Robert Mady Posted March 15, 2015 Author Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) Jon, it seems the common opinion on this forum has been that I can be an ass to other members, I won't deny that my demeanor may appear this way. Part of my message is an intolerance to tolerate an indefensible status quo, I have continued to offer abundant evidence in support of every portion of the four shot model that has been posted. I have continually requested unbiased critiques and analysis, I welcome this process because it is the only feedback to know with absolute certainty that known evidence properly constructs the theory. Chris and Robert have done me great honor by considering there is a possibility that the theory presented has potential and took the time to analyze the possibilities. I believe we will find that truth is very close. Edited March 16, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 15, 2015 Author Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) The distance between not knowing and knowing is almost non-existent yet almost insurmountable, therein lies the problem. Mark Twain: "It is easier to fool someone than to convince someone that they have been fooled' To understand the assassination one must first comprehend they have believed lies so long they believe them to be truth. We are the sum product of the State. Until you can escape its grasp, you can't be free although you can believe you are. Edited March 15, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Bob My favourite photo of Connally. Would you say that someone forgot to tell him exactly when and where the assassination would take place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) I started to make captured images of the MPI Zapruder frames so I could evaluate a better copy than the Costella frames. Has anyone noticed that both copies are in seriously poor condition? Wasn't the original put in a vault and stored for safe keeping? What have we been sold as the reason the Z-film became so damaged? What about copies, are they as damaged as the original? Why haven't copies that were sent to the CIA, FBI and SS been requested and published? What about the 100 copies of the original procured by Garrison in 1967, that he sent to Universities, why haven't any of these surfaced? Do you detect anything odd, like maybe we been hoodwinked? My family had 8 mm film in boxes stored in a musty basement for years, some reaching back almost into the 1960's, when this film was converted to DVD recently, it was amazing to see how preserved the films were, I don't remember any of them to have visible signs of damage or stress lines, the colors may have changed but not the image, they appeared they could have been recently taken and then converted. Why do we accept a seriously damaged copy of the original Zapruder film that by all reason and logic should exist in a near pristine form? We just get duped time and time again, this is why it has taken so long to understand the assassination, we have great difficulty in seeing thru the simplest bull-xxxx. Edited March 16, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Robert, If the first shot was at Z313 and that shot clearly mortally wounded JFK, who or what were the 2nd & 3rd shots intended for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Ian, it is possible that CONNALLY was targeted, the shot that wounded TAGUE may have been the result of a plan that called for a total of three rifle shots, one to cover the silenced shot. Ian, your asking me to fill in blanks that may never be possible to fill even after a tremendous amount of research, right now I am still grappling with the ramification of four shots, when they were fired and from what locations. I know it would be more convenient to present a finished scenario complete with all details, but at this time, this is just not possible (what I have been presenting is a 'work in progress'), the assassination lore has had 51 years to develop intricate schemes to try to explain some phenomenon, yet keep in mind after 51 years assassination researchers can not claim definitively when the first shot occurred or the second shot nor when TAGUE was injured or by which shot or why, nor is there any general agreement as to where the shots originated from nor is there any realistic answers as to why most testimony does not corroborate any particular scenario presented. The researcher today can't satisfactorily explain what is happening in Altgens #6 and why the SSA or bystanders are not reacting. With the four shot model we can definitively identify the first and the second shots as well as a likely time for the third and fourth shots, all supported by significant portions of testimony as well as photographic and film evidence. Simply put, I do not yet have all the answers. If you take the time to understand this model and give it a chance you may be surprised how valuable it is to explain what actually happened during the assassination. You may quickly realize it is the only model that can explain what happened in DP on 11/22/1963. Edited March 16, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Robert Mady's 4 shot model makes a lot of sense to me on a personal basis: I mentioned before a couple friends of mine visiting Dealey Plaza for our 1st time in 1974. Back then one could drive up to & park behind the pergola. The 1st comment out of our collective mouths was along the lines of, 'Man, this would be a great spot to shoot from! Park a car, van or truck back here & fire through the slots & drive off'. The more we checked the area out the more the monument made sense as a firing platform to us at the time. Then we got out into the street & immediately discovered an apparent line of sight blockage problem between the TSBD sniper's nest, SS car & occupants & JFK when we tried to do our own amateur re-enactment at the z-313 location (not marked with an X at the time). The monument made even more sense to us then. I left the Plaza with that thought in my head & the memory of seeing small red circles on some of the TSBD windows. No one was hawking souvenir periodicals or tour rides. No museum, just an empty looking old TSBD. When good analysis like Robert's comes along what I've seen time & time again is detractors using the known witnesses against the analyst. For instance, detractors would say the 3 fellows on the pergola steps were in the way of a shooter in the shelter behind Zapruder & Sitzman. Or Zapruder/Sitzman were in the way. Or the Hestors, etc. Often they're brazen enough to tell us what a person would have done under certain circumstances: 'Zapruder would have done this or that' if such & such happened near him. Stuff like that. I'm expecting any day now to learn from them if Zapruder had little fire trucks or stripes on his undies. They seem to know all those tiny details, don't they? (lol) I find Robert's analysis of the Connally's movements particularly intriguing. It appears to me that Nellie was holding her yellow roses up over their heads as she & JBC were crouched in their jump seat. I always thought that was pretty cool, rational thinking under the circumstances. Now I'm looking at it differently. For the longest time the analysis of John T. Orr made sense to me (it can be read at Foxnews.com) Orr has Connally's wrist wound being caused by a varmint round exiting JFK's head from a Records Bldg 1 shot, 1 kill shooter. Orr believes the trail left behind by Oswald (backyard photos, trip to Mexico, etc.) was done by Oswald & not any 'handlers'. A lot of people don't buy that. Some of Doug Horne's analysis mirrors what Robert Mady is depicting. There's a lot on the table put there by a lot of people. I probably made Robert mad by mentioning some of it but I'm sure he's aware of the multitude of theories that are 'out there'. Maybe in time he'll go into picking them apart. I haven't seen any reason in what Robert has put up on EF as justifiable to call him out as wrong on anything. His analysis of the news cars & the reporters reactions focusing on the monument has not been presented before. We're all wiser than we were before Robert started showing us things that had been overlooked before. I find his research intriguing. BM Edited March 16, 2015 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Brad, you won't make me mad by posting alternate theories, as I informed you before I welcome all honest input, criticism and ideas. Brad, because of a push from you I have a website on Wordpress.com that is up and running containing a number or chapters intended for the complete novice and am procrastinating, but will any minute start a serious research paper outlining what has so far been uncovered which I plan to eventually publish in some form. One of the last major pieces of the puzzle I was hoping to clearly identify was exactly when CONNALLY was wounded, which is proving to be an interesting challenge. Edited March 16, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) That's a relief to hear, Robert. I'd be the last person on earth to purposely anger you in any way. Your tenacity & thought put into your analysis in remarkable & admirable. I expect any week to hear you being interviewed by Len Osanic on his Black Ops Radio show. Len keeps a keen eye out for sharp researchers that offer an explanation to the JFK murder that makes sense. I hope he finds room to feature Robert Prudhomme & Chris Davidson too. Like Jon, I have no faith in the z-film. None. Nada. Not after all the rabbit holes it traveled through from time of filming until the public got to see it in motion. I believe Doug Horne's Hawkeye works alteration analysis has killed off any trust in that film. That makes it difficult to figure out exactly what happened to JBC. I look at the z-film like I look at the original King Kong movie; if someone can figure out how to make a toy giant ape climb the Empire State Building and swat at bi-wing aircraft on film back in the early 1930's, someone can figure how to disguise what happened to JFK & JBC on Elm Street on film in the early 1960's. As Greg Murr pointed out in another thread, things that Nellie said publicly need to be closely scrutinized these days. The wounding of John Connally is going to be a toughie for any researcher that takes that aspect of the ambush on (JBC wasn't really sure of what had happened to him). They must not lose their sense of balance when working out trajectories from the monument to Elm Street because looking at Elm Street from the pergola is like looking at a kid's slide from the side from an elevated position; the street continuously drops down in elevation & the view from the monument is like looking downward into a giant fish bowl. Old timers like me that were exposed to the initial explanations of JFK's murder (& the twists & turns those explanations took when challenged) that sensed something was amiss early in the game are already on the same page with you, Robert. We're getting a reasonable explanation from you much later in life than when we deserved to get it initially. The younger crowd may not completely understand this. Your biggest challenge will come from a younger generation that missed the WC, HSCA & the MSM TV, radio & print coverage that supported it all. The two worked hand in hand (Operation Mockingbird). A lot of catch up can be obtained by 'newbies' in select YouTube videos & visiting select websites that lay it all out in chronological order & explain what deceptions were/are still being fed to the public (Pat Speer has a good one that does this IMHO). A good background understanding of the key players (Alan Dulles, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, select military big shots plus others), secret activities active at the time (Bay Of Pigs disaster, CIA-mafia plots to kill Fidel Castro, US involvement in Southeast Asia), hate activities in the USA (KKK & southern police atrocities), the Civil Rights Movement & FBI response to it (Hoover monitoring MLK, FBI agents letter advising MLK to commit suicide), RFK's war against organized crime, the flow of drugs into the USA in the early 1960's, those informing the nation (Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Time-Life, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), Cold War paranoia & arms races, educational institutions denouncing criticism of the WC as 'supporting Communist propaganda', will eventually lead newbies just learning of those (mostly sordid) events to you. Why? Because people hate being lied to. People want the truth & will seek it out. They prove this each year with books they buy, speaking engagements they attend & programs they watch on TV, the websites they visit on the Internet. Here in EF, I strongly urge all visitors to look for & read posts by Robert Prudhomme, Chris Davidson & Robert Mady. All are bringing out JFK assassination information that was distorted, overlooked or otherwise misinterpreted through the years. If there are doubts that Robert Mady's efforts are 'getting through' to the people, step back & take a look at his visitor count. It's always high. A lot of people globally are giving Robert their time & interest while at the same time learning from him. BM Edited March 17, 2015 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Brad, thank you for the favorable comments. When it is fully realized the Zapruder film has been altered, a researcher may have the impulse to discard the film in its entirety. I believe this impulse is a modern phenomenon created by years of frustration in misunderstanding what is happening in the Z-film. Researchers have studiously searched for signs of the first shot and the second, they see that no one is reacting to the shots which makes no logical sense. I prefer to believe that thinking people understand KENNEDY was wounded in the back of the head and that tissue flew to the left and rear, yet we see a top-side wound with debris flying up and forward. The Zapruder film has been incomprehensible, it must be altered to the point of uselessness, at least we can fool ourselves with this logic. A Perspective The CIA or whatever particular part of the government that was responsible to alter the Z-film had a very limited time in which to do it, as Doug Horne claimed it was done within hours not days. What this should mean is that they did a limited amount of work to alter the z-film, it was not a production that could have resulted in us believing king kong was swatting at biplanes. What did they do ? IMO Primarily they changed President Kennedys head wound, the head wound was blacked out and a side of the head wound was added along with spray moving up and forward to emphasize a rearward shot having caused the wound. The limo slowing may have been a problem but so was the wounding of CONNALLY, frames were removed, we know this based on evidence presented, removing frames changed the speed of the limo, eliminated stopping or momentarily halting of the limo, as well as remove specific actions and or reactions from the film. How much could be accomplished by a handful of artists within a few hours? Time was the limiting factor to how much alteration could be done. Conclusion, if you understand the assassination, the film becomes invaluable, the wounding of KENNEDY as far as the forward head movement, blood spray and head wound can be ignored as useless artifacts of alteration. Other information that remains is vital, it shows the proper sequence of events as well as what was happening during each frame. I would wholeheartedly suggest that if the Zapruder film is confounding, that it is not the result of alterations, it is a result of misunderstanding what is happening in the images which is caused by basic misconceptions of what happened during the assassination. The Zapruder film is invaluable as absolute proof of a conspiracy and a cover-up. Edited March 17, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Ian, it is possible that CONNALLY was targeted, the shot that wounded TAGUE may have been the result of a plan that called for a total of three rifle shots, one to cover the silenced shot. Ian, your asking me to fill in blanks that may never be possible to fill even after a tremendous amount of research, right now I am still grappling with the ramification of four shots, when they were fired and from what locations. I know it would be more convenient to present a finished scenario complete with all details, but at this time, this is just not possible (what I have been presenting is a 'work in progress'), the assassination lore has had 51 years to develop intricate schemes to try to explain some phenomenon, yet keep in mind after 51 years assassination researchers can not claim definitively when the first shot occurred or the second shot nor when TAGUE was injured or by which shot or why, nor is there any general agreement as to where the shots originated from nor is there any realistic answers as to why most testimony does not corroborate any particular scenario presented. The researcher today can't satisfactorily explain what is happening in Altgens #6 and why the SSA or bystanders are not reacting. With the four shot model we can definitively identify the first and the second shots as well as a likely time for the third and fourth shots, all supported by significant portions of testimony as well as photographic and film evidence. Simply put, I do not yet have all the answers. If you take the time to understand this model and give it a chance you may be surprised how valuable it is to explain what actually happened during the assassination. You may quickly realize it is the only model that can explain what happened in DP on 11/22/1963. Robert, Thanks for your response - I was just wondering about it, that's all. Well done on your efforts so far, it's certainly led to another avenue of research and made a lot of people re-think the assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) I agree with Ian. I expect others to take Robert Mady's 4 shot model & address associated concerns & questions with it. For instance: There is still a cloud of mystery hanging over Hoover's initial analysis of the shooting & explanation of it to LBJ in their phone calls (visually depicted in WCD 298), the creation of the WC to give its collective ok to Hoover's report (explained by LBJ in LBJ's phone calls to Hoover & Senator Russell) & the dramatic turn the WC took with adopting the SBT & publishing it as their answer to how the shooting went down. Also, since the WC was created to 'rubber stamp' Hoover's FBI Report of the assassination, why is the FBI Report of the assassination NOT in the WC Report? Some questions: (1) Didn't the WC's SBT make Hoover's assassination report look incompetent? It's well established that Hoover & LBJ were personal fiends; why was LBJ not intervening in his WC making Hoover look bad? (2) When John Connally went public with his disagreement with the SBT, was he supporting Hoover's Report or LBJ (or both)? Both were friends with LBJ. Was Connally trying to distance LBJ (or Hoover) from the WC without making LBJ look bad for creating the WC? Was Connally distancing himself from LBJ (he later in life changed parties to being a Republican, remember?) Was this even necessary? If the WC was 'biting the hand that created it' (LBJ) with the SBT, why didn't LBJ (WC creator) put a stop to it? What the heck was going on & why wasn't Hoover defending his initial Report? Some speculations on why JBC was targeted in the ambush: (1) To hide LBJ's involvement in the assassination (LBJ would NEVER shoot his loyalist friend, John Connally, correct?) Did Connally know something that LBJ was afraid would get him caught? (2) The shooters mistook Connally for LBJ (3) Oswald revenge motive for John Connally signing his dishonorable discharge (Nellie Connally suggested this motive in a 2003 Larry King Live interview). That's all I can think of at the moment. There's more. If Robert Mady doesn't explore those topics, I'm sure others will run with Robert's research, expand on it & discuss their conclusions here at EF. That's worth waiting for! BM Edited March 17, 2015 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Brad, this is not my expertise, so more knowledgeable members can correct as they see fit. 1) When CONNALLY provided the world with testimony from his hospital bed, TAGUE must not have been seen as an obstacle or was generally unknown. 2) The scenario in play was three shots = three hits. KENNEDY then CONNALLY then KENNEDY. 3) HOOVER wrote his report immediately and used three hit three shot scenario, which CONNALLY followed. 4) TAGUE became an insurmountable obstacle which required one entire shot. 5) SPECTRE now needed to invent the SBT to explain one shot causing wounds on KENNEDY and CONNALLY. 6) CONNALLY had already told the world his story, he could not then change it too dramatically (although he did in many details), it would be too obvious, he maintained the differences as quietly as he could. Ironically in doing so he became some sort of hero to the conspiracy crowd because of his opposing testimony, when in fact he was out on a limb because he had to tell the world a story before the story was finalized. Even though his story is the least corroborated version of events we consider him a victim/hero. Hilarious! Your conjecture that they tried to kill JBC to silence him seems very plausible, it would have kept NELLIE quiet. Interesting Brad! KILLING CONNALLY would have eliminated a potential leak. It is also possible in the moment a shooter mistook JBC for KENNEDY moving after the first rifle shot and without taking a chance fired at what he thought might be KENNEDY. - The part of this equation we would like to know is after Z-300, CONNALLYS were laying back in a prone position, they altered this to a sitting position after Z-313, was this what they were directed to do or did they react at the sound of a rifle and by doing so put themselves in a position that confused a shooter? Possible it was a connection to lone nut taking a shot, but if this was the reason and JBC was killed it would give NELLIE some reason to divulge the truth - not a good reason to shoot JBC. LBJ I don't believe was ever at risk of being injured other than having a heart attack with the stress. Edited March 17, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) That's reasonable explanations, Mr. Mady. Some may feel Hoover's boys were already setting things in motion just prior to Connally's hospital interview when the FBI/SS/Dallas DPD & local media began the film re-enactments. Life magazine was dictating what happened in its Nov 29, 1963 issue (containing select Z-film frames in glorious fuzzy black & white). We will have to see what other commenters bring to your table. I, for one, am not very good at deciphering when a politician, elected official, law enforcement agency or other type person is lying. I was one of those who believed Susan Smith's TV story that someone had hijacked her car & abducted her sons. I watched two highly publicized trials in which the accused were set free when I was certain both were guilty of murder. Sometimes giving someone the benefit of the doubt is mistaken for weakness. Back in the day, a popular way to tell when the public was being lied to was to watch the mouth of the person speaking on TV. If the mouth was moving & words were coming out of it there was a good chance that person was lying to the public (lol). Your thread began with deconstructing the lies. If others are as gullible as me when it comes to de-coding official lies, a little help from your friends might bring things in focus a bit better. I hope that will be their intentions when climbing aboard your train. From what I've learned from you thus far, it appears the lying about this crime began just minutes after the sound of the gunshots faded out & has never really subsided in the 51 years since. As I said before, people globally detest being lied to & almost always seek out a truthful answer. Let us know when your website is operational & where it can be found on the Internet so that those that believe in you can support it by visiting it & informing others about it. Ditto for your book. I predict it will be a blockbuster; it may even motivate a JFK II movie? BM Edited March 18, 2015 by Brad Milch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Injury to JAMES TAGUE ? It would seem logical the conspirators could not contain the knowledge that a bystander was injured during the assassination, knowing how and why this information spread might say a lot about which forces were working for the American people and which forces where working for the conspirators as this knowledge forced the conspirators to alter their story of assassination. Does anyone understand how information about TAGUE'S injury became known to the American Public? Edited March 19, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now