Jump to content
The Education Forum

New video - JFK Assassination: Nothing but the truth


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Robert, several of my friends interested in this topic that have not yet joined the Education Forum have asked me to present you with some of their questions:

Brad, thank you for the interest and the questions

(1) Do you think it is possible that the entire ambush was carried out with silenced weapons & the explosions witnesses heard were the result of demolitions (flash-bang grenades, fireworks, etc.)? Some believe the Cuban was Orlando Bosch, demolitions man. Could such devices have generated the gun smoke people smelled on the ground or traveling down the slope of Elm St. in the caravan?

Brad, I think it would be highly unlikely that the assassination utilized more than 1 silenced shot, and three shots from a high powered rifle. One part of the evidence that is peculiar is the smoke that was generated on the knoll, It is strange that snipers would use a weapon or ammunition that would generate a large amount of smoke, if anything they would use smokeless powder, I am going to be consulting with an expert tomorrow to get an opinion if a modern weapon could possibly have generated the smoke. It occurred to me that the smoke might have been a distraction to draw attention away from the monument area and the rail yards to provide time to evacuate unseen. There is adequate evidence that all of the shots came from DP, knoll and monument areas, gun smoke would have been generated and detected. No evidence for explosions, the three shots from a high powered rifle sounded essentially the same.

(2) Why would shooters need a signal (umbrella man) with Dealey Plaza being so small & the North pergola practically 'in your face' as a vehicle clears the sidewalk monument?

Visual signals were essential, the shooter teams had to know beyond a doubt that the assassination was a go and that everything was in in place, someone had to provide this signal, also there were extras within DP these people had assignments to control the area before and in the aftermath of the assassination. Here is a gif of a lady in black, stepping onto the curb, she has a cane or umbrella raised over her head, ROSEMARY WILLIS can be seen to stop running as she passes this woman, because ROSEMARY starts to stop running immediately and then turns to look at this woman it is logical to conclude that the woman said something to ROSEMARY to stop her from running into the kill zone.

rOSEMARYcANE_zps27c03584.gif

It is also logical that both the UM and CM were signaling, the difference might have been that the CM was signaling to the shooters and the UM was signaling to the extras. The shooter team would not have knowledge of who the extras were and visa versa, each team would have to have one person they knew to trust to provide the go signal.

(3) Do you believe the South knoll extending from the South Pergola to the corner of the car park & the railroad bridge over Commerce Street was the source of any shots?

Based on evidence, first shot came from corner of wall, black dog man, fired silenced shot, HPR from gk, HPR from monument area, HPR possibly the gk

(4) People reported police in the area behind the stockade fence that they observed before & after the attack. How did these police get there (were they dropped off or did they have a vehicle parked in the railroad yards)? Could a police cruiser have been the means shooters used to dispose of their weapons and/or get transported out of the area after the attack?

These were not police, these were members of the shooter teams dressed as police and some carrying secret service credentials.

They essentially walked away from the scene. don't know how they removed the weapon, ARNOLD claims at least one was dismantled and handed to a man in a rail road workers uniform, who carried it away.

(5) Are you planning on uploading your analysis in a series of videos with graphics on YouTube?

My analysis is available on JFKASSASSINATION.COM under threads designated as DTL - # - 'name' The DTL stands for Deconstructing The Lies, there are 13 or 14 threads with extensive evidence and analysis and conjecture.

That's all for now. You may not be aware of it, but you have several interested in this topic lurking regularly & saving your analysis.

No, but I hope that what is posted is helping them understand the truth.

Sincerely,

BM

PS: The suspicion that Umbrella Man poisoned JFK with a fleshette is hard for people to shake off. Evidently, the information disclosed from the Frank Church Committee about the weapon in existence convinced people that Umbrella Man attacked JFK with it & refuse to let go of that assumption.

Brad, I don't know how to argue with crazy. If someone cares to evaluate evidence I would be happy to continue to provide evidence and analyze the connections, 50 years of crazy has been difficult to defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Oops...I forgot one question. Do you believe the Wiegman film has been edited? My email friends question why just a couple frames after the JFK limo is seen on Elm St. why Zapruder & Sitzman are missing from their filming spot on the pedestal as Wiegman makes his way towards what is believed to be the Hesters (where the fellow gets up off the woman & runs to look out the back side of the pergola? They were following the late Jack White's analysis in this are & tell me Jack believed Zapruder & Sitzman were added to films & static photos but did not consider the possibility that Dave Wiegman's film had been edited & portions including Zapruder & Sitzman had been excised, only to resume once they had left their filming spot. What do you think?

BM

FYI - My browser will not allow me to quote, this is why I cut and paste.

Yes I believe all films have been edited, portions removed and or frames removed. The Zapruder film also had special effects added to create the appearance of spray to give the illusion that a shot came from the rear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brad / Larry, many things are conceivable, but there is no need to discuss these fringe ideas mainly because none of them are needed to explain how the assassination occurred.

If a car bomb had exploded it would have certainly pointed to a conspiracy, which may not have been possible to sweep under the rug.

The following maybe a real example of disinformation used to divert attention, William Cooper became convinced that GREER turned and shot KENNEDY, he based this theory on a undisclosed 'insiders' knowledge, this knowledge most likely came from the CIA to divert COOPER and discredit his other works. To those that trusted what COOPER said, they may have wasted a lot of time studying GREER instead of real evidence.

I believe the same disinformation arose with the UM, man in the sewer and man in Dal-Tex building..etc., as long as these wild theories can divert our attention they will continue to arise, such as the latest... HICKEY accidentally killing KENNEDY.

Some of these fringe theories no doubt do arise from well intentioned but misinformed researchers.

All of this should tell researcher...after 50 years, that we have missed something fundamental about the assassination, there is more information about this event than probably any single event in history, yet after 50 years there is more confusion today then ever. Why have we continued to solve a puzzle in the same manner for 50 years? We have been stubborn and somewhat dull but persistent in avoiding the truth.

Larry, I have a problem with conspirators coming forward claiming to have been a part of the assassination, when we have seen many witnesses murdered for the mere knowledge of seeing something, the conspirators are not going to allow someone that actually has inside information to broadcast it. The exception is EH HUNT who provided an outline of the 'Big Event' to his son upon his death. I believe HUNT still believed what he had done was for the benefit of the country but felt his son deserved to know some truths concerning his fathers life.

These 'conspirators' coming forward are CIA diversions, publicity seekers or just looking for a way to cash in on conspiracy theorists frenzy to find an answer to the truth. None of which is necessary to resolve the assassination mystery.

We are continually prodded to continue our never ending search, looking for the smoking gun, a clear photograph of one of the snipers, the real original Zapruder film that some wackos claim to have once seen... we have become convinced that we must have that key piece of evidence that unequivocally proves the conspiracy before we can form some sort of official conclusion, but I offer to you all in ALTGENS #6 OSWALD IS standing on the steps, but the overwhelming response is NO IT IS LOVELADY!!!I

Alternatively - with OSWALD rejected I will also say, we do not require the original Zapruder film we do not require that one clear photograph of a sniper, there is abundant evidence showing how the assassination occurred and abundant evidence showing that the WC created a second fictional story to obscure the truth and this story has been supported by the news media since the moment the assassination occurred.

Lets get real.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brad, you mentioned some witnesses claiming shots to sound like a rail road torpedo, this is a misconception and a myth.

Let me give you examples

2 sheriff deputies claimed they thought the first shot they heard might have been the sound of a motorcycle backfire, but after the second shot they realized the first shot was not a motorcycle backfire but the sound of a high powered rifle in that all three shots sounded the same, it was that they had no expectations to hear a rifle shot.

1 sheriff deputy termed all three shots 'explosions'

1 sheriff deputy thought the first shot might have been a rail 'road torpedo' but after hearing the second realized it was rifle fire.

Affidavits from sheriff deputies provide the proofs they heard three shots all from a high powered rifle that were undifferentiated in the type of sound they made.

A different sound between the three HPR shots is a myth propagated by the WC/R to cover up the fact that there were four shots fired and that three HPR shots occurred sometime after Z-312.

You must also keep in context that these claims should not be isolated, there were 16 other sheriff deputies that immediately recognized the first shot to be from a high powered rifle and that two more followed, they did not differentiate the sounds.

Don't focus on the exceptions. This would be a diversion and lead to confusion.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White wrote "According to Fletcher Prouty, in covert operations "coincidences" don't happen. They are PLANNED"

TheUMandCuban_zps01f39899.jpg

The open umbrella should be considered suspect, the fact that he moved the umbrella up and down is suspect, the fact that he was positioned at the very start of the kill zone is suspect and most significant.

The Cuban Man should be considered suspect, the fact that he was positioned off the curb and into the street is suspect, the manner in which he stretched his hand over his head to wave is suspect, the fact that he was positioned at the very start of the kill zone is suspect and most significant.

Every aspect listed for these two men should be suspect and questioned, the fact that they stood one in front of the other in close proximity must be considered to be conclusive that their intentions were for same purpose and were to signal persons with intent to carry out the assassination.

All of these coincidences were a necessary part of the plan, it also produced a visible sign or signature to those that know how things are that the assassination was the result of an inside job.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, I have no intention of inserting myself into your thread beyond this comment but I think that people new to the forum should appreciate that a great deal of the ground you are covering and points you bring out have been discussed extensively in the past. You obviously have reached your very own conclusions and state them firmly as if their were no other interpretations - and that everyone else has totally missed what you are seeing for 50 years. Certainly in some instances that might be true, however it would really be more useful - as other posters have asked - for you to lay down an inclusive scenario based on your interpretations - write a monograph, write a book, present your detailed reasoning and evidence. That would allow people to critique it and it would also answer the question raised earlier as to exactly what your interpretations reveal about the conspiracy and its sponsors.

As an example of what I'm talking about you made the comment above that if "a car bomb had exploded it would have certainly pointed to a conspiracy, which may not have been possible to sweep under the rug". That leads you to totally exclude it as being a fringe idea. However other views of the assassination - mine for example, grin - offer the point that their was a major effort to make the assassination appear to be a conspiracy and not to conceal evidence of that nature. That view decouples the "cover up" (actually several types of cover up ranging from both passive and active suppression of any true conspiracy investigation to a good deal of CYA within agencies that were very much aware of Lee Oswald). I don't come here to evangelize that view, its covered in my book so people can take it, evaluate it and leave it if they find it doesn't hang together.

I have followed the thread because I find your interpretations interesting, but it begins to pale a bit when you start rejecting anything but your views as to what is important and what isn't. Don't mean to be offensive with that but its something you might want to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry, you have made some very good points.

Currently considering an online publication that will catalog all of this evidence so that a newbie can understand the assassination. (Which I will not write.) Already have a website.

I have posted here and JFKASSASSINATIONFORUM in the hopes that the evidence, analysis and conjecture presented would be reviewed on the fly pointing out holes in the analysis, very disappointed in the response from members of both forums to say the least.

Virtually every point I have posted is from my analysis, as far as I am concerned the assassination community is ignorant of the truth, sorry but I have been posting for years and have yet to see any realization as to what really happened, the community knows a lot of information, a lot!, but IMO they have no idea how the assassination occurred IMO and have given me no reason to believe the information I have been posting has been presented before. I have not read any books or publications or viewed videos expressing these ideas.

If there are some reasons why the 'Assassination Four Shot Model' is flawed I would appreciate knowing why.

Larry, I don't have the expertise necessary to compose a monograph, this is why I post evidence with analysis and conjecture on a point by point basis. Alternative if forum members cannot understand each point made, what would be the use to compose in an expanded format? Once the model is more widely understood let the academics take it from there and compose a monograph fitting for the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best wishes Robert, I think it would be interesting to see an actual narrative from you, basically a story of the attack as you see it. But I understand that sort of writing may not come naturally, if that ever changes and you do something of the sort II will certainly be happy to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry, it is very kind of you, thank you.

I will consider it.

You obviously have reached your very own conclusions and state them firmly as if their were no other interpretations

So far not one person has provided opposing evidence or a reason to doubt that I have in deed found the answer as to how the assassination really occurred.

I have also asked a continual stream of questions that seem to be impossible for others to answer, answers should be obvious to anyone that understands the assassination, of course I state my own conclusions firmly, that is because I perceive the assassination clearly and unambiguously, I comprehend how the photographic evidence is corroborated by testimonial evidence and know how testimonial evidence was twisted to obscure the truth and where lies were told to hide the truth to help build a false case.

I created a novel database from testimonies that allows an in depth analysis of many details within testimonies that reveals trends that can not be easily discerned otherwise.

I know what happened.

I consulted today with a firearms expert concerning the smoke seen on the knoll following the assassination.

He reconfirmed what others have also stated that modern firearms do not create smoke to that degree, it would be unusual to see smoke from the discharge of a HPR with modern ammunition. Unless the weapon on the knoll was a very low velocity musket utilizing black powder.

In "New video - JFK Assassination: Nothing but the truth" Marrs implies that a heavily oiled weapon would cause this smoke, Marrs should be called into question and asked to prove this point.

He was also X-army guy and agreed in principle that the smoke more likely would have been created purposely as a decoy to draw attention away from another area.

He was unfamiliar with the JFK assassination but when he was shown Z-film at frame Z-325, he pointed out that this was when CONNALLY was struck by the bullet, he was puzzled to find out that the common belief was that CONNALLY was wounded around Z-220 or Z-230. It was rewarding for me to find that a person unfamiliar with the common beliefs could understand the evidence in the Z-film better than researchers that have spent a portion of their lives tunneling into propaganda and lies.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry, you have made some very good points.

Currently considering an online publication that will catalog all of this evidence so that a newbie can understand the assassination. (Which I will not write.) Already have a website.

I have posted here and JFKASSASSINATIONFORUM in the hopes that the evidence, analysis and conjecture presented would be reviewed on the fly pointing out holes in the analysis, very disappointed in the response from members of both forums to say the least.

Virtually every point I have posted is from my analysis, as far as I am concerned the assassination community is ignorant of the truth, sorry but I have been posting for years and have yet to see any realization as to what really happened, the community knows a lot of information, a lot!, but IMO they have no idea how the assassination occurred IMO and have given me no reason to believe the information I have been posting has been presented before. I have not read any books or publications or viewed videos expressing these ideas.

If there are some reasons why the 'Assassination Four Shot Model' is flawed I would appreciate knowing why.

Larry, I don't have the expertise necessary to compose a monograph, this is why I post evidence with analysis and conjecture on a point by point basis. Alternative if forum members cannot understand each point made, what would be the use to compose in an expanded format? Once the model is more widely understood let the academics take it from there and compose a monograph fitting for the subject.

Robert,

If there was only 1 shot before the extant 313 headshot, why is Clint off the Queen Mary just before that headshot?

If he didn't realize shot #1 (circa Z207) hadn't occurred until the time he jumped off (circa Z300), his would be the worst reaction time of any.

A more logical scenario would be another shot before extant 313 but after the Altgens (255) photo.

The limo slows down quickly, Clint reacts, and as he is running, the extant 313 headshot arrives.

chris

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...