The Present State of Doug Horne's Evidence

[John Dolva]

Kindof,

In one episode of Red Dwarf, Kennedy travels in time to shoot himself. (from behind the fence). (They didn't go into any detail on Connally though.)

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm the St. Just of the Throat Entrance denouncing Louis.

PNAC? LOL. I am the continuation of Thompson? Ha Ha. TInk Thompson was used by Paul Hoch at a conference in 1993 in Chicago to have a go at my defense of Jim Garrison. TInk and I later had a mild contretemps over the issue of the CIA infiltration of the media. If you would go to these things, you would know this stuff. Secondly, go ahead and review The Assassinations. See if that book is under any influence of SSD. Does Tink question whether or not LHO ordered or picked up the rifle? Has he ever written anything about the probable marking up of the x-rays? (As I did in my Bugliosi Pt. 4) After the HSCA finished, TInk wrote an essay in an unpublished manuscript in which he seemed to accept Guinn's NAA. In a conference in SF many years ago, I mentioned this and said I disagreed with him on the NAA. I didn't buy Guinn. And of course neither does Tink today.

Third, in Volume 5, Doug Horne quotes a speech by Tink that he thinks is just peachy that Tink made at that Chicago Conference about the state of the case at the time. In my upcoming review, I explain why I disagree with both Horne's agreement and with the thesis of the speech by Tink.

There was nothing to buy from Guinn. It was a fake issue from the start. The SBT failed

on the low back wound and discussions of lesser proofs did nothing but obfuscate that fact.

I used to cite Josiah Thompson's examination of Willis 5 under a microscope as he related

in SSD, where he found no evidence of jacket "bunch." I thoroughly supported his defense of

the the Dealey Plaza photo evidence (aside: my enthusiasm for Paul Rigby's friend Richard Starnes

has thus far stayed his blade).

I decided to disregard Tink's position on the throat wound, which I found incoherent given JFK's

clear reaction to throat trauma well before the head shot.

I attended the Cracking the Case Conference in '05 and applauded his presentation of the

Dealey Plaza films/photos as the bedrock evidence in the case (and, I'd answer my friend

Paul, appears to simulate a known CIA/military operation between Z186 (Betzner 3) thru

Z255 (Altgens 6) with Willis 5 (Z202) thrown in).

I chatted with Tink afterwards for about 10 minutes. Right before someone else cut in

on our conversation I thanked him for that bit in SSD about examining Willis 5 under

a microscope.

He looked genuinely surprised.

"I did?"

"Yes. You said you'd looked at Willis 5 under a microscope."

Tink rolled his eyes -- "Well, if you think that's evidence..." he trailed

off disparagingly.

At that point someone drew his attention elsewhere and, terribly disappointed, I went off

to talk with Roland Zavada.

Reading John Kelin's Praise From a Future Generation has led me to conclude that the

Salandria-Thompson falling out over the Throat Entrance Wound in 1966 was the tipping point

in the marginalization of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

When Josiah Thompson pooh-poohed the throat entrance wound he began a deleterious trend.

When one acknowledges the prima facie case for conspiracy -- as Salandria was outlining

when they split, T3 back wound, throat entrance -- lesser proofs lose significance.

Who wants to invest a tremendous amount of time researching a complex and fascinating

case and produce work of limited significance?

Thus there will always be pushback against the Low Back Wound and Throat Entrance

Wound.

What fun is playing the JFK False Mystery Game is the answer is obvious to small children?

When Salandria denounced Tink as a covert government disinformation agent he began a

deleterious trend where reputations were put to the blade over mere disagreements.

I think the US government was watching them closely and concluded that as long as there were people willing to cast doubt on the most salient facts of conspiracy they didn't need "disinformation agents, just ambitious, thoroughly well-meaning people who sought to "Answer the Question of Conspiracy" in spite of the fact that the answer was obvious: JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy as established by the T3 back wound and the throat entrance wound.

But if the answer to "The Question of Conspiracy" is self-evident, a prima facie case, then what good is researching the NAA, the acoustic evidence, the head wound evidence, or the windshield evidence?

Makes all of that moot, doesn't it?

Should anyone want a collegial one on one debate on the statement -- the low

back wound and throat entrance wounds are never-effectively-challenged facts --

I'll take on all comers, without a xxxxx buzzing in our ears.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Rigby]

This is so ridiculous I don't even want to reply. But someone has to play Danton to Robespierre.

RIgby is nothing less than dishonest when he says that I was talking about RFK's ties to the liberal side of the CIA in my discussion of O'Sullivan's ersatz Ambassador scenario. Anyone can see I was not. What I was trying to do was imagine why Bradley Ayers's friend was at the Ambassador that night and said he saw some CIA chiefs there. I did not understand why the man was there. So I made up some alternative universe scenario--which RIgby actually took seriously.

That's genuinely funny, and almost - almost - as preposterous as your claim that Cranor was not describing a variant of the Z-fake. Curious, then, to find Cranor herself writing: "I recently realized that an early description of the film...fits my own impression of this version."

Its almost funny for him to name Murder from Within as some kind of a landmark--since no one quotes from it today. Except him.

David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and so on and so forth. Another DiEugenio porkie.

PNAC? LOL. I am the continuation of Thompson? Ha Ha.

In SSID, Thompson systematically expunged references to an in-car shooting, mislocated witnesses who so stated and concealed inconvenient testimony to that effect from his readers.

You're engaged in exactly the same game. What was that quote from a recent Black Op radio appearance of yours? Care to remind us?

Thompson insisted on the veracity of the Z-fake - still does - and so do you.

On the two key issues under discussion, then, you are exactly as characterised: The continuation of Josiah Thompson by other means.

...in my Bugliosi series I used what I call the classic texts--Meagher, Lane, Thompson, Weisberg--quite a bit in the early going. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because he doesn't go for Z film alteration.

Don't recall ever saying any such thing. But, unlike you, I remember the inconvenient stuff: Lane wrote in November/December 1963 that the Zapruder film had been shown on US TV; Weisberg was pleased that Life, not the USG, had possession of the Z-film; and Thompson, well here I would pull the plug. Meagher, the best of them, is not germane in this context.

About these quotes for these witnesses: please supply the proper academic sourcing for them. When you did a similar thing at DPF, about these witnesses who allegedly saw the SS hit, you got blown out of the water by Charles Drago.

Given that you're familiar with the thread, you know that I did. They're still there. I particularly enjoyed CD's question: "Again I ask you, how would proof of a left-temple wound of entry support ANY conclusions whatsoever regarding the firing position?" Now if that's what you call being "blown out of the water by Charles Drago" then we have very different conceptions of victory and defeat. Not to mention front and back.

Also, where are the proper quotes for the Muchmore, Nix etc?

You don't know any of this and yet you insist the Z-fake is genuine? Incredible.

Greer and the CIA? Maximilien, you can't be serious. In well over four decades, no one ever uncovered Greer's ties to the CIA? The ARRB did not either.

Er, your point is? In fact, the number of researchers doing original, detailed research on the SS is shockingly small.

Give me a break Paul. Then instead of Horne's JFK the philanderer motive (kill him for Jackie I guess), you come up with religious intolerance: Let's kill the bleeding Irish Catholic. Oh my aching back.

You obviously know your Irish history. As to Greer's attitude to Irish Catholics, ask his son.

Then to detract from the unbeleivable stupidity of doing somethign like this in the open, you say well see it was the "dipping and sloping terrain". Almost like the car disappeared from sight? Have you ever been there? How could you write something so at odds with the facts.

I have the topography spot-on. You have offered waffle.

In your last paragraph, you mix up the entities. Mobsters go into barber shops and kill people in barber chairs close up. Intelligence agencies are a bit more sophisticated about these things. They use things like MK /Ultra, and two white Mustangs etc. Especially with 70-90 witnesses looking at you.

Thane Eugene Cesar murdered Robert Kennedy in a pantry full of people. Same MO as Dallas - a direct and positive "hit," obscured behind a complex array of red herrings, distractions etc.

But the same MO.

[Paul Rigby]

Paul:

There is no other way to say this: you are misrepresenting what I said about Rabern and what Cranor saw.

Ah, but there is Jim: “Paul, you were right. I did seriously posit the existence of a liberal wing of the CIA”– I almost blush to repeat such an absurdity – “who supported RFK.”

Shall we look at the key sentence again? I think we should. Which element(s) of the DiEugenio sentence to follow are interrogative?

If he was a covert operator, was he from the liberal wing of the CIA who supported RFK?

A clue: Not the bit comprising “the liberal wing of the CIA who supported RFK.” Your question manifestly assumes the existence of the absurdity. It questions merely whether Rabern belonged to the fictional faction you advanced as a given.

Rigby actually took the liberal wing comment out of context and on its own in order to slam me. He completely missed my point about the serious question about Rabern's presence there.

Alas, no. I merely identified a rank piece of disinformation. I thank you for confirming, albeit in somewhat laborious detail, the veracity of my point.

Rigby performs a card trick by comparing me to Thompson. He ignores all the differences I have had with him--and my criticisms of SSD on another thread, and goes right to his jihad: Z film alteration. That's fair isn't it? For Robespierre maybe.

I accurately noted that on the two key issues - film alteration and Greer-as-assassin - your positions are, all surface froth aside, identical. And they are. Thompson has worked assiduously over the past decade or so to sustain the Zapruder deception. You are now engaged in exactly the same activity, almost certainly in response to the appearance of Doug Horne's pentalogy.

If you are going to say that other films have been altered and various witnesses saw a SS guy shooting in the car, then please properly source them. Because it is you who bears the burden of proof.

I have, at some length. If you're too lazy to search this site, ask a friend.

I love the closing. He actually tries to compare Greer killing Kennedy with Cesar shooting RFK at the Ambassador Hotel.

Can't think why:

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.

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.

Paul, maybe you don't know that case well. See, in that case there was a large distraction. His name was Sirhan B. Sirhan. He had been programmed. That is why the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress was next to him. His shooting caused everyone to look ahead of RFK and for people to pounce on him. This provided the perfect distraction for Cesar who was directly behind RFK to conceal what he did. In the JFK case, none of this applies.

The problem is quite the reverse: You appear entirely unfamiliar with testimony from some of the eyewitnesses closest to the Elm Street action. No distraction operation here, Jim?

1) Ronald B. Fischer: “And, after that, we stood there for 10 or 15 seconds and then we ran up to the top of the hill there where all the Secret Service men had run, thinking that that's where the bullets had come from since they seemed to be searching that area over there. They jumped off-out of cars and ran up the side of the hill there and onto the tracks where these passenger--freight cars were,” 6WCH196

2) Jack Franzen: “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 arrived at that location at approximately 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963. 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 President's car and immediately assumed that someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile…He noticed the 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 plain clothesmen [sic] running up the grassy slope across Elm Street from his location and toward a wooded and bushy area located across Elm Street from him… Because of this activity he presumed the shots which were fired came from the shrubbery or bushes toward which these officers appeared to be running,” Statement to the FBI, November 24, 1963: http://www.jfk-online.com/franzen.ht

You don't even have to trust these inconvenient eyewitnesses. The SS itself briefed reporters in the hours after the assassination about this run up the knoll. In order to avoid any suggestion that this was a rehearsed drill, the spin was that the SS men in question where merely following the motorcycle cops lead:

Compiled from wire reports, “John F. Kennedy Slain!,” Lima News, 22 November 1963, p.2: “Some of the Secret Service agents thought the gunfire was from an automatic weapon fired to the right rear of the Chief Executive’s car, probably from the grassy knoll to which motorcycle policemen directed their attention as they raced up the slope.”

Greer was right in front of JFK, right out in the open in the center of the action. With about 70-90 people staring at him.

I do love a little hyperbole in the evening - this wouldn't even be true had Greer driven with the assistance of stilts - but pity your Z-fake discloses no such thing!

[William Kelly]

You know, that whole Shane O'Sullivan photo scam of the two JMWAVE guys Morales and Cambell being at the Ambassador when RFK was killed, now that was a dizinformation deception operation, though I think SOS was just used.

We don't need to put those guys at the Ambassador to know that there was more to RFK's murder than the programed arab.

So what's it all about?

Certainly Morales has been suspected as a Dealey Plaza operative for a long time, and his credentials are strong, but we know less about Cambell, other than what Brad Ayers tells us, and that's quite a lot, along with other details of the entire JMWAVE operation AT THE TIME WE ARE CONCERNED WITH - the time of the JFK assassination.

Brad Ayers, as Bill Turner did through Martinez the Watergate burglar, tells us what it was like to go on a mission aboard the CIA JMWAVE Mothership REX, docked within sight of the Kennedy home in Florida. Brad tells us how he was taken from US Army Ranger training to work with the CIA's official anti-Castro commandos, on orders of the Joint Chief's of Staff and under Gen. Krulak. Ayers recalls the special commando team he personally put together on orders of Cambell, and he tells what it was like to go in on the Rex and drop off a commando team, machine guns blasting.

Ayers recalls a CIA officer Porter Goss, and a Cuban boat commander named Julio Fernandez, which dovetalis with Clare Booth Luce's Life Mag story of her "boys," the maritime commando boat she personally sponsored, and Ayers recalls a German CIA officer whose supposed execution, being thrown out of a helicopter, he was allowed to witness, ostensibly to show him what can happen to him too.

Then just as a really bizarre group out of the Bronx (Vox Pox?) publishes Brad Ayers' book, and Ayers gets a NY lawyer to try to stop them, this Shane O'Sullvan story comes out that tries to put Morales and Cambell at the Ambassador.

Brad Ayers is used as a witness, along with Wayne Smith, a former Havana Embassy staff officer and COPA member who organized the two meetings between American researchers and Cuban intelligence officers. Smith worked closely with David Atlee Phillips and was in the same amateur acting troup with him when they were both stationed in Havana when Castro took over.

And now both of these witnesses are proved wrong.

End result? The discrediting of previously reputable Havana and JMWAVE witnesses who just happened to be at the places at the times we are interested in.

I think closer attention should be paid to what Brad Ayers and Wayne Smith were saying before this deception operation was laid on them, because there must be something there that's important enough to pull off the whole deal with Sullivan.

Does anybody follow me on this?

BK

Edited July 30, 2010 by William Kelly

[Paul Rigby]

He {Me}completely skipped over his like distortion of what Cranor actually said about the alternative Z film she saw. She saw no such thing like Greer shooting Kennedy on it. I wonder why?

Charity - or was it sloth? I really can't remember. Anyway, the fact is that while Milicent's story is interesting, it is, in the absence of any chain of possession, documented provenance etc. of little or no consequence; and tells us nothing more, I suspect, than that the CIA produced more than one version of the Z-fake. The action contained within the film described by her is corroborated by few if any eyewitnesses; or the Parkland doctors. By the way, that giant head flap business really is terribly far-out nonsense. I would drop it, personally.

Concerning my differences with Thomspon, which you ignore even though they are on this thread, if you hold me to Greer, then a heck of lot of people are aligned with Tink. As per Z film alteration, Tink is adamantly opposed. I am more of an agnostic on that. You are a jihadist, "take no prisoners" type on the issue. If they don't buy it, burn them at the stake.

Yesterday Robespierre, today a jihadist? This gets weirder. And even more self-dramatising: are you really in imminent danger of being burnt at a stake? Strange place, California.

The other witnesses you produce are worse than Betzner since there is no location given. And this is a serious problem for this story. Which you want to ignore. You also leave out the problem with Betzner; he saw a guy with a rifle. I'd ignore that too if I were you. I would also ignore the ambiguous time frame in his affidavit which seems to place it after Clint Hill and Jackie Kennedy sat down in the limo. With the other witnesses you bring up, the location is even hazier as to where these men were, which is probably why you do not properly source them. What are you going to say, the SS was actually a firing squad that day: firing from different cars and different directions. I thought this was about Greer?

Its almost funny what he does with Schulman. Schulman supplies just what Hill does not, a location precisely where it needs to be.

The rest of this is just the kind of drivel you tried to put on DPF. There is no comparison with the RFK case simply because of the precise and close location of witnesses, and the proximity of the diversion. Which took place right in front of RFK. Quoting the news form Lima Peru, which says shots came from the grassy knoll, does not help your cause Paul.

But, when you have nothing of substance, you throw in everything.

Hate to break it to you, Jim, but Franzen stood on the south curb of Elm and was one of the closest eyewitnesses to the shooting. Sneaky of me to quote people who were there, I realise, but then that's the Brits all over for you: Devious to the last. And to prove it, here's one of the knollers' favourite witnesses, S.M.Holland, "imagining" Kellerman holding a weapon on Elm. Crazy guy, that Betzner cove, not to mention his even crazier timeline:

Mark Lane: What were the Secret Service men in the front of the car doing when this happened?

S.M. Holland: Well, he was standing up with his machine gun, pointed in the direction that I saw the smoke, and, er, heard the shot come from.

Mark Lane: And which way did he look?

S.M. Holland: He was standing up with a sub-machine gun pointed in the direction of that picket fence.

From the LP “The Controversy: The Death of John F. Kennedy” (Capitol Records KA02677, 1966)

PS That's Lima, USA, not South America.

[Jack White]

I have always thought there was great significance to the witnesses who smelled gunpowder smoke.

But I believe that those claiming that it came from a gun fired by Greer are grasping at straws.

However, I believe the Secret Service WAS involved. More likely candidates for the cordite smell:

1. A pistol shot from the storm drain.

2. A pistol shot from the right rear window of the SS car behind the LBJ car, signaling go-ahead.

3. A shot from behind the wooden fence.

A shot by Greer in plain sight of spectators and cameras and THE OCCUPANTS OF THE LIMO

would not be something in any planned assassination scenario.

This is a nutty theory.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

The conversation with the "mechanics"/"sniper teams"/"spotters" etc - choose the fantasy term of one's choice - was so very much different. "Trust us," said the CIA, we'll ship you out of Dallas at a rate of knots, and promise to let you live unmolested for ever and a day." And they sacrificed their lives, their names, their families etc with nary a second thought, secure in the promise Langley had made them. How incredibly different such conversations must have been to those conducted with Greer.

Or perhaps not.

I'm unsure of your point, Paul. Is the sarcasm aimed at the idea of the existence of "nameless, faceless, assassins without nationality" whose families are already secured away at our "resorts" and will remain safe as long as the assassin plays the game? Or does your sarcasm have more to do with Greer?

If you are so naive as to believe that "mechanics" exist only in movies--and that their cooperation is not GUARANTEED by coercion and severe manipulation...you haven't done your homework.

[Paul Rigby]

I have always thought there was great significance to the witnesses who smelled gunpowder smoke.

Agreed. It makes nonsense of the claim all shots were fired from distance.

But I believe that those claiming that it came from a gun fired by Greer are grasping at straws.

Problem here, Jack, is that I am merely reading what eyewitnesses said about the smell, the sounds, and the events on Elm Street. I'm not inventing anything. Now, if one believes what they reported about the stench of gun powder, on what rational ground(s) do we discount what they said about shots from within the presidential limo? Why is one observation to be believed and the other discounted?

However, I believe the Secret Service WAS involved.

Their actions could scarcely be more indicative of participation.

More likely candidates for the cordite smell:

1. A pistol shot from the storm drain.

As championed by, among others, Garrison in late 1967, a fact often airbrushed from history. But how does a shot (or shots) from the storm drain a) account for the fact the smell of gunpowder clung to the presidential limo and JFK's clothing all the way to Parkland; and b)match the wound patterns observed at Parkland?

2. A pistol shot from the right rear window of the SS car behind the LBJ car, signaling go-ahead.

Left, surely?

3. A shot from behind the wooden fence.

More visible than a shot from within the limo, when you think about it.

A shot by Greer in plain sight of spectators and cameras and THE OCCUPANTS OF THE LIMO

would not be something in any planned assassination scenario.

This is a nutty theory.

The problem here is the old one.

The question is not whether we like a given scenario or not, but what did the eyewitnesses say. Austin Miller, George Davis and Royce Skelton had elevated and unimpeded views of what transpired. They had no discernible motive to lie; and have been assiduously neglected or flat misrepresented by a succession of writers, from Josiah Thompson to Mark Lane. Miller answered straight before the WC ("from inside the car"); Davis described weapons in the hands of the Secret Service; and Skelton expressed the view that the shots came from "around" the presidential limo.

The problem lies not with them, but with those among us who don't like what they reported.

[Paul Rigby]

The conversation with the "mechanics"/"sniper teams"/"spotters" etc - choose the fantasy term of one's choice - was so very much different. "Trust us," said the CIA, we'll ship you out of Dallas at a rate of knots, and promise to let you live unmolested for ever and a day." And they sacrificed their lives, their names, their families etc with nary a second thought, secure in the promise Langley had made them. How incredibly different such conversations must have been to those conducted with Greer.

Or perhaps not.

I'm unsure of your point, Paul. Is the sarcasm aimed at the idea of the existence of "nameless, faceless, assassins without nationality" whose families are already secured away at our "resorts" and will remain safe as long as the assassin plays the game? Or does your sarcasm have more to do with Greer?

If you are so naive as to believe that "mechanics" exist only in movies--and that their cooperation is not GUARANTEED by coercion and severe manipulation...you haven't done your homework.

My point was perfectly clear, Greg. Precisely the same basic objection can be raised against one set of non-Oswaldian assassins as any other.

As for "coercion and manipulation," why are their deployment unthinkable in the case of Greer (and other elements of the SS detail in Dallas), but viewed by you as givens in the case of your preferred alternatives?

[Paul Rigby]

Ok Paul, now show me how that last quote proves the Greer shot?

I'm waiting.

Basic comprehension, like elementary logic, really isn't your strong point, is it? You dismissed Betzner's claims about a handgun being visible on the ground that he also referred to a rifle. I adduced Holland's testimony from 1966 to show that Betzner's claim about the former had corroboration. There are others.

Or are you going to go for the Secret Service firing squad scenario?

Which is it?

I like both, but I'll settle for the former.

[Greg Burnham]

My point was perfectly clear, Greg. Precisely the same basic objection can be raised against one set of non-Oswaldian assassins as any other.

So, you're saying what in your above sentence? It's not perfectly clear to me, and I'm trying real hard. Are you saying that nearly identical arguments can be used to refute the existence of assassins who are "not Oswald" no matter who the alleged assassins might be? If that's what you're saying, so far, I'm still not understanding your point.

As for "coercion and manipulation," why are their deployment unthinkable in the case of Greer (and other elements of the SS detail in Dallas), but viewed by you as givens in the case of your preferred alternatives?

Your next sentence is still a bit hard for me to understand. Let me re-phrase my position. The Secret Service are not assassins. However, assassins do exist--not lone nuts--but the real deal "mechanics" or whatever label for them that suits your fancy. The Secret Service only needs to "relax" its protection protocol in a pre-arranged "window of opportunity" for the deed to be done. Their complicity is passive. An assassin's complicity is more than active. It is direct.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Paul Rigby]

Are you saying that nearly identical arguments can be used to refute the existence of assassins who are "not Oswald" no matter who the alleged assassins might be? If that's what you're saying, so far, I'm still not understanding your point.

The verb you chose - "refute" - reveals you have missed my point by some distance, quite possibly the length of Elm. No, I am not "refuting" the existence of non-Oswaldian assassins by such arguments, not least because the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald had nothing whatever to do with the shooting. So the facts oblige us to consider the alternatives. I merely pointed out that the particular objection advanced by Jim DisIngenuous is, contrary to the impression he sought to convey, every bit as applicable to all other alternatives to Greer. It thus tells us nothing about the case against Greer, or, indeed, the alternatives, but plenty about DisIngenuous.

The Secret Service are not assassins. However, assassins do exist--not lone nuts--but the real deal "mechanics" or whatever label for them that suits your fancy. The Secret Service only needs to "relax" its protection protocol in a pre-arranged "window of opportunity" for the deed to be done. Their complicity is passive. An assassin's complicity is more than active. It is direct.

Here again, all is confusion. You seek to persuade us of a distinction between active and passive SS involvement which rests upon your belief that as Greer didn't shoot his President, the SS involvement was thus "passive." The distinction is bogus. "Active" complicity is stripping the layers of protection, slowing the limo to a halt etc. The question is then not whether the SS was actively or passively complicit, but whether one of its number pulled the trigger. And judgment on that issue rests with consideration of the eyewitness testimony, the Parkland doctors observations etc.

[Greg Burnham]

Are you saying that nearly identical arguments can be used to refute the existence of assassins who are "not Oswald" no matter who the alleged assassins might be? If that's what you're saying, so far, I'm still not understanding your point.

The verb you chose - "refute" - reveals you have missed my point by some distance, quite possibly the length of Elm. No, I am not "refuting" the existence of non-Oswaldian assassins by such arguments, not least because the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald had nothing whatever to do with the shooting. So the facts oblige us to consider the alternatives. I merely pointed out that the particular objection advanced by Jim DisIngenuous is, contrary to the impression he sought to convey, every bit as applicable to all other alternatives to Greer. It thus tells us nothing about the case against Greer, or, indeed, the alternatives, but plenty about DisIngenuous.

[emphasis added]

Ok, I think I understand your point better now. I agree with some of that, especially the part about "the argument advanced is every bit as applicable to all other alternatives to Greer" -- So, that argument is not helpful, in your opinion--and I agree.

The Secret Service are not assassins. However, assassins do exist--not lone nuts--but the real deal "mechanics" or whatever label for them that suits your fancy. The Secret Service only needs to "relax" its protection protocol in a pre-arranged "window of opportunity" for the deed to be done. Their complicity is passive. An assassin's complicity is more than active. It is direct.

Here again, all is confusion. You seek to persuade us of a distinction between active and passive SS involvement which rests upon your belief that as Greer didn't shoot his President, the SS involvement was thus "passive." The distinction is bogus. "Active" complicity is stripping the layers of protection, slowing the limo to a halt etc. The question is then not whether the SS was actively or passively complicit, but whether one of its number pulled the trigger. And judgment on that issue rests with consideration of the eyewitness testimony, the Parkland doctors observations etc.

The distinction is NOT bogus. I did not suggest that "relaxation of protection protocol" is any less inculpatory of the Secret Service. They are FULLY at fault--just s much as a shooter. However, the roles of the various "operators" are distinct. And Greer's role was not a shooter, IMO.

Anyone who participated in this crime in any way: from pulling triggers to stopping the vehicle; from planting evidence to neglecting witness testimony; from signalling shooters to allowing Ruby into the garage; and all the rest, up to and completely including anyone who contributed to the ensuing and ongoing cover-up (obstruction of justice) are ALL guilty of crimes that are not limited by statute.

I do not give the SS a break in this, not at all.

[Paul Rigby]

I do not give the SS a break in this, not at all.

Never said you did, Greg. I simply drew attention to a faulty distinction you'd drawn. What puzzles me, quite genuinely, is why those who embrace the abundant evidence of SS treason find it so unimaginable that that involvement should extend to the actual shooting. It's particularly perplexing in the case of those such as you who have seen through the Z-fake. Clear this CIA-constructed impediment out of the road, and we transform the case into a standard murder inquiry - one dependent upon witnesses, not a lot of junk celluloid.