Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Rosemary Willis described both UM and BDM as “conspicuous” people.  She told the HSCA that UM seemed preoccupied with opening or closing his umbrella, whereas BDM disappeared in the next instance after a shot.  The HSCA analyzed Willis 5 and determined it was a person holding an object with a distinct straight line feature.

A shot to the throat from BDM would have required significant deflection, however.

If I could lay a wager on it, I’d bet UM was the eccentric protester Louis Witt...

I didn't recall Rosemary saying she saw BDM. The odd thing is that no one else saw him. OTOH if it was the black couple that we know was in the area, then people may have seen them in the BDM position and simply thought nothing of it.

The other thing is strictly a personal impression, but I've stood where BDM was, and if I had been holding a gun or other weapon there on 11/22/63 I would have damn sure felt conspicuous, so much so that it would be the last place I would shoot at the president from. If it was a shooter, how he got away with it, having the nerve to do it in the first place, seems simply amazing.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

The other thing is strictly a personal impression, but I've stood where BDM was, and if I had been holding a gun or other weapon there on 11/22/63 I would have damn sure felt conspicuous, so much so that it would be the last place I would shoot at the president from. If it was a shooter, how he got away with it, having the nerve to do it in the first place, seems simply amazing.

 

If I were a cold blooded killer, and my gun was silent and looked like a camera, I'd take the shot from there if I felt it necessary to do so.

Speaking of BDM... someone has posted photos in the forum of a mysterious dark thing seemingly (or maybe definitely) walking away from the general area BDM was in, with that monument as a backdrop. (He is walking east.) Has there been any discussion of that guy being BDM, escaping the area?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay, I'm convinced that you're not an LNer. I retract what I said earlier, and I apologize for ever thinking or saying you were. (Not that being an LNer is an awful thing.)

 

Thank you sandy, that’s refreshing. We may have got off on the wrong foot because I was immediately ambushed by Cliff after joining the forum and probably seems like a nutter . I also sided with Lance as he writes well and, on the topic we were on, agreeed with me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Which must mean they "blacked out" the back of Clint Hill's head in the Z-Film too. (Is that a likely scenario? I guess some CTers must think it is likely.)

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html

Thank you for the link. To clarify, I don't believe that the autopsy photos were faked, I'm open minded to the idea but see no evidence that cannot be reconciled. I just think that in the Z film we should see more of a flap of scalp and possibly some horrible shiny red gore at the rear than we do. Also, in one frame it does appear that the black 'shadow' on JFK's head, at the rear is quite sharp and distinct. Either way, the story of a lot of professional Doctors does not tally with what we see and therefore what we are seeing is a slight illusion. The back of head, scalp being pulled across photo, is just that. The Z film ? There are frames where Kennedys head just seems very strangely shaped and very blurred compared to the rest of the frame, although of course it is moving more.... 

 Looking closely at www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY  it seems to me that in frame 316-317 we see an expulsion of red mist to the rear of the head ( easier to see played normally but also in the frozen frames). 316 also shows what appears to be a very strange shape in the back of JFK's head, not one easily explained. It could have been cause by one bullet but the analysis of several independent experts after, the expulsion of the matter at 316 and the witnesses describing a large hole at the rear of the head all seem to suggest two shots. I don't think it really matters, we know some one was shooting from the front and we know that there was the large ugly laceration wound at the front right and a missing section of skull at the rear ( later found on the street, at least partly) . I just don't see how a sizeable piece of skull could end up at Charles Brem's feet and a lot of Doctors be very wrong and then lie repeatedly throughout their careers. Also of course, DVP, we have the autopsy images of the head from the back ( kennedy lying) which clearly show a large area missing. They certainly did their best to not show us this hole, for obvious reasons of national , ah-um, security.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

If I could lay a wager on it, I’d bet UM was the eccentric protester Louis Witt...

The main problem with him is that his own account of his actions is contradicted by the actions of UM. No one should know better what UM was doing than UM. It appears that Witt didn't even bother to check.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this thread is about intellectual honesty I am compelled to admit that Jake Hammond is correct about the sole definition of the word “ease” in clothing design as fabric added to a garment to allow unrestricted movement.

Back in 1997 I consulted with a relative of mine who is a clothing expert and got the impression the word “ease” referred to the movement of the clothing.

”No, you misunderstood me,” I was informed this morning.  “I think I was explaining clothing movement in a way you’d understand, but it’s not a term of art.”

”Wow, I’m gonna eat crow on that one...What about the claim that the shirt and jacket moved in tandem?”

”The shirt and jacket won’t move as a unit because the shirt is tucked in and restrained at the waist by the belt.”

”Okay, that’s good. What about the claim that a back brace would cause the shirt to ride up?”

”I don’t see how.  It would make the fit more snug.”

”Okay!  My opponents claim 2 inches of shirt and 2 inches of jacket were elevated entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar but they never show an experiment that demonstrates it.”

”This is what drives me crazy about these kinds of arguments because you can’t have an honest experiment if you desire a particular outcome.”

“They can’t do it even if they want the outcome,” I said, but since my relative has a very limited patience with the topic (the reason it took 21 years for me to bring it up again) we let it go at that.

So: Jake Hammond, I stand corrected on the definition of “ease.” 

But as far as everything else goes on the single bullet fraud, you have nothing and you’ll never admit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

The main problem with him is that his own account of his actions is contradicted by the actions of UM. No one should know better what UM was doing than UM. It appears that Witt didn't even bother to check.

 

The problem is, Witt stated the umbrella blocked his view of the motorcade but the photos show the umbrella open and up.

What is more likely — that Willis mis-remembered or mid-spoke in his HSCA testimony, or he was a spotter/shooter?

Hard to buy him as either in my book. UM was too far to JFK’s right to account for the slightly left to right trajectory suggested by the damage in the throat (a problem with a shot from BDM, but in that instance the round may have deflected.) A spotter? Wouldn’t a spotter be with the shooter?

I gotta go with WItt the eccentric protester with a less than perfect memory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Soldier Gordon Arnold, on the grassy knoll, said, "the shot came from behind me, only inches over my left shoulder.  I had just gotten out of basic training...and I hit the dirt."  According to Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough, who was two cars behind JFK, "immediately on the firing of the first shot I saw the man...throw himself on the ground...he was down within a second, and I thought to myself, '"  Secret Service agent Lem Johns, in the limo behind Yarborough, testified that "the first two shots sounded like they were on the side of me towards the grassy knoll..." 

Problem is.... The Muchmore film doesn't show this, he didn't even flinch until the headshot, even though there was a loud shot at 285 that startled everyone on the Plaza. He was still standing at the end of the Muchmore film.   The earliest he is seen lying down is much later, probably soiled himself and was in shock.  www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMdreKlLhJY

Quote

This shot was from Johnny Rosselli from the Dal-Tex building.

I've not heard this before, whats the best evidence here ? It would make some sense. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:

I know for a fact the Zapruder film was altered.

Please fill us all in on your incredible knowledge regarding Z-Film fakery, Rich! I'm fascinated!

And I'm sure CNN and FOX News will no doubt also be fascinated when you call them with your bombshell discovery too! A 90-minute documentary awaits! Please don't squander this amazing opportunity! Please!!

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2018 at 1:31 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

I propose every member of good faith ignore them, as Professor McBride has recommended.

 

You know, there’s a mystery here. One has to wonder, judging especially by DVP's postings, why LNs don’t do what Trump is doing in Syria. Declare victory and leave. Who would want to stay in this conspiracy hellhole?

I see that Lance has actually done this. In a thread that he started he has declared victory and says that he “will not be reemerging” at least till further notice. But somethig tells me that DVP will stay on here, despite delaring victory over and over, in order to revel in said victory. The idea, I guess, is that if you claim something long enough then people will start to believe it. Even though, as Trump would say, it’s fake news.

 

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

The idea, I guess, is that if you claim something long enough then people will start to believe it. Even though, as Trump would say, it’s fake news.

The irony is thick in here, isn't it? (It usually is inside a JFK forum.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2018 at 8:07 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Since this thread is about intellectual honesty I am compelled to admit that Jake Hammond is correct about the sole definition of the word “ease” in clothing design as fabric added to a garment to allow unrestricted movement.

Back in 1997 I consulted with a relative of mine who is a clothing expert and got the impression the word “ease” referred to the movement of the clothing.

”No, you misunderstood me,” I was informed this morning.  “I think I was explaining clothing movement in a way you’d understand, but it’s not a term of art.”

”Wow, I’m gonna eat crow on that one...What about the claim that the shirt and jacket moved in tandem?”

”The shirt and jacket won’t move as a unit because the shirt is tucked in and restrained at the waist by the belt.”

”Okay, that’s good. What about the claim that a back brace would cause the shirt to ride up?”

”I don’t see how.  It would make the fit more snug.”

”Okay!  My opponents claim 2 inches of shirt and 2 inches of jacket were elevated entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar but they never show an experiment that demonstrates it.”

”This is what drives me crazy about these kinds of arguments because you can’t have an honest experiment if you desire a particular outcome.”

“They can’t do it even if they want the outcome,” I said, but since my relative has a very limited patience with the topic (the reason it took 21 years for me to bring it up again) we let it go at that.

So: Jake Hammond, I stand corrected on the definition of “ease.” 

But as far as everything else goes on the single bullet fraud, you have nothing and you’ll never admit it.

Thank you Cliff, one step at a time.  

Next step will be a proper experiment in the New Year. 

One day we will hold hands and sing from the same hymn book. 

Edited by Jake Hammond
Link to post
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...