Shots from inside the presidential limo

[Terry Mauro]

...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A number of years ago, a fellow member of this Forum kindly provided me with a copy of the unpublished "Murder From Within," which I had often seen footnoted as a credible source in others books' bibliographies.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.

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

"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."

Granted, RCD. Yet, what is the purpose of bringing up such an obviously contrived hypothesis, in the first place? Rigby, while seemingly quite knowledgeable with regard to other aspects pertinent to historical fact, somewhat diminishes his credibility, not for being taken seriously, mind you. But, for the necessity of delving into an area that has already been regurgitated ad nauseam, across the proverbial drawing board of JFK related research sites umpteen times, to begin with. It also leaves the question in concern "open" to deliberation, as if it had an increment of truth attached to its premises, by all and everyone from MySpace to YouTube, those most impressionable, yet least of all, "knowledgeable" on the subject, believing this kind of speculative theory as having a modicum of "weight" attached to it.

How can you expect a plausible acceptability to ever be maintained regarding the actual facts surrounding this case when you have someone as bright and respected as Rigby, dredging up unfounded and unproven allegations to be rehashed as if there were any merit left to them, at all?

Edited September 9, 2007 by Terry Mauro

[Charles Drago]

Terry, et al,

The ONLY way to blunt the negative impact of absurd JFK theories (from Oswald Dit It through Aliens Did It through Greer Did It and beyond) is to demand that our public focus remain fixed on the "how" question.

The answer to which: conspiracy, based upon incontrovertible proof of multiple shooters.

That the question is almost always posed as, "Who killed JFK?" is only natural. It is our obligation, which comes with the nobility bestowed upon us by our knowledge of the truth, to be ever vigilant in this regard.

Keep it simple. Keep it honest. And all the LHO/UFO/inside-the-limo nonsense loses its power to defeat us.

Charles

PS -- I join RCD in valuing much of Paul Rigby's posted work, and I encourage Paul to hang in there.

Edited September 9, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Granted, RCD. Yet, what is the purpose of bringing up such an obviously contrived hypothesis, in the first place?

Paul is better positioned to answer that question. Presumably, he believes it. For most of us, I think, researching this crime is a process in which, when confronted with new or contradictory evidence, we are required to reassess our biases and make the necessary amendments to our thoughts and conclusions. What Paul believes today may change in time, as it has for me and, I submit, just about everyone else who's entered this dark labyrinth. Only those cursed with complete certitude from the outset refuse to alter their opinions in the face of new facts.

Rigby, while seemingly quite knowledgeable with regard to other aspects pertinent to historical fact, somewhat diminishes his credibility, not for being taken seriously, mind you. But, for the necessity of delving into an area that has already been regurgitated ad nauseam, across the proverbial drawing board of JFK related research sites umpteen times, to begin with. It also leaves the question in concern "open" to deliberation, as if it had an increment of truth attached to its premises, by all and everyone from MySpace to YouTube, those most impressionable, yet least of all, "knowledgeable" on the subject, believing this kind of speculative theory as having a modicum of "weight" attached to it.

How can you expect a plausible acceptability to ever be maintained regarding the actual facts surrounding this case when you have someone as bright and respected as Rigby, dredging up unfounded and unproven allegations to be rehashed as if there were any merit left to them, at all?

The single greatest benefit of forae such as this one is that a person is free to post just about anything they wish. The single greatest disadvantage to sites such as this one is that people are free to post just about anything they wish. I am confident that in the open marketplace of ideas, those with the greatest credibility and logical heft will carry the day. Were it otherwise, this issue would have been considered "resolved" with the issuance of the Warren Report.

My only point in posting on this thread was to urge others not to blind themselves to Paul's other posts, cogent and well argued, simply because they disagree with the content of his posts on this thread. As you say, Paul is "bright and respected," and with good cause. I feel able to determine for myself which of his posts are compelling, and which are not. I credit most others here with the same ability, and encourage them to continue reading Paul's posts, even those with which they disagree, as you and I do with Paul on this issue.

[Kathleen Collins]

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.

The only person who could conceivably have a poisoned projectile is the Umbrella Man, who opened his umbrella twice, as the Cuban held up 2 fingers. Was it a mere signal to someone to start shooting or for the driver to stop? Or was the umbrella a CIA-invented "gun" of sorts?

Kathy

[Terry Mauro]

Granted, RCD. Yet, what is the purpose of bringing up such an obviously contrived hypothesis, in the first place?

Paul is better positioned to answer that question. Presumably, he believes it. For most of us, I think, researching this crime is a process in which, when confronted with new or contradictory evidence, we are required to reassess our biases and make the necessary amendments to our thoughts and conclusions. What Paul believes today may change in time, as it has for me and, I submit, just about everyone else who's entered this dark labyrinth. Only those cursed with complete certitude from the outset refuse to alter their opinions in the face of new facts.

Rigby, while seemingly quite knowledgeable with regard to other aspects pertinent to historical fact, somewhat diminishes his credibility, not for being taken seriously, mind you. But, for the necessity of delving into an area that has already been regurgitated ad nauseam, across the proverbial drawing board of JFK related research sites umpteen times, to begin with. It also leaves the question in concern "open" to deliberation, as if it had an increment of truth attached to its premises, by all and everyone from MySpace to YouTube, those most impressionable, yet least of all, "knowledgeable" on the subject, believing this kind of speculative theory as having a modicum of "weight" attached to it.

How can you expect a plausible acceptability to ever be maintained regarding the actual facts surrounding this case when you have someone as bright and respected as Rigby, dredging up unfounded and unproven allegations to be rehashed as if there were any merit left to them, at all?

The single greatest benefit of forae such as this one is that a person is free to post just about anything they wish. The single greatest disadvantage to sites such as this one is that people are free to post just about anything they wish. I am confident that in the open marketplace of ideas, those with the greatest credibility and logical heft will carry the day. Were it otherwise, this issue would have been considered "resolved" with the issuance of the Warren Report.

My only point in posting on this thread was to urge others not to blind themselves to Paul's other posts, cogent and well argued, simply because they disagree with the content of his posts on this thread. As you say, Paul is "bright and respected," and with good cause. I feel able to determine for myself which of his posts are compelling, and which are not. I credit most others here with the same ability, and encourage them to continue reading Paul's posts, even those with which they disagree, as you and I do with Paul on this issue.

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

"My only point in posting on this thread was to urge others not to blind themselves to Paul's other posts, cogent and well argued, simply because they disagree with the content of his posts on this thread. As you say, Paul is "bright and respected," and with good cause. I feel able to determine for myself which of his posts are compelling, and which are not. I credit most others here with the same ability, and encourage them to continue reading Paul's posts, even those with which they disagree, as you and I do with Paul on this issue."

And, I couldn't agree with you more, RCD. That's the reason why I was so taken aback by the progression of the thread, as it seemed antithesis to his otherwise exemplary contributions to the forum. Aside from the fact that I thought it was totally out of character for him considering the exceptional research skills he had been demonstrating from the moment he joined the forum. Which inadvertently led me to believe he might have been "goofing" on us, by bringing up Greer-Kellerman issue, that's all.

[Paul Rigby]

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

Thomas E. Mahl. Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44 (Brassey’s, Inc., 1998), p. 103:

“Propaganda thrives best if there are no competing expressions of opinion to disturb the audience.”

The grassy knollers represent the continuation of the cover-up by other, "dissident" means. The objective, and the tactics employed, necessarily remain the same: stasis; and smear.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

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

Can't wait for the English translation. Will it be available soon?

[Paul Rigby]

Paul is better positioned to answer that question. Presumably, he believes it. For most of us, I think, researching this crime is a process in which, when confronted with new or contradictory evidence, we are required to reassess our biases and make the necessary amendments to our thoughts and conclusions. What Paul believes today may change in time, as it has for me and, I submit, just about everyone else who's entered this dark labyrinth. Only those cursed with complete certitude from the outset refuse to alter their opinions in the face of new facts.

RCD,

Kind and intelligent words. You may yet save the cause of external shooters from the excesses of its own adherents. I sincerely hope not, but that’s your choice; and I have every confidence you will make the attempt with the lucidity and scruple that distinguishes your work.

And, yes, lest there be any misunderstanding, I am entirely satisfied that America’s thirty-fifth President was killed by William Greer.

Reading the spectrum of outraged responses to the very notion, I was reminded of one of my favourite political philosopher’s, the great “Red Tory” himself.

“Joan Baez and Pete Seeger titillate the status quo rather than threaten it. Dissent is built into the fabric of the modern system. We bureaucratize it as much as anything else,”

George Parkin Grant. Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1995 reprint), p.99.

I must put it to you, Robert, that the external shooting orthodoxy – that confused, unsubstantiated melange comprised of one-part unexamined assumption, another of timid group-think, and the third of purest pre-planned deception – is nothing more than the Joan Baez or Pete Seeger of the JFK assassination “how.”

One witness captured the laying of the false trail to the knoll – helpfully signposted with that puff of smoke so unthinkingly beloved of generations of knollers - better than any other:

“Mr. Franzen advised he and his wife and small son were standing in the grass area west of Houston Street and south of Elm Street at the time the President’s motorcade at that location at approximately 12.30…He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President’s car and noticed small fragments flying inside the car and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile…He noticed men, who were presumed to be Secret Service agents, riding in the car directly behind the President’s car, unloading from the car, some with firearms in their hands, and noticed police officers and these plainclothesmen running up the grassy slope across Elm Street from his location…Because of this activity he presumed the shots…came from the shrubbery or bushes toward which these officers appeared to be running,”

Jack Franzen, 22WCH840

I urge you to rethink your most fundamental assumptions of the how, to banish the mirage of external shooters, and instead see the conduct of the Secret Service in Dallas – complete with the coup de grace on Elm – for the rational continuity that it was.

What follows is ever closely linked to what precedes; it is not a procession of isolated events, merely obeying the laws of sequence, but a rational continuity…”

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 4: 45

The Secret Service ignored their own ordering of the motorcade at Love Field because the attempt was "go" - they hastily cleaned the Presidential limousine post-coup because they knew its bloody contents would incriminate them. They furnished a pretext for the theft of the President's body, in defiance of state law, with the false claim that one of their own was dead; and then they stole the corpse with the power of the gun. And so on and so forth.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

At some point, one or more of Doug Horne's exegetes on this forum is, I'm sure, going to offer a word or two, if only for honesty's sake, on the seriousness with which he treats the proposition that William Greer shot his President.

And perhaps reproduce details of the anecdote concerning Clint Hill and the flight back to Washington?

[Paul Rigby]

At some point, one or more of Doug Horne's exegetes on this forum is, I'm sure, going to offer a word or two, if only for honesty's sake, on the seriousness with which he treats the proposition that William Greer shot his President.

And perhaps reproduce details of the anecdote concerning Clint Hill and the flight back to Washington?

I don't yet have any of the volumes, but I take the following descriptions as accurate summaries.

http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?to...icseen#msg31146

Re: Doug Horne's book(s) now for sale on Amazon

« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2009, 07:03 AM »

Doug Mizzer:

Horne mentions witnesses in the Plaza that day that saw guns drawn inside the limo and thought they were firing back at the assassins. He also higlights a steward that was within earshot of Clint Hill on the trip home from Dallas. The steward claims that as Hill was washing the blood off himself, he blurted out that when he jumped on the rear bumper of the limo, Greer had his handgun pointed directly at him. And as I previously noted, his Moorman photo with the caption about Greer missing from it, is in Volume 1. This is where all the illustrations are located. I believe it's number 76.

« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2009, 07:24 PM »

Larry Hancock:

…like it or not Doug does bring up the possiblity of Greer shooting JFK many

times and from a noumber of angles (as Doug pointed out). So far I have found

mention of it in Vol 1, 4 and 5. Doug does caution that he actually hates to bring it

up but he obviously feels strongly enough to do so and introduce it multiple times.

And in truth he seems pretty convinced of it ...certainly as a possiblity if not a

probability. He even states that the Moreman photo is probably altered

to blur out Greer and what he might be doing.

...there is a ton of good stuff in his volumes but there is little doubt that he

is seriously introducing the subject of Greer shooting JFK with a pistol.

My congratulations to Doug for having the courage to follow the evidence, however much it offends partisans of the two great CIA-imposed orthodoxies in the case, the TSBD and the grassy knoll.

[David Andrews]

We need that "other" Zapruder film that people talk about, now, by any means necessary.

[William Kelly]

We need that "other" Zapruder film that people talk about, now, by any means necessary.

If you look at the record of what's there, it's pretty amazing that so many people had cameras and were filming at DP, while there are only bits and pieces of other parts of the motorcade.

Who suggested to Abe Zapruder that he do something he's never done before and go out and buy a movie camera and film the motorcade from DP?

Who suggested to Phil Ochs to be there?

What happened to the Babuska Lady's film?

What happened to Beverly Oliver's boyfriend Larry Ronco, who worked at Kodak and gave her the camera?

What happened to the official autopsy photographer's film?

What happened to the NPIC briefing boards made from the z-film on two occassions?

What happened to Life Mag's still printouts used by the surveyors?

How could UPI lose the most important film it ever possessed?

Who stole the AF 1 Wink photo negative from the LBJ library?

What happened to the AF 1 radio transmission tapes and transcript?

These are all questions that can and should be answered.

If we look at the history of the photo record's provenance - chain of custody - when give the opportunity the Secret Service guy made personal copies of the autopsy photos, Tink Thompson made copies of the Z film when he worked for Life, Groden made copies of the Z-film and the HSCA autopsy records when he worked for HSCA, and even those who were ordered to destroy official records - (ie. New Orleans Grand Jury transcripts; Andrew's AF1 log; Dallas newsreels), those sub-bordinates refused - and kept them, saved them and turned them over to ARRB, and are now heros of mine who I think should get a historic preservation awards.

So why should we assume that there's not more photo evidence out there?

Of course these are all questions that the Assassinations Records Review Board was responsible for answering , to locate, release or otherwise determine the fate of the assassination records, but ultimately failed to do its duty.

Now, maybe a serious Congressional Oversight Sub-Committee, responsible for such things, will try to answer them, but I doubt it.

BK

[David Andrews]

I'm thinking that the "other Zapruder film" is only going to appear through an individual or small-group effort.

Edited December 30, 2009 by David Andrews

[Paul Rigby]

... someone with a different perspective might be less offended than worried that an apparently significant work includes an apparently serious argument about someone shooting John Kennedy in the head from the front seat of the presidential limousine, firing past Governor and Nellie Connally to do so. That alone raises caution about the work and the judgment of the author.

One sees immediately why Horne is so very, very "misguided":

1. Bobby Hargis:

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:

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: “Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if [sic] he would have after being shot from the rear,” “President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.]

4. Officer E. L. Boone:" I heard three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President's car was,” 19WCH508.

5. 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.

6. 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. 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.

8. Hugh Betzner, Jr.: “I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following: I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air,” 19WCH467

9. Mary Moorman: “The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in that car,” Jay Hogan interview with Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, KRLD Radio (Dallas), 15:30hrs (CST), 22 November 1963, Tape 5B and 6A (NARA) – see http://educationforum.iphost.com/index.php?showtopic=9364

10. Jean Hill: ““I thought I saw some men in plain clothes shooting back but everything was such a blur...,” Sheriff Department’s statement, 22 November 1963.

11. Don Schulman: “Just then the guard…took out his gun. And he fired also…The guard definitely pulled out his gun and fired,” KNXT-TV reporter, minutes after the assassination of RFK, within Ted Charach’s landmark documentary, The Second Gun.

You join very distinguished company in your concern, Dan, men like...Allen Welch Dulles, for example.

[William Kelly]

At some point, one or more of Doug Horne's exegetes on this forum is, I'm sure, going to offer a word or two, if only for honesty's sake, on the seriousness with which he treats the proposition that William Greer shot his President.

And perhaps reproduce details of the anecdote concerning Clint Hill and the flight back to Washington?

I don't yet have any of the volumes, but I take the following descriptions as accurate summaries.

http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?to...icseen#msg31146

Re: Doug Horne's book(s) now for sale on Amazon

« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2009, 07:03 AM »

Doug Mizzer:

Horne mentions witnesses in the Plaza that day that saw guns drawn inside the limo and thought they were firing back at the assassins. He also higlights a steward that was within earshot of Clint Hill on the trip home from Dallas. The steward claims that as Hill was washing the blood off himself, he blurted out that when he jumped on the rear bumper of the limo, Greer had his handgun pointed directly at him. And as I previously noted, his Moorman photo with the caption about Greer missing from it, is in Volume 1. This is where all the illustrations are located. I believe it's number 76.

« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2009, 07:24 PM »

Larry Hancock:

…like it or not Doug does bring up the possiblity of Greer shooting JFK many

times and from a noumber of angles (as Doug pointed out). So far I have found

mention of it in Vol 1, 4 and 5. Doug does caution that he actually hates to bring it

up but he obviously feels strongly enough to do so and introduce it multiple times.

And in truth he seems pretty convinced of it ...certainly as a possiblity if not a

probability. He even states that the Moreman photo is probably altered

to blur out Greer and what he might be doing.

...there is a ton of good stuff in his volumes but there is little doubt that he

is seriously introducing the subject of Greer shooting JFK with a pistol.

My congratulations to Doug for having the courage to follow the evidence, however much it offends partisans of the two great CIA-imposed orthodoxies in the case, the TSBD and the grassy knoll.

And yet someone with a different perspective might be less offended than worried that an apparently significant work includes an apparently serious argument about someone shooting John Kennedy in the head from the front seat of the presidential limousine, firing past Governor and Nellie Connally to do so. That alone raises caution about the work and the judgment of the author.

Doug Horne is the analysist and author of the book that reduces millions of pages of official records to five volumes, each detailing dozens - hundreds of small but significant issues. He doesn't make up the witnesses who reported seeing a gun drawn in the car, or people reporting that the gunshot sounded like it came from within the car, or that the nurse at Parkland said she smelled gunpowerd on the victims indicating, and he reports what they said, without endorsing it.

Now for you to say that Doug Horne believes that someone in the car shot JFK is not true, and if that is the case then it is on you, not Doug Horne.

Of course Doug Horne will be accused of saying a lot of things over the next few months, and those who quote him should do so accurately, and not promote falsehoods simply to discredit him, though I'm sure they will.

He doesn't smoke pot, doesn't believe in UFOs, does believe the moon pictures are real and as the Chief Analyist for Military Records of the ARRB has concluded that the records indicate that the assassination, regardless of where the shots originated, was a coup d'etat.

Bill Kelly