Jump to content
The Education Forum

New video - JFK Assassination: Nothing but the truth


Recommended Posts

To keep this as simple as possible, let me show approximately where one of the HPR shots originated from.

We will use the experience of WIEGMAN who was in a convertible traveling by the TSBD when the three shots from a HPR sounded.

We can see the camera jiggle as WIEGMAN struggles to get out of the vehicle so that he can run to the spot where he perceived a shot originated from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdRr4KHbhqg

Watch what WIEGMAN captures with his camera, he is filming what he felt in those moments following gunfire to be of the most significance.

This film shows WIEGMANS experience or impression of the assassination and the TSBD and the SN window were not included.

WIEGMAN who was below the TSBD SN window at the moment of the shots, is not at all interested in filming the TSBD. Looking back through film and photographs, no one was until much later when the authorities proclaimed the shots came from the TSBD, only then did the TSBD become of interest and news.

This evidence supports the fact that there were no shots heard by witnesses that originated from any location other than from within DP, specifically the knoll and monument areas.

You are entitled to your opinions and analysis, Robert, but you can't pretend evidence doesn't exist that shots were fired from the SN. Tom Dillard took a photo of the SN window as a response to the shots. Robert Jackson said he wanted to but was out of film. Malcolm Couch also claimed he looked up at the SN window. Eyewitnesses Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, James Worrell, and Dearie Cabell confirmed that someone was in the window. In short, there is far more eyewitness evidence that shots were fired from the SN than there is eyewitness evidence shots were fired from the grassy knoll.

There is still plenty of evidence that something happened on the knoll, of course. The smoke witnesses and earwitnesses can not be discounted, IMO.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This graphic provides visual proof that the people from the media that gave testimony to the WC should be considered to be unreliable. This graphic conclusively impeaches their testimonies;

Robert H. Jackson, photographer The Dallas Times Herald; photographer

Tom Dillard, Dallas Morning News

Mal Couch, WFAA-TV/ABC Dallas

James R. Underwood, KRLD-TV Dallas

(this would also included testimony from PO BAKER who should be considered unreliable and testimony impeached)

Baker249_zps42ecb8bb.png

According to the WC/R story line, which these four men supported, requires that two shots had already been fired, the newsmen can be seen in this graphic to be concerned with some antics taking place on the sidewalk while two shots had already supposedly been fired by a HPR from a sixth floor window, in which these men claimed hearing and discussing and eventually seeing.

Photographic evidence can not be correlated to testimony that is in support of the WC/R, the conclusion must be the WC/R is a creation to cover the truth and build a false case against OSWALD who was the 'patsy' or the entire body of photographic evidence has been tampered with purposely to not support the WC/R theory.

As I have posted, this graphic shows a period of time where the WC/R claims multiple shots have already been fired, as well as does all Conspiracy theories, please note there is not anyone depicted in this photographic media that seems to be distracted or aware of gunfire, this supports the 'Assassination Four Shot Model' in that the first HPR shot heard by anyone in DP comes at Z-313.

The people captured in these images have not yet heard gunfire, including the officer depicted on the left.

I would like to hear any comments from those that still believe shots from a HPR came before Z-313 and an explanation as to why there is not any apparent reactions from ANY witnesses until after Z-313. Then why did many witnesses fall to the ground after Z-313 or can be seen to react?

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, the news media has staged photographs to recreate the news, this is common practice, some iconic photographs we believed where real are now known to have been staged.

The Dillard photo is staged

1) DILLARD claimed to believe the shots came from the TSBD, yet he takes only two photos of the TSBD then leaves DP

2) If you look at the DILLARD photographs they do not contain STYLES and other women in the windows on the fourth floor

3) I forget which of the men is looking toward the camera, but at a time when all the activity is supposed to be on the knoll and rail yards, he is looking directly into the camera, watch the birdie.

DillardA_zpsc13fbb42.jpg

4) We know the WC demanded > ?FOR SOME REASON? <, these men recreate their exact positions, exactly how they were in the windows while watching the motorcade, DILLARD merely captured this recreation.

5) NORMAN, WILLIAMS and JARMAN claimed they jumped up and ran to the windows on the West side to see the activity or they jumped up floated the notion that the shots may have come from somewhere within the TSBD then ran to the windows on the West side to see the activity in the rail yards.

6) there is no look of surprise on the faces in Dillard's photograph, they look devoid of emotions to me. From the testimonies of NORMAN, WILLIAMS and JARMAN they claimed to be extremely excited and reacted accordingly.

It is important to put all of the evidence into context.

The WC recreated NORMAN, WILLIAMS and JARMAN appearing in the windows, DILLARD or some other photographer captured this photograph and it became evidence.

Also note: proof has also been posted that impeaches DILLARDS testimony, he should be considered to be unreliable, his two photographs of the TSBD must be considered suspect.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I have already provided adequate proof that COUCH is an unreliable witness and testimony impeached. COUCH can say whatever suits his needs, the fact is COUCH does not film the TSBD couch films DP in the aftermath of the shooting. This goes to the adage don't believe what they say believe what they do.

If the TSBD /SN had been important to COUCH, in that a HPR weapon had just been fired from this location, then COUCH would have most certainly filmed it, he did not, he did not even bother with the TSBD because it was unimportant at the time, it was a non-issue, it did not become important until much later when the authorities claimed the SN as the location for the shooting.

You can see every photograph and film in the aftermath of the assassination is focused on the knoll and monument areas, all of the attention of witnesses are on these areas, the TSBD is not of any importance, none.

Immediately after the gunfire, when BAKER was running to the TSBD, he had to push his way through employees that were moving back into the building to return to work. It must be obvious there was no concern from them that a shot had come from within the building.

Virtually every employee returned to work in the TSBD immediately following the gunfire, regardless of the later statements they made to the FBI or WC where some of them thought maybe the shots had come from the TSBD.

20130908-003704-m_zpsd99ab6d9.jpg

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you say about majority of witnesses claiming the shots came from the TSBD can be proven to be untrue, it is a misconception or a myth.

When I have time I will try to prove this to you if you want to understand what the truth is.

It amazes me that you continue to believe the TSBD was a part of the assassination when there is no photographic evidence that supports that witnesses attention was on the TSBD following the gunfire. Almost all attention was directed at the knoll and monument areas then rail yards.

How is it virtually every person depicted in film and photographs following the gunfire could have been so fooled?

Even TRULY who lead BAKER to the roof initially believed BAKER needed to get to the roof to get an overview of the rail yards, he was shocked to discover BAKER thought the shots came from the TSBD, TRULY knew they had come from the knoll.

BAKER is revealed in his lies when he gets on top of the roof, the first thing he does is to run to the West side to look at the rail yards, afterwards as an afterthought BAKER does a quick inspection of the roof.

Pick and choose the evidence that suits you but this is the truth.

What happed to the hierarchy of photographs trump testimony, how is it when photographs do not support dogma it can be discarded in favor of certain specific testimony?

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, Robert, the database of witness statements on my website is by far the most comprehensive database of witness statements ever compiled. I've spent an awful lot of time reading and re-reading these statements, and have a pretty good idea what is in the historical record.

Which brings me back to post #62, in which you dismiss the statements of the newsmen in the car with Robert Jackson.

You write: "According to the WC/R story line, which these four men supported, requires that two shots had already been fired, the newsmen can be seen in this graphic to be concerned with some antics taking place on the sidewalk while two shots had already supposedly been fired by a HPR from a sixth floor window, in which these men claimed hearing and discussing and eventually seeing."

When one actually reads the statements of these men one finds 1) the "antics taking place on the sidewalk" was in fact a fellow newsman dropping film thrown to him by Jackson. 2) Jackson and the other newsmen said the first shot rang out AFTER this incident. 3) This is at odds with the scenario pushed by most current supporters of the LN scenario--that the first shot was fired circa frame 160. 4) Jackson also insisted, from the very beginning, that shots two and three were bang bang. 5. This is at odds with the scenario pushed by both the WC and the current supporters of their single-assassin conclusion.

In short, Jackson's testimony supports that there was more than one shooter. The testimony of other sniper's nest witnesses, such as Euins, Worrell, and Rowland, also suggest a conspiracy. These men, in fact, testified before the WC on the same day. The net effect was so jarring to Warren that he had a meltdown, and ordered the staff to go out and pre-interview their witnesses so there would be no more surprises, and to get the autopsy doctors (who he somehow knew would be helpful to their cause) before the commission asap.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat

Mr. JACKSON - Well, as our reporter chased the film out into the street, we all looked back at him and were laughing, and it was approximately that time that we heard the first shot, and we had already rounded the corner, of course, when we heard the the first shot. We were approximately almost half a block on Houston Street.

The graphic posted shows that the antics on the side walk lasted until at least Z-249, this would be after two shots if we are using the WC/R fiction and these news men are still seen being amused by antics on the sidewalk. They claimed they were aware of three shots having been fired from a HPR from the sixth floor of the TSBD, what then are they doing watching antics on the sidewalk?

The sound of the HPR shots was claimed to have been heard by two witnesses two blocks away from DP, it was a tremendously loud noise.

EUINS was a ninth grader Also claimed 4 shots, do you ignore this?

WORREL was in high school Also claimed 4 shots, do you ignore this?

ROWLAND may have noticed DOUGHERTY working on the 6th floor, DOUGHERTY was there working until just a few minutes before he went down to the 5th floor when the shots where heard.

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS ate his lunch on the sixth floor, in the snipers nest, according to initial police reports, he left a bag of chicken bones and a bottle of soda behind, attributed to OSWALD eating his lunch there, WC later tried to distance WILLIAMS from the SN, it is conceivable that WILLIAMS actually was still on the sixth floor during the assassination.

Pat, maybe you want to compare your data base with mine someday, you might be surprised.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is it that the only testimonies came from newsmen from Dallas?

Why do we not have testimony from the national news guys in motorcade?

assistant White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff (right front)

Merriman Smith, UPI (middle front);

Jack Bell, AP;

Robert Baskin, Dallas Morning News;

Bob Clark, ABC News (rear).

David Wiegman Jr., NBC;

Thomas J. Craven Jr., CBS;

Thomas "Ollie" Atkins, White House photographer;

John Hofan, an NBC sound engineer;

Cleveland Ryan, a lighting technician.

Frank Cancellare, UPI

Cecil Stoughton, White House photographer;

Henry Burroughs, AP

Art Rickerby, Life magazine;

Donald C. “Clint” Grant, Dallas Morning News.

Jimmy Darnell, WBAP-TV, Fort Worth

As well as Drivers

Every one of these men must have had an impression as to where the shots came from, many of them rode in a convertible and would have had a good view of the TSBD and the SN window and chances are they were not distracted by some antics on the sidewalk while the assassination was occurring.

Why not consider all the evidence in context, instead of centering on bits and pieces that have been strung together to form a fictional story.

Photographers ran into DP to take photographs and film in the aftermath of the gunfire, this should be of paramount importance to determine where the shots originated from, the concept of shots coming from the TSBD is not supported by actions, to believe that human nature, capabilities and human tendencies somehow completely failed or became unpredictable would be absurd to even contemplate, yet this is exactly what must be concluded to believe any shots came from the TSBD and that 4-600 witnesses where completely and utterly fooled.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DARNELL was traveling in the same vehicle as Robert H. Jackson, Tom Dillard, Mal Couch and James R. Underwood and does not corroborate their testimonies in his 11/29/1963 FBI report, to make the point DARNELL sates that he never looked to the TSBD building during the assassination. Does this not mean there was nothing about the TSBD that drew his attention, such as shots from a high powered rifle, he does not even mention anything about a newsman in the vehicle claiming to have seen a weapon in a window.

DARNELL was not asked to provide testimony because his story does not support the fiction the WC was busy creating. It is easy to surmise this is the same reason the national newsmen were also ignored.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within testimony is truths if one understands the proper perspective to view the assassination, truths can be identified.

Give truth some consideration.

Pat posted "When one actually reads the statements of these men one finds 1) the "antics taking place on the sidewalk" was in fact a fellow newsman dropping film thrown to him by Jackson. 2) Jackson and the other newsmen said the first shot rang out AFTER this incident."

Posted was graphic evidence proving these newsmen were busy watching the antics on the sidewalk at least until Z-249.

The newsmen claimed the first shot they heard happened AFTER watching the antics.

Reason and logic dictate that according to these witnesses the first shot they heard had to have occurred sometime after Z-249.

They all claimed to have heard three shots.

This portion of their testimony follows the 'Assassination Four Shot Model'; the first shot was silent, these men did not hear it because we know with all certainty the first shot came before Z-249.

This in itself proves the first shot was silenced, that not many witnesses heard it.

The first shot these witnesses could have possibly have heard had to have come at Z-313, then two more shots followed.

"When one actually reads the statements" actually reading the statements is not enough, one needs to understand what is being said.

Although these men lied about shots coming from the TSBD, there is still valuable information within their testimonies that can help define the assassination such as timing of the shots and that there were more than three shots fired during the assassination and that at least one was silenced and three where from a high powered rifle that occurred after Z-312.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brad, a lot of the points you outlined have been discussed - one interesting point is that Roy Hargraves related to Noel Tywman that he had been brought to Dallas specifically to build a bomb but that it was not used since the rifle attack succeeded. In Someone Would Have Talked I discuss in fairly great detail the possibilities of military type diversions including the ambulance in the intersection, the pick under the overpass, etc and also the possibility of a car bomb on the access lane to the freeway. All of that is speculation of course but it is well in line with the capabilities of the paramilitary team that very likely was in Dallas. We do know from Antonio Veciana's remarks that the attack was very similar to a complex multi-stage plan that was prepared for use against Fidel Castro in Latin America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...