Midnight Blue to Black: the Vanishing Act of the JFK Presidential Limousine SS100X In Broad Daylight

[Ken Davies]

I believe that I can tell the difference between sworn evidence/testimony as I do so on a daily basis

in various courts.

Your personal attacks accomplish nothing. Your inability to produce corroboration as to the alleged1964 Z film showing in a NY theatre speaks volumes. (There seems to be a lengthy blog on this on David Reitzes site. I don't support his beliefs, but do agree that people proclaiming things should be able to support said claims.)

So a tad of ad hom and insinuation are your response to my request to agree-to-disagree and move on? That in itself speaks volumes, unfortunately.

You are entitled to your opinion. You can choose to dismiss whatever you want. That doesn't matter to me.

Apparently you are not at this point in time yet able to keep an open door to the possibility of a lack of containment of the Z-film(s). Ironically, even Dan Rather, who is a firm WC defender, is not one of those who denies that any Time-Life executive who wanted a copy of a Z-film could have it sent to their office. This lack of containment, much less the lack of provenance, is obviously an emotional issue for some people. You are not alone. Tink Thompson, who worked at Time-Life in the 60's, was apparently unaware of what was going on behind their closed doors. David Lifton, who lived in LA at the time, seems to find it *impossible* that anyone saw the Z-film(s) in any other place but at NARA.

I was even hesitant to include this discussion of my viewing a copy of the Z-film(s) in Midnight Blue to Black, as I was concerned that it might detract from my focus on the limo. However, it is essential to my thesis, which is that deliberate disinfo was put out about significant areas of the assassination in order to throw the public off the scent. The rumours and stories about the limo are at the core of this practice, but it extends throughout virtually all the areas of the assassination. Was the autopsy really just a 'Little Shop of Horrors?' DId the SS actually sanitize the limo before turning it over to the FBI? How could LHO *act alone* even if he did fire the shots when he set off alarms in the intelligence agencies of three different countries prior to the assassination? Was there really no "SBT", but instead, just a series of SBT scenarios?

If anyone wants to get to the heart of what happened in Dallas, is it not necessary to be able to question every comforting statement the govt tells us and look for the truth underneath the disinfo? Otherwise, why not just read a good novel and forget about how grisly the real world of the JFK assassination can be? :-0

Where is the corroboration? There is none.

[Ken Davies]

There is no corroboration by anyone ( or anything ) of the claim that the Z film was shown in a theatre in NY in 1964.

Dan Rather did not corroborate this claim. His work on the JFK case is dubious.

Kellerman's sworn testimony trumps an opinion. That is evident. It is not an ad hominem comment.

[Pamela Brown]

There is no corroboration by anyone ( or anything ) of the claim that the Z film was shown in a theatre in NY in 1964.

Dan Rather did not corroborate this claim. His work on the JFK case is dubious.

Kellerman's sworn testimony trumps an opinion. That is evident. It is not an ad hominem comment.

Surely after all our discussion, you are able to consider the possibility that your opinion is just that? You are entitled.

Let me add a bit of definition to what seems to be your position, though.

Even though you have a witness statement of someone who said they viewed a copy of one of the Z-films in a theater in NYC, you choose to dismiss it.

Even though a public figure leaves a door open to the fact that any exec at Time-Life could request a copy of one of the Z-film(s), you choose to dismiss it.

And regardless of the fact that nobody else in the limo heard JFK speak during the assassination, you choose to dismiss that.

[Pamela Brown]

There is no corroboration by anyone ( or anything ) of the claim that the Z film was shown in a theatre in NY in 1964.

Dan Rather did not corroborate this claim. His work on the JFK case is dubious.

Kellerman's sworn testimony trumps an opinion. That is evident. It is not an ad hominem comment.

Surely after all our discussion, you are able to consider the possibility that your opinion is just that? You are entitled.

Let me add a bit of definition to what seems to be your position, though.

Even though you have a witness statement of someone who said they viewed a copy of one of the Z-films in a theater in NYC, you choose to dismiss it.

Even though a public figure leaves a door open to the fact that any exec at Time-Life could request a copy of one of the Z-film(s), you choose to dismiss it.

And regardless of the fact that nobody else in the limo heard JFK speak during the assassination, you choose to dismiss that.

[Pamela Brown]

There is no corroboration by anyone ( or anything ) of the claim that the Z film was shown in a theatre in NY in 1964.

Dan Rather did not corroborate this claim. His work on the JFK case is dubious.

Kellerman's sworn testimony trumps an opinion. That is evident. It is not an ad hominem comment.

Let me add a bit of definition to what seems to be your position.

Even though you have a witness statement of someone who said they viewed a copy of one of the Z-films in a theater in NYC, you choose to dismiss it.

Even though a public figure leaves a door open to the fact that any exec at Time-Life could request a copy of one of the Z-film(s), you choose to dismiss it.

And regardless of the fact that nobody else in the limo heard JFK speak during the assassination, you choose to dismiss that.

Why not agree-to-disagree and move on?

Edited December 15, 2013 by Pamela Brown

[Pamela Brown]

Are all witness statements created equal? (Just for Mr. Davies...)

Here are a few excerpts from Jackie Kennedy's sworn testimony to the Warren Commission:

JK: "...my husband never made any sound."

"You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out the back. But I don't remember that at all." 5H+E, p. 180

JK: "No, there weren't any words. There was just Govenor Connally's. And then I suppose Mrs. Connally was sort of crying and covering her husband. But I don't remember any words. And there was a big windshield between -- you know--I think. Isn't there?

Rankin: Between the seats.

JK: "So you know, those poor men in the front, you couldn't hear them." 5H+E, p. 181

Edited December 15, 2013 by Pamela Brown

[Ken Davies]

She was was a traumatized spouse, who was handled gently in questioning under oath. Some of her testimony was not included in the material originally released to the public.

Kellerman was straight forward, contradicted the official line re the number of shots,and timing, and had a vigorous exchange under oath.

In regard to your post above, you are not a witness. Did you give a sworn deposition? You are someone claiming something which contradicts facts.

[Pamela Brown]

She was was a traumatized spouse, who was handled gently in questioning under oath. Some of her testimony was not included in the material originally released to the public.

Kellerman was straight forward, contradicted the official line re the number of shots,and timing, and had a vigorous exchange under oath.

In regard to your post above, you are not a witness. Did you give a sworn deposition? You are someone claiming something which contradicts facts.

I originally said:

Are all witness statements created equal? (Just for Mr. Davies...)

Here are a few excerpts from Jackie Kennedy's sworn testimony to the Warren Commission:

JK: "...my husband never made any sound."

"You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out the back. But I don't remember that at all." 5H+E, p. 180

JK: "No, there weren't any words. There was just Govenor Connally's. And then I suppose Mrs. Connally was sort of crying and covering her husband. But I don't remember any words. And there was a big windshield between -- you know--I think. Isn't there?

Rankin: Between the seats.

JK: "So you know, those poor men in the front, you couldn't hear them." 5H+E, p. 181

With all due respect, once again, in my book that is called 'cherrypicking'. Not only do you appear to pick and choose what suits you and discard the rest, first you appear to claim 'sworn testimony' cannot be false and then make excuses for sworn testimony that doesn't seem to suit your needs.

And have you not now added yet another personal caveat -- namely, that only those who give a deposition can be called a 'witness'? What about all the witnesses at DP who were not called to give testimony, most likely because what they would have said was not what the WC wanted to hear? What about the PH witnesses who claimed they saw a hole in the limo windshield? How are we to weigh and evaluate their statements?

How do you perceive your research method to be moving things forward?

What if we were to agree that even sworn witness testimony can be incorrect, either intentionally (as I think may be true in the case of Kellerman claiming he heard JFK talk when Jackie, who sat next to him, did not) or unintentionally (such as Jackie thinking there was a privacy window installed in SS100X on 11.22.63, when in fact there was one in her duplicate limo, SS279X, but the one present at delivery of SS100X was removed three months later)?

Edited December 16, 2013 by Pamela Brown

[Ken Davies]

Where is the Z film corroboration? Distraction, encore un fois?

[Ken Davies]

Don't be selective, post all of Jackie's testimony, and all of Kellerman's.

[Ken Davies]

Who makes a better witness, a person who is holding her spouse while he has his head blasted by a bullet, spaying her with his blood, or a trained officer of the law, with no emotional attachment or traumatic shock who is sitting nearby?

Dr. Phil.....

[Pamela Brown]

Don't be selective, post all of Jackie's testimony, and all of Kellerman's.

With all due respect, once again, you seem to have backed yourself into a corner where now you seem comfortable making demands of another researcher instead of posting what you find to be relevant. I will be happy to do whatever I can if there is something substantive to respond to. Otherwise, it seems to me this discussion has been exhausted.

[Pamela Brown]

After all this time, how about a new witness to SS100X after the assassination? This man worked for the company that armoured the rebuilt limo with titanium...

http://ss100x.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/a-new-witness-to-ss100x-following-the-assassination/

[Pamela Brown]

New information regarding Vaughn Ferguson and the limo...

In a letter he wrote years later Vaughn Ferguson said he cut out the back seat leather four days after the assassination:

http://www.universityarchives.com/Find-an-Item/Results-List/Item-Detail.aspx?ItemID=56496

Edited December 17, 2013 by Pamela Brown

[David G. Healy]

Ms. Brown,

The "*LIMO* crime scene" was contaminated, washed, cleaned, removed, destroyed then rebuilt.

It most certainly would not be utilized as evidence in any forthcoming investigation other than the caveat: being where the assault and murder occurred.

We knew what happened to the presidential limo 15 years ago. Essentially, it was rendered useless as evidence. So.....

What is your point?

Thanks

Edited December 17, 2013 by David G. Healy