Jump to content
The Education Forum

New video - JFK Assassination: Nothing but the truth

Recommended Posts

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.


Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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


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

Brad, basically SWHT explores my studies and my view as to who were the most likely individuals involved in the actual attack in Dallas. That is based on my assessment of the most credible sources who knew at least something about the conspiracy and their proven associates. Having profiled and in some cases named those individuals I offer my own scenario for the attack - that goes into some of the areas mentioned above. My comfort level does not lead me to specific conclusions about exactly who shot form where - I leave that to others. Instead I deal with the types of individuals involved and the type of paramilitary operations they can be shown to be familiar with and actually have been involved with in their previous activities.

I don't want to make it sound like I dug all that up myself, its an analysis largely based in the work of others - I have added a few parts myself but you can readily identify those in the book. Often its little things, for example Noel Twyman came up with one solid identification of Roy Hargraves as having been the individual reported by an informant as having held secret service ID, having gone to Dallas and having participated in one of the "biggest" things in the countries history. For my part I developed a completely independent corroboration of the same identification.

Anyway, that gives you some idea of what it is, and what it isn't. If you do choose to read it I'm always available by email to chat. A google search will also show you a few of my interviews and that might move you to either get the book or take a pass...grin.

-- Larry

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

  • Create New...