Proof of Motorcade Stopping?

[Paul Trejo]

...come to think of it - if UM was ten feet from Kennedy when using said dart gun/umbrella, why would he have needed a scope?

Good question, Glenn. Then, how do you think he might have aimed it -- technically?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Robert Prudhomme]

Not only would mounting a scope on an umbrella be difficult, there is then the problem of sighting your target through it. As anyone who has fired a scope equipped rifle knows, it is necessary to get quite close to the scope to sight through it, and the least amount of movement will spoil this view.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Glenn Nall]

scopes don't help in aiming - they help in aiming at a distance.

on a rifle, from the sniper's nest, let's say - a competent shooter would not have needed that scope under normal conditions. from the picket fence, either. from the railway, maybe.

because of the magnification, other factors are then added to the equation. tracking a moving object is changed, since the motion is exaggerated. and because of the magnification, you have to have your eye right up against the device, pretty much, just like you would a microscope or telescope.

this makes the idea of one mounted, practically, to an umbrella pretty weird.

you picture UM standing on the street 10 feet from the president, pretty much in many people's peripheral vision, at least, and indiscriminately putting his eye to something in order to sight a hidden dart gun...

i don't see it. pardon the pun.

Robert may correct me.

and Robert, about the Fireball and James Files ---

a) do you think that there's any possible substance to his story?

another point is that, since the Fireball is capable of emitting smoke that would be visible to the area, then there are obviously other weapons that would do so. unrestricted to the Fireball scenario, assuming a conspiracy, this allows for the distinct possibility that the stories of seeing "smoke", etc., are quite valid, contrary to the naysayers... yes, it, or a similar weapon, could explain the testimonies of these rational, reasonable people.

[Kenneth Drew]

Think it remotely possible the flechette dart fired from the umbrella might have left a trail of smoke that would have been quite visible on the Zapruder film?

"The system is based on launching devices of various types, used to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison."

"It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds."

Excellent point, Robert. That's the first time I've seen that point in print. It is the best challenge to the flechette theory I've yet seen.

It reminds me of the challenge to the eye-witness railroad workers on the Triple Underpass who all agreed that they saw a puff of smoke arise between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at the very moment of the JFK head-shot -- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

-- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right! Well, other than the fact that a rifle built in the 30's would hardly be called 'modern' and the picture showing smoke coming from the fence area where badgeman was. And the smell of smoke in the Plaza.

[Kenneth Drew]

the rison that killed the Russian spy a few years ago was said to have been administered by the tip of an umbrella. no problem.

but its administration didn't require accuracy and distance and a scope.

come to think of it - if UM was ten feet from Kennedy when using said dart gun/umbrella, why would he have needed a scope?

- if UM was ten feet from Kennedy when using said dart gun/umbrella, why would he have needed a scope? Yeah that's right, he could have just sprinted over and stabbed him while the motorcade was stopped then they just removed a few frames from the film and no one would ever see the quick 'cat like' dash over.

Note to Glenn: Can you see my 'straight' face from there?

[Glenn Nall]

and what is the all-out necessity in adding a paralyzing or poisonous agent to the mix?

if they're going to fire 3 bullets, why not fire 4 or 5 (which i happen to believe they did)?

is someone going to say that it was so well orchestrated that the only bullet wounds found were planned to be explained by a single shooter? planned before the fact? confident that the bullet wounds WOULD be so placed as to accommodate the plan?

i surely hope that is not what a rational CTer thinks.

i'm going to start a new thread on how i think it's possible to hide a rifle shot.

[Paul Trejo]

and what is the all-out necessity in adding a paralyzing or poisonous agent to the mix?

if they're going to fire 3 bullets, why not fire 4 or 5 (which i happen to believe they did)?

is someone going to say that it was so well orchestrated that the only bullet wounds found were planned to be explained by a single shooter? planned before the fact? confident that the bullet wounds WOULD be so placed as to accommodate the plan?

i surely hope that is not what a rational CTer thinks...

Again, Glenn, most CT's presume that the Lone Nut Coverup was planned at the same time as the JFK murder.

Your view here also presumes that, IMHO.

Yet the original CT was that Oswald was a Communist -- not a Lone Nut. Edwin Walker repeated this. Revilo P. Oliver repeated this. David Morales repeated this. Johnny Martino repeated this. Johnny Roselli repeated this. On and on.

The JFK Killers, IMHO, hated the idea of a Lone Nut, because that removed any motivation for the USA to invade Cuba.

The purpose of Hoover's Lone Nut theory was to remove any motivation for the USA to invade Cuba, thus frustrating the JFK Killers from obtaining the main prize of their crime.

Thus, the Lone Nut theory was not planned when the JFK murder was planned -- but the Lone Nut theory was conceived on the afternoon of 11/22/1963.

The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with theories of 5 bullets, 7 bullets, 12 bullets -- however many. The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with the results of the autopsy of JFK's brain showing multiple bullets from multiple directions (and so would not have insisted on hiding or 'losing' JFK's brain').

Finally -- as to your first question -- it seems to me that paralyzing a victim prior to slaughter is a case of mercy; of humane capital punishment -- like offering a cigarette to a man facing a firing squad.

IMHO, the Killers of JFK believed in their own minds that they were performing a patriotic duty -- like a firing squad.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

and what is the all-out necessity in adding a paralyzing or poisonous agent to the mix?

if they're going to fire 3 bullets, why not fire 4 or 5 (which i happen to believe they did)?

is someone going to say that it was so well orchestrated that the only bullet wounds found were planned to be explained by a single shooter? planned before the fact? confident that the bullet wounds WOULD be so placed as to accommodate the plan?

i surely hope that is not what a rational CTer thinks.

i'm going to start a new thread on how i think it's possible to hide a rifle shot.

confident that the bullet wounds WOULD be so placed as to accommodate the plan? They may have thought that or planned that, but it didn't work out for them. The best they could come up with was the SBT which certainly doesn't work.

I think there may have been as many as 8 shots, none coming from the snipers nest.

[Kenneth Drew]

and what is the all-out necessity in adding a paralyzing or poisonous agent to the mix?

if they're going to fire 3 bullets, why not fire 4 or 5 (which i happen to believe they did)?

is someone going to say that it was so well orchestrated that the only bullet wounds found were planned to be explained by a single shooter? planned before the fact? confident that the bullet wounds WOULD be so placed as to accommodate the plan?

i surely hope that is not what a rational CTer thinks...

Again, Glenn, most CT's presume that the Lone Nut Coverup was planned at the same time as the JFK murder.

Your view here also presumes that, IMHO.

Yet the original CT was that Oswald was a Communist -- not a Lone Nut. Edwin Walker repeated this. Revilo P. Oliver repeated this. David Morales repeated this. Johnny Martino repeated this. Johnny Roselli repeated this. On and on.

The JFK Killers, IMHO, hated the idea of a Lone Nut, because that removed any motivation for the USA to invade Cuba.

The purpose of Hoover's Lone Nut theory was to remove any motivation for the USA to invade Cuba, thus frustrating the JFK Killers from obtaining the main prize of their crime.

Thus, the Lone Nut theory was not planned when the JFK murder was planned -- but the Lone Nut theory was conceived on the afternoon of 11/22/1963.

The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with theories of 5 bullets, 7 bullets, 12 bullets -- however many. The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with the results of the autopsy of JFK's brain showing multiple bullets from multiple directions (and so would not have insisted on hiding or 'losing' JFK's brain').

Finally -- as to your first question -- it seems to me that paralyzing a victim prior to slaughter is a case of mercy; of humane capital punishment -- like offering a cigarette to a man facing a firing squad.

IMHO, the Killers of JFK believed in their own minds that they were performing a patriotic duty -- like a firing squad.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

the Lone Nut theory was not planned when the JFK murder was planned -- but the Lone Nut theory was conceived on the afternoon of 11/22/1963.

The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with theories of 5 bullets, 7 bullets, 12 bullets -- however many. The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with the results of the autopsy of JFK's brain showing multiple bullets from multiple directions

I agree with those statements. I do think LHO was likely set up as a patsy, but not a lone nut.

[Paul Trejo]

Not only would mounting a scope on an umbrella be difficult, there is then the problem of sighting your target through it. As anyone who has fired a scope equipped rifle knows, it is necessary to get quite close to the scope to sight through it, and the least amount of movement will spoil this view.

OK, Robert, but let's review the field so far. The first I ever heard of an umbrella dart-gun was on this very thread from Robert Mady. I was very skeptical at first, but the more I looked into the topic, the more I realized it answered multiple questions, like:

(1) Why does nobody else react to the first shot except JFK -- as if the shot were "silent"?

(2) Insofar as all doctors at Parkland agreed the throat wound was an entry wound, small and round, how could a bullet enter soft tissue like a throat, and not exit the back of the neck, and also not be found inside JFK's body?

Although a silencer could explain the first question, it cannot explain the second question. Only a dart-gun could possibly explain that. Am I still missing something?

FINALLY -- do you think that it's possible or impossible to aim an umbrella gun with accuracy sans scope?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...Well, other than the fact that a rifle built in the 30's would hardly be called 'modern' and the picture showing smoke coming from the fence area where badgeman was. And the smell of smoke in the Plaza.

Well, Kenneth, I am impressed with the eye-witness testimony of several folks at Dealey Plaza who said they smelled gun-powder on Elm Street.

That's not the same as smoke, however. Lee Bowers and the railroad men all agreed they saw "a puff of smoke" between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll when JFK was murdered.

I admit that some weapons -- perhaps special weapons -- even today might emit a mist. I accept all the testimony of those who said they smelled gun-powder on Elm street.

Just to clarify -- Wesley Liebeler told David Lifton in 1968 that he laughed when he heard the railroad men claim to see that puff of smoke, because "modern rifles don't smoke." "We don't use muskets anymore," he quipped. He stopped Lifton in his tracks with that remark.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

and what is the all-out necessity in adding a paralyzing or poisonous agent to the mix?

if they're going to fire 3 bullets, why not fire 4 or 5 (which i happen to believe they did)?

is someone going to say that it was so well orchestrated that the only bullet wounds found were planned to be explained by a single shooter? planned before the fact? confident that the bullet wounds WOULD be so placed as to accommodate the plan?

i surely hope that is not what a rational CTer thinks...

Again, Glenn, most CT's presume that the Lone Nut Coverup was planned at the same time as the JFK murder.

Your view here also presumes that, IMHO.

Yet the original CT was that Oswald was a Communist -- not a Lone Nut. Edwin Walker repeated this. Revilo P. Oliver repeated this. David Morales repeated this. Johnny Martino repeated this. Johnny Roselli repeated this. On and on.

The JFK Killers, IMHO, hated the idea of a Lone Nut, because that removed any motivation for the USA to invade Cuba.

The purpose of Hoover's Lone Nut theory was to remove any motivation for the USA to invade Cuba, thus frustrating the JFK Killers from obtaining the main prize of their crime.

Thus, the Lone Nut theory was not planned when the JFK murder was planned -- but the Lone Nut theory was conceived on the afternoon of 11/22/1963.

The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with theories of 5 bullets, 7 bullets, 12 bullets -- however many. The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with the results of the autopsy of JFK's brain showing multiple bullets from multiple directions (and so would not have insisted on hiding or 'losing' JFK's brain').

Finally -- as to your first question -- it seems to me that paralyzing a victim prior to slaughter is a case of mercy; of humane capital punishment -- like offering a cigarette to a man facing a firing squad.

IMHO, the Killers of JFK believed in their own minds that they were performing a patriotic duty -- like a firing squad.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

just like DVP, you've managed to tell me how to build a watch, but not what time it is.

my question was: what's this all-out need to interject a poison chemical into the mix, as you and others were discussing.

THAT is all i asked. and you skirted it in your agenda to preach.

secondly - yes, that's what my theory supports - it's the most common one FOR A REASON. There's no glory in having the most unique theory. There's only satisfaction in using good reason to get as close to the solution as possible, for the sake of the solution, not for the sake of attention.

it may surprise you, but most of the opinions in here are going to be on the assumption that the entire thing was somewhat a single collusion and plan.

of course mine presumes that. why would it not, if that's what my premise is?

NOW >>

"I admit that some weapons -- perhaps special weapons -- even today might emit a mist."

really? you're so proud that in your reticence to admit a small correction you even have to change the wording to "mist?" you'll agree with the smell of gunpowder, but not to someone seeing "smoke?"

you take the word of Liebeler for some reason, even though there's a picture RIGHT HERE which shows a modern rifle produce smoke (or mist, or vapor - to a layperson witnessing a public shooting, "smoke" explains it just FINE.) OVER Robert and Me and whomever will say first hand that there are guns which "smoke" even today. that smokeless powder does not mean "smokeless."

good god. no wonder your theory has no traction.

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

secondly - yes, that's what my theory supports - it's the most common one FOR A REASON. There's no glory in having the most unique theory. There's only satisfaction in using good reason to get as close to the solution as possible, for the sake of the solution, not for the sake of attention.

it may surprise you, but most of the opinions in here are going to be on the assumption that the entire thing was somewhat a single collusion and plan.

of course mine presumes that. why would it not, if that's what my premise is?

NOW >>

"I admit that some weapons -- perhaps special weapons -- even today might emit a mist."

really? you're so proud that in your reticence to admit a small correction you even have to change the wording to "mist?" you'll agree with the smell of gunpowder, but not to someone seeing "smoke?"

you take the word of Liebeler for some reason, even though there's a picture RIGHT HERE which shows a modern rifle produce smoke (or mist, or vapor - to a layperson witnessing a public shooting, "smoke" explains it just FINE.) OVER Robert and Me and whomever will say first hand that there are guns which "smoke" even today. that smokeless powder does not mean "smokeless."

good god. no wonder your theory has no traction.

Actually, Glenn, the shoving of the JFK Kill-Team and the JFK Cover-up Team together wasn't done for a REASON as you claim, but out of sheer LAZINESS, combined with a lack of INSIGHT.

Vincent Salandria in 1965 might have been the first to insist that the JFK Killers planned the Coverup. Or it might have been Harold Weinberg in 1964. Sylvia Meagher was also of that opinion. So was Mark Lane. Yet it was Jim Garrison in 1968 who got the widest audience for that idea, and blamed the CIA for the whole mess.

Today the CIA-did-it CTers still reign supreme. But I say they were mistaken in 1964, and they're mistaken today. There is no narrative in their literature that explains the unity of the JFK Kill-Team and the JFK Cover-up Team -- IT IS MERELY ASSUMED.

As for the MIST vs. SMOKE theory -- I thought I was clear, but let me be perfectly clear -- I have no experience with guns or rifles or any such weapons. I am learning about them through kind writers like Robert Prudhomme who are willing to share such data without insulting readers who admit they don't know.

David Lifton was stunned by Wesley Liebeler's remark and laughter about smoke and guns. Yet Lifton adequately proved that Liebeler deliberately hid other key information about the JFK murder, so I keep an open mind.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Prudhomme]

scopes don't help in aiming - they help in aiming at a distance.

on a rifle, from the sniper's nest, let's say - a competent shooter would not have needed that scope under normal conditions. from the picket fence, either. from the railway, maybe.

because of the magnification, other factors are then added to the equation. tracking a moving object is changed, since the motion is exaggerated. and because of the magnification, you have to have your eye right up against the device, pretty much, just like you would a microscope or telescope.

this makes the idea of one mounted, practically, to an umbrella pretty weird.

you picture UM standing on the street 10 feet from the president, pretty much in many people's peripheral vision, at least, and indiscriminately putting his eye to something in order to sight a hidden dart gun...

i don't see it. pardon the pun.

Robert may correct me.

and Robert, about the Fireball and James Files ---

a) do you think that there's any possible substance to his story?

another point is that, since the Fireball is capable of emitting smoke that would be visible to the area, then there are obviously other weapons that would do so. unrestricted to the Fireball scenario, assuming a conspiracy, this allows for the distinct possibility that the stories of seeing "smoke", etc., are quite valid, contrary to the naysayers... yes, it, or a similar weapon, could explain the testimonies of these rational, reasonable people.

To be honest, Glenn, I'm undecided on James Files' story about the Fireball. He has made a couple of mistakes in his narrative over the years, although it is claimed, by some, that this is just his way of amusing himself by keeping all of the researchers guessing.

I've never fired a Fireball XP-100 .221 calibre with a 10" barrel before, or anything remotely like it (who would need such a thing? Must kick like a mule!). One thing I am curious about is how it could achieve a muzzle velocity of over 2700 fps with such a short barrel. Also, it would be interesting to know how accurate the Fireball is with such a short barrel.

I guess such a short shot, from the picket fence to the limo, is entirely possible, and the XP-100 would certainly explain the large cloud of "smoke" and the flash seen by Bowers.

[Kenneth Drew]

Not only would mounting a scope on an umbrella be difficult, there is then the problem of sighting your target through it. As anyone who has fired a scope equipped rifle knows, it is necessary to get quite close to the scope to sight through it, and the least amount of movement will spoil this view.

OK, Robert, but let's review the field so far. The first I ever heard of an umbrella dart-gun was on this very thread from Robert Mady. I was very skeptical at first, but the more I looked into the topic, the more I realized it answered multiple questions, like:

(1) Why does nobody else react to the first shot except JFK -- as if the shot were "silent"?

(2) Insofar as all doctors at Parkland agreed the throat wound was an entry wound, small and round, how could a bullet enter soft tissue like a throat, and not exit the back of the neck, and also not be found inside JFK's body?

Although a silencer could explain the first question, it cannot explain the second question. Only a dart-gun could possibly explain that. Am I still missing something?

FINALLY -- do you think that it's possible or impossible to aim an umbrella gun with accuracy sans scope?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

and not exit the back of the neck, and also not be found inside JFK's body? As we know, there was no overall examination of the wounds to see where they might have exited. Example: no probe was run through the back wound to see where it came out. There were also no body xrays made looking for bullets left inside. There may have been several, no check was made.