to say, he desperately wants popularity, attention (& sometimes even prestige) so that while he is willing to fight an unpopular cause, he struggles for personal popularity within the band of common dissidents…The result is that…the dissenter takes over the tactics and procedures of those he opposes.”

Harry Zitzler, “From Readers Letters: The Conforming Dissidents,” The Minority of One, May 1962, (Vol 4, No 5 [30]), p.15:

**************************************************************************

“My own personal experience in such groups taught me that dissenters are frequently only inverted conformists…That is to say, he desperately wants popularity, attention (& sometimes even prestige) so that while he is willing to fight an unpopular cause, he struggles for personal popularity within the band of common dissidents…The result is that…the dissenter takes over the tactics and procedures of those he opposes.”

Is that what you really think of researchers, Paul? As a "band of common dissidents, "fighting an unpopular cause?" I would much rather describe those of us who really give a damn, as more like a band of patriots attempting to extract the truth about a black mark that occurred in our political arena and on our society, to the dis-clusion of those "common" people for whom the vote was supposed to have meant something.

We've sure learned a helluvalot about the way this government has been usurped by those who hold the purse strings, and have had a stranglehold on them since 1913, with their establishment of a Federal Reserve, which in all actuality, had nothing "federal," whatsoever involved with it. We've seen and learned about how just one person trying to make a difference, and by that, I mean trying to run this show according to the Constitution upon which this country was built, can be gunned down, in cold blood, at high noon, in front of thousands of people, just so those people who hold those purse-strings might be able to drive their point home to us, and let us know "who's really in charge, here."

And, when we started protesting, and tried to revolt against the tyrannical choke hold they had on us, they proceeded to assassinate our heroes, one by one. Then, they set out to discredit any who were bold enough to speak their mind out in a rage against their machine. Character assassination came into vogue because it was becoming obvious that all this blood-letting going on in the American heartland might lead a trail right back to the perpetrators sitting in the White House, then, as well as today.

You see, Paul. There is no democracy here in America. It was killed by the same fascistic Wall Street, Dixiecratic, oil-profiteering, laissez faire, corporate oligarch that will never be toppled from the marbled halls of U.S. governance, ever again. At least, not without another bloody Revolutionary Civil War action taking place with the common citizens leading the charge. And, what chance of a snowball in hell, does that have when you've got the majority of the populace dumbed down to the level of a thirteen-year-old's mentality, addicted to gas-guzzling SUV's, cellphones literally attached to their ears like hearing aides, who could give a rat's ass about what's happening in Iraq, or any other part of the world, since simple Geography is no longer considered relevant to the core of their high school curriculum.

Tell me something, Paul. Where do you hail from? I haven't bothered to check. It must be the U.K. Maybe you are a genius at satire. But, I seriously don't think what happened to America is anything to joke, or laugh about. Ever.

[Terry Mauro]

No weapons were seen by anyone...

Not sure that's true, Peter...

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.

And as for this objection...

...and don't ya think Jackie must might have mentioned it...

If you've seen Jackie's full testimony, you're a very privileged soul. Care to share its location(s)?

- or Mrs C or even JC.....

JC thought so much of the SS he wouldn't let it near him in 1980. Actions speak louder than words. As for members of the US elite engaging in self-censorship, that's agreeably easy to demonstrate.

...or photo would have seen such a weapon?

The film record's a rank fake, with one important exception.

Your right you have a long row to hoe with that one......

There's a spaceship at my disposal, don't you know, so distance is no object. And after visiting Planet Knoll (north & south poles), I can confirm there's not a sign of intelligent life...

**************************************************************

Well I, for one, cannot believe this thread has come this far.

The idea of Greer and Kellerman being party to a shoot-out occurring in the limo at Greer's hand is, and for all intents and purposes, remains the most preposterous idea to come down the pike regarding the assassination, to date.

It's just this kind of asinine speculation that libels our asses into being regarded as nothing more than cannon fodder for the likes of the Bugliosis', the Posners', and the McAdams' white-washers.

Who the hell ever thought up such a ridiculous concept and why, is beyond me.

As has been stated, Jackie, Connelly, Nellie, Moorman, Hill, not to mention those closest to the limo as it was passing, would've seen something, or caught it on film. Instead, what we have is idle speculation, or hallucinations brought about by some wise-guy thinking he sees a flash he would love to prove to be muzzle-fire from a pistol, when in reality the flash of light is coming off a piece of metal either on the windshield or the roll bar of the vehicle.

I can't believe we've degenerated down into this form of muck and mire at this stage of the game.

Terry;

It is not unlike the claim that the SS Agent in the followup car shot JFK, as well as the "who's buried in Oswald's grave" BS.

All that those who are truly responsible for obscurring the facts have to do is to bring up some completely asinine theory/idea, and there are those who jump onto the bandwagon and proclaim it's validity.

Which happens to make/paint all who question the WC to appear as co-participants in the games of fools.

Therein lies the absolute reasons why no government body is likely to ever take a serious look at the JFK matter again.

And the more that the fools yell, the less likely any other dedicated investigation would appear, and any valid reasons for a new investigation are lost among the rants and ravings of fools.

If one is a fool, then they are a fool. Irrelevant as to whether a LN fool who actually believes the WC, or a CT fool who chases body kidnappers and/or SS assassins in the Presidential Limo.

******************************************************************

"And the more that the fools yell, the less likely any other dedicated investigation would appear, and any valid reasons for a new investigation are lost among the rants and ravings of fools."

What one might call, a "Ship Of Fools." Or, a xxxxload of fools, actually.

It's hot as hell here in L.A. today, Purv. How's the weather back in your neck of the woods.?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

No weapons were seen by anyone...

Not sure that's true, Peter...

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.

And as for this objection...

...and don't ya think Jackie must might have mentioned it...

If you've seen Jackie's full testimony, you're a very privileged soul. Care to share its location(s)?

- or Mrs C or even JC.....

JC thought so much of the SS he wouldn't let it near him in 1980. Actions speak louder than words. As for members of the US elite engaging in self-censorship, that's agreeably easy to demonstrate.

...or photo would have seen such a weapon?

The film record's a rank fake, with one important exception.

Your right you have a long row to hoe with that one......

There's a spaceship at my disposal, don't you know, so distance is no object. And after visiting Planet Knoll (north & south poles), I can confirm there's not a sign of intelligent life...

**************************************************************

Well I, for one, cannot believe this thread has come this far.

The idea of Greer and Kellerman being party to a shoot-out occurring in the limo at Greer's hand is, and for all intents and purposes, remains the most preposterous idea to come down the pike regarding the assassination, to date.

It's just this kind of asinine speculation that libels our asses into being regarded as nothing more than cannon fodder for the likes of the Bugliosis', the Posners', and the McAdams' white-washers.

Who the hell ever thought up such a ridiculous concept and why, is beyond me.

As has been stated, Jackie, Connelly, Nellie, Moorman, Hill, not to mention those closest to the limo as it was passing, would've seen something, or caught it on film. Instead, what we have is idle speculation, or hallucinations brought about by some wise-guy thinking he sees a flash he would love to prove to be muzzle-fire from a pistol, when in reality the flash of light is coming off a piece of metal either on the windshield or the roll bar of the vehicle.

I can't believe we've degenerated down into this form of muck and mire at this stage of the game.

Terry;

It is not unlike the claim that the SS Agent in the followup car shot JFK, as well as the "who's buried in Oswald's grave" BS.

All that those who are truly responsible for obscurring the facts have to do is to bring up some completely asinine theory/idea, and there are those who jump onto the bandwagon and proclaim it's validity.

Which happens to make/paint all who question the WC to appear as co-participants in the games of fools.

Therein lies the absolute reasons why no government body is likely to ever take a serious look at the JFK matter again.

And the more that the fools yell, the less likely any other dedicated investigation would appear, and any valid reasons for a new investigation are lost among the rants and ravings of fools.

If one is a fool, then they are a fool. Irrelevant as to whether a LN fool who actually believes the WC, or a CT fool who chases body kidnappers and/or SS assassins in the Presidential Limo.

******************************************************************

"And the more that the fools yell, the less likely any other dedicated investigation would appear, and any valid reasons for a new investigation are lost among the rants and ravings of fools."

What one might call, a "Ship Of Fools." Or, a xxxxload of fools, actually.

It's hot as hell here in L.A. today, Purv. How's the weather back in your neck of the woods.?

Same here, and it has been as dry as was Oklahoma when I lived there.

Thought about shooting myself last week!

Not because of the weather!

Oldest son just entered Law School, and I wanted him to be a pimp down on Bourbon St. & truly learn to enjoy life.

(actually, not unlike his father, he has spent several Mardi Gras's there)

Having a son who is a lawyer just may be more shame than I can live with. Just decided to wait it out and see if he actually completes it.

P.S. We are beginning to draw the attention of some sensible thinking persons who just may be the next generation to ultimately push this subject back into the forefront of where it belongs.

[Mark Stapleton]

Paul,

The incident between Greer and Jackie at Parkland is described in Manchester, page 290.

Reliable evidence?

Please, no more lightweight supposition in support of this theory.

Your choice of term is interesting: eyewitness testimony is "lightweight supposition"?

I can't shake the feeling that you are an accomplished satirist.

I'm leaving the satire to the opposition on this thread.

They're doing a great job.

Paul

Point taken about Manchester. His references are the 200 or so personal interviews he conducted with the parties, which are listed in the back of the book. Manchester's interview with Greer was conducted on 19/11/64. Given some of the ridiculous comments Manchester makes about LHO, I have reservations about the author's credibilty, but I don't know what Manchester would gain by lying about Greer's behavior at Parkland. Others who were present would be able to contradict his account.

The eyewitness testimony you selected has been chosen because it seems consistent with your argument. Testimony not consistent has been omitted. Lightweight supposition is probably a poor choice of words on my part.

Are the reactions to your theory consistent with your expectations?

Edited September 3, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Bill Miller]

Same here, and it has been as dry as was Oklahoma when I lived there.

Thought about shooting myself last week!

Not because of the weather!

Oldest son just entered Law School, and I wanted him to be a pimp down on Bourbon St. & truly learn to enjoy life.

(actually, not unlike his father, he has spent several Mardi Gras's there)

Having a son who is a lawyer just may be more shame than I can live with. Just decided to wait it out and see if he actually completes it.

P.S. We are beginning to draw the attention of some sensible thinking persons who just may be the next generation to ultimately push this subject back into the forefront of where

If by drawing attention to the fact that you are now using the thread to send personal messages about the family ... I would agree. (sigh~)

Bill

[Chuck Robbins]

Jackie Kennedy trying to leave the limo is described as her simply trying to retrieve a piece of JFK's skull.

What piece of skull was this? Does documentation exist telling us who it was given to and where it ended up?

Is there any proof that there was anything recovered from the trunklid? Jackie grabbed ahold of the handgrip

used by the S.S. agents to stabilize herself there. While there did she actually grab anything from the trunklid?

Perhaps this was an urban legend created to explain her behaviour?

IF, I repeat IF, she were trying to escape from any perceived danger to herself, in which direction would one

expect her to go? Towards the danger or away from it?

Now...

In which direction is she observed going? DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE ALLEGED SNIPERS NEST! Does this make sense?

You may criticize what others raise questions about. That is your right.

When you start in with the personal attacks and the name calling, you know...things like stupid, etc., that is not your right.

Every person who reads these threads has the faculties to determine for themselves what is nonsense, factual, theoretical, supposition or just plain fantasy.

We all have our beliefs as to what happened that day.

Wouldn't we all be better served by allowing all to voice their opinions?

How many persons keep good observations to themselves due to a fear of being ridiculed?

Who is benefitted by any decrease in communication in this situation? Think about it.

[Charles Drago]

Don't forget Lenny Bruce's explanation (c. late 1963) of Jackie's move:

"Hauling ass to save her ass."

There was, of course, a larger point being made.

[Kathleen Collins]

Greer's left hand position between Z312 and Z314. Any sign of him holding a gun or that there was any recoil in those 3/18s of a second - I don't see any.

Nor will you, Bill, the film's a fake!

How do you arrive that this conclusion?

Instead of 'faking' this film, wouldnt it have been better for them to destroy it and have no video record?

Seems to me without the Z film, there is no conspiracy at all...it dies on Nov. 22, 1963.

I agree with you totally. Why keep that film? Why make that film? This is the one point of the assassination that I don't understand.

Kathy

[Kathleen Collins]

Maybe JC did it. Maybe Jackie did it.....this is [to me] a surreal attempt to explain the events. Maybe MM did it and her camera was a gun......

Uncharacteristically childish, from a man whose contributions on every other subject are shrewd and worth-having. You're better than this.

Had someone fired at JFK at point blank range in the car there would have been powder burns on his face...

Distance from front-seated Greer to (an elevated) President in the opposite rear corner? Point-blank? Not quite. But a damn sight easier shot than from distance with a rifle.

And as to traces of powder etc on Kennedy's clothing, remind me how carefully that particular piece of evidence was preserved?

...wound not in the locations they were or were even faked to be

Assuming Greer did shoot Kennedy, and Kennedy was facing forwards immediately prior to the head shot, we would expect to find a left front entrance and a right rear exit. This is exactly what we do find:

1. Elm St eyewitness:

Norman Similas: “I could see a hole in the President's left temple...” [Jack Bell, “10 Feet from the President,” NYT, 23 November 1963, p.5, citing Toronto Star.]

2. Parkland medical staff:

i) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

ii) Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

iv) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head" [Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4]

iii) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. [Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.]

3. Parkland non-medical staff:

Father Oscar Huber: “terrible wound” over Kennedy's left eye [AP despatch, Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, 24 November 1963]

4. Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities and the Report (NY: Random House, 1992 reprint), p.161:

“The autopsy documents also provide some cryptic indications of damage to the left side of the head. The notorious face-sheet on which Dr. J. Thornton Boswell committed his unfortunate ‘diagram error’ consists of front and back outlines of a male figure. On the front figure, the autopsy surgeons entered the tracheotomy incision (6.5 cm.), the four cut-downs made in the Parkland emergency room for administration of infusions (2 cms. each), and a small circle at the right eye, with the marginal notation ‘0.8 cm.,’ apparently representing damage produced by the two bullet fragments that lodged there. Dr. Humes testified that the fragments measured 7 by 2 mm. and 3 by 1 mm. respectively (2H354). Although he said nothing about damage at the left eye, the diagram shows a small dot at the site, labelled ‘0.4 cm.’ (CE397, Vol XVII, p.45). Neither Arlen Specter, who conducted the questioning of the autopsy surgeons, nor the Commission members and lawyers present asked any questions about this indication on the diagram of damage to the left eye.

The sound:

...and heard and seen by many more witnesses [including Jackie who would have both heard and seen it].

A.J. Millican: “It sounded like a .45 automatic, or a high-powered rifle,” 19WCH486.

S.M. Holland: “It would be like you’re firing a .38 pistol right beside a shotgun, or a .45 right beside a shotgun,” Josiah Thompson. Six Seconds in Dallas, p.84.

Lastly, it seems counter-intuitive to place a weapon in the center of everyone's visual focus. FWIW

Remember the topography of Elm, Peter - it dips and slants: the assassination scene was not "in the center of everyone's visual focus." It was a sparsely populated stretch at the motorcade's fag-end; and the occupants of the vehicle, not to mention the following vehicles, further hindered clear line of sight for potential eyewitnesses.

I remember seeing an autopsy photo of President Kennedy with a definite hole in his front, left hairline. Could someone post that or at least say if they saw it too?

Kathy

[Kathleen Collins]

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

If I may interject... Harvey Oswald's 2 daughters went through hell in their schooldays (reported in a scandal sheet -- the Star, Enquirer, Globe) and I am told "Uncle" Robert Oswald has never visited them. Is that because he's mean and angry? No, it's because they aren't related. Harvey was not Robert Oswald's brother. Harvey was a Russian lookalike, in my opinion, who perfected his English in Russia, with the help of someone British, and after a few years, he sounded like an American. There are 3 Oswald audios on the Internet. One is of him learning English in Russia. And 2 other audios exist of him on the radio and, of course, at the Dallas police station.

After the assassination, Robert commented that when Oswald (his "brother") returned from Russia, he was shocked at how much hair he had lost. Was this to obscure that the Russian agent was not the same guy who left for Russia?

Kathy

[Bill Miller]

By happy coincidence, I took receipt yesterday of the editions of The Minority of One which more or less complete my collection.

Having a collection of books and thinking that Greer shot JFK in the head is like having money and not knowing how much each bill or coin is worth. And saying that because the assassination films don't show Greer actually shooting JFK, thus the films must be altered is like saying that all the $20 dollar bills in your possession were believed to be $100 bills, so someone must have altered them.

Bill Miller

Edited September 8, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

...tracing who started [originally] such rediculous ideas and what their motives were are a good idea...discussing if the diriver had a gun, or an exploding 'whoopee cushion' or poison darts in his back brace did him in, are not. The very people who designed and maintain the cover-up play with the research community by throwing these poisoned bones to us. Digging out who started some of these might point to the cover-upers [or just some really strange loonies]. But serious discussion of this topic, I agree, does more harm than good, overall. Better spend our time on real mysteries of the day than phantom ones. 

I first encountered this trope about 30 years ago, via a man named William Cooper, whose hypothesis was based on a low-quality nth generation bootlegged version of the Zfilm. It purportedly "showed" Greer offing the CinC. Cooper's premise, as best I can recall, was that Kennedy was about to reveal the truth about space aliens to the US populace, and hence had to be silenced before he could do so. If one wished to discredit JFK researchers as feeble-minded and gullible, one could do little better than Cooper's output.

A number of years ago, a fellow member of this Forum kindly provided me with a copy of the unpublished "Murder From Within," which I had often seen footnoted as a credible source in others books' bibliographies. It was, and remains, a fascinating read, meticulously detailed with facts and suppositions that were well-constructed and rather novel in the JFK research world when it was first written. It was only when it reached the cringe-worthy "Greer did it" postulation that the book went rather badly sideways. However, despite this fairly large lapse of reason, I still think the book is highly worthy of reading for all of the other details presented, and the style with which it is done.

Similarly, while I think the "Greer did it" scenario is no less silly today, I would be greatly disheartened if Paul Rigby's posts in support of this hypothesis resulted in Forum members becoming disinclined to read his other very worthwhile and insightful posts. I have learned much of value from Paul's posts on Richard Starnes - a treasure trove of critical information about the sturm and drang of early Viet Nam machinations within various compartments of the US government at the time - and other of his posts. While most here may eschew - rightly in my humble estimation - the "Greer did it" scenario that Paul favours, let us not overlook valid and valued contributions from this Forum member in other areas of research. We do ourselves no favours bandying about terms such as "lunatic" and "insane," particularly when those who do so are themselves proponents of "Castro did it" or "Madame Nhu did it" or other equally untenable scenarios.

I think Chuck Robbins hit the nail on the head with his observation:

You may criticize what others raise questions about. That is your right.

When you start in with the personal attacks and the name calling, you know...things like stupid, etc., that is not your right.

Every person who reads these threads has the faculties to determine for themselves what is nonsense, factual, theoretical, supposition or just plain fantasy.

We all have our beliefs as to what happened that day.

Wouldn't we all be better served by allowing all to voice their opinions?

How many persons keep good observations to themselves due to a fear of being ridiculed?

Who is benefitted by any decrease in communication in this situation? Think about it.

Luckily, Paul Rigby is no shrinking violet, and will continue to contribute much of value, with any luck. However, his contributions will be in vain if we summarily dismiss and ignore his most cogent observations because we vehemently disagree with only one observation we feel is spurious. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Mark Knight]

On another discussion venue, I've encountered one person who is adamant that, in HIS version of "Clue: JFK," it was Greer in the front seat with a shellfish-toxin-loaded projectile.

Personally, I just don't see it in the Z-film.