www.defiorejfk.com ~ new website

[Anthony DeFiore]

So long Cliff, that's my story, and I'm sticking with it. My research is my truth.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Imagine you are planning the assassination. You have two or three shooter teams. Each shooter is to take a shot when the limo is at a specific place.

The shots are going to be difficult. The target is moving in all three dimensions. Shooters should be placed so that their line of sight to the target involves at most two dimensions.

One shot is to be made through the windshield from the front.

Problem, as I've stated: The shot through the windshield from the front is not a slam-dunk shot. So why risk it?

Yes, the shot can be made. But other shots, shots with a clear view to the target, missed. The planners would have anticipated this. IMO, the planners would not have risked a frontal shot through the windshield unless they thought it was necessary to the assassination. In which case I cannot fathom their thinking.

Apologies for being a broken record, but to me this is an important point.

[Thomas Graves]

Imagine you are planning the assassination. You have two or three shooter teams. Each shooter is to take a shot when the limo is at a specific place.

The shots are going to be difficult. The target is moving in all three dimensions. Shooters should be placed so that their line of sight to the target involves at most two dimensions.

One shot is to be made through the windshield from the front.

Problem, as I've stated: The shot through the windshield from the front is not a slam-dunk shot. So why risk it?

Yes, the shot can be made. But other shots, shots with a clear view to the target, missed. The planners would have anticipated this. IMO, the planners would not have risked a frontal shot through the windshield unless they thought it was necessary to the assassination. In which case I cannot fathom their thinking.

Apologies for being a broken record, but to me this is an important point.

Mr. Tidd,

Shoot at JFK through the windshield to "encourage" the driver to slow down, since Greer probably wouldn't want to drive into (where he thought) the ambush was coming from, thereby giving the shooters on the side and / or in the rear a better, slower target?

Just an idea.

--Tommy

Edited February 28, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Larry Hancock]

Jon, just one scenario for your consideration. Let's say the conspirators wanted to ensure that the attack was seen as a conspiracy with political connections. But it is either necessary or at least not

an issue that multiple shooters are involved and indeed that the evidence including physical evidence and witness statements reflect multiple shooters. In that scenario physical evidence such as

a shot though the windshield - from the front - a shot into the seats of the limo, any sort of shot clearly coming from the front is either a positive thing or no problem. It is only under a lone nut scenario

that there would be any concern about either evidence of frontal shots or a firing pattern too rapid for a single shooter.

[Thomas Graves]

Jon, just one scenario for your consideration. Let's say the conspirators wanted to ensure that the attack was seen as a conspiracy with political connections. But it is either necessary or at least not

an issue that multiple shooters are involved and indeed that the evidence including physical evidence and witness statements reflect multiple shooters. In that scenario physical evidence such as

a shot though the windshield - from the front - a shot into the seats of the limo, any sort of shot clearly coming from the front is either a positive thing or no problem. It is only under a lone nut scenario

that there would be any concern about either evidence of frontal shots or a firing pattern too rapid for a single shooter.

Larry,

Good point. The shot through the windshield kinda (ya think?) preempted a "Lone Nut" scenario, but was excellent for suggesting a conspiracy in which Oswald was a shooter from the rear. A "commie" conspiracy -- even better reason for invading Cuba! Also served the purpose of slowing the limo down for even better shots from whichever direction, IMHO.

--Tommy

Edited February 28, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Cliff Varnell]

So long Cliff, that's my story, and I'm sticking with it. My research is my truth.

Thanks for addressing the throat wound in the first place, Tony.

Most discussions of the wounds involve the head wound/s -- a wholly useless subject except as a study of the cover-up.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Larry,

I don't believe those responsible for JFK's death wanted the American people to believe there was a conspiracy, any conspiracy, to kill JFK. Such a belief would have led to irresistible calls for a true investigation into the conspiracy. There would have been a substantial risk such an investigation would reveal the true nature of the conspiracy. Especially when fingers were pointed in a truly menacing way at Castro and Khruschev, and those gentlemen revealed their own secret information about the assassination.

I do believe Hoover and Johnson wanted the American people to believe there no conspiracy, certainly not a communist conspiracy, to murder JFK. The fact LBJ raised the specter of a communist conspiracy, which if uncovered would lead to nuclear war, in recruiting Earl Warren shows how much LBJ didn't want the Warren Commission to come up with a verdict of communist conspiracy. Plotters worth their salt would have anticipated this would be LBJ's stance. They would have known LBJ would be unhelpful to the max in getting the murder pinned on commie conspirators.

Furthermore, they (the plotters) would have wanted Oswald to go to trial if their objective was to paint the murder as part of a communist conspiracy. At trial, Oswald's "defection" to the USSR and his FPCC activities in NOLA could have been paraded before the jury, before everyone. Ruby's murder of Oswald completely distracted the public from any idea Oswald was part of a communist conspiracy. The dominant feeling in America after Oswald's murder was that if there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, the conspirators recruited Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. It's certain to my mind that plotters trying to pin the president's murder on commie conspirators would not have recruited Ruby to kill Oswald. They would have recruited some suitable person who could be portrayed as having communist ties or leanings. It's possible, I know, that Ruby acted completely on his own in killing Oswald, meaning he wasn't recruited by anyone and that Oswald's death wasn't part of some criminal conspiracy; that Oswald's death at Jack Ruby's hands caught the conspirators off guard. I know this is possible, but I don't think it's likely.

As I size up the information I've digested, I believe that there was a conspiracy to murder JFK; that the highest level conspirators were extremely powerful individuals who wanted JFK dead; and that the conspirators wanted no investigation that would uncover the conspiracy. To me, conspirators trying to pin blame on commies and make the blame stick doesn't add up. It would add up if the CIA had produced recordings and photos of the real Oswald in Mexico City. Does anyone believe such recordings and photos ever existed?

[Cliff Varnell]

To me, conspirators trying to pin blame on commies and make the blame stick doesn't add up.

It would have added up if Oswald had been killed within an hour of JFK's murder.

Dead men don't cry patsy.

[Thomas Graves]

To me, conspirators trying to pin blame on commies and make the blame stick doesn't add up.

It would have added up if Oswald had been killed within an hour of JFK's murder.

Dead men don't cry patsy.

Excellent point, Cliff.

Oswald's not being killed inside the TSBD or the Texas Theater changed everything, IMHO.

They had to start extemporizing big time.

Thanks for pointing that out to Jon G. Tidd and thanks for reminding the rest of us.

--Tommy