Jump to content
The Education Forum

Documentary on ‘Last Second in Dallas’


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Pat, Are you referring to Anita Dickason?  She was at Lancer in 2013 with her book 'The Real Facts of Lee Bowers' Death'.  If I recall correctly she was ex law enforcement.  I spoke to her & bought her book, which she signed.  Her verdict on Bowers' death was 'accident'.   

Yeah, that's her. She seemed perfectly reasonable, which alienated a lot in attendance who were hoping for something more exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Yikes! I think Gary Shaw embarrassed himself a bit with his claim this book was no accident. As if the CIA is in the habit of promoting a small low-budget self-researched book that few will ever read, when they could be spending the money on drones or big budget films promoting their perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

Thank you for this statement, Pat. As you well know I have been at this a tad more than 19 years and it was precisely because of theoretical "research" such as that you have outlined here that I did not post for perusal my final [3rd] volume on the Connally wounding several years ago. I also happen to know, because of access to his research materials, that the late John Hunt tried to warn certain individuals in this community about their approach to among other things the Harper fragment, in particular their insistence that it was found left/south of the Z313 impact point, when as you have pointed out that is absolutely not true.

Gary

Thanks, Gary

This means a lot coming from you.

If you'd like to send your 3rd book to someone who'll appreciate your efforts and achievements, you have my email. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

To be clear, I wanted to believe someone was behind the fence. It seems near certain, based upon the earwitnesses and smoke witnesses, that some sort of diversion (or even a shot) came from there. As far as the glint or whatever Bowers saw, it could have come through the gap as the limo drove by. I don't object to someone thinking someone had crept up behind the fence without Bowers noticing. My objection is to people continuing to pretend the men Bowers saw were not the men on the steps in the Muchmore film, when his description is a perfect match. 

And this underlies my objection to much of what's passed as "research" from (literally and figuratively) both sides of the fence. If an x-ray shows you something you disagree with or don't understand, claim it's been faked. If an autopsy photo shows you something you disagree with or don't understand, claim it's a fake. If the Z-film shows you something you disagree with or don't understand, claim it's a fake. If you don't like what the witnesses say, say they are lying because they're scared. And conversely, if the back wound doesn't line up with the throat wound, move it. If the entrance wound on the head doesn't line up with the supposed exit wound, move it. If the Z-film, autopsy photos and x-rays show you something you disagree with or don't understand, hire some expert to present a bs theory that explains why... And that's not even to mention the preparing of witnesses and parsing of testimony prepared by Ball, Belin, and Specter, to keep the record "clean" per Warren's request.

It's like everyone, even today, is afraid to look at what actually happened, based upon the actual evidence. I set out to do so roughly 19 years ago, and came to some surprising conclusions, some of which have crept into the community. But the bulk of what I've discovered has remained buried under a mountain of bs piled on from both sides of the fence, from people more interested in defending the status quo or having fun with theories than actually looking at evidence. 

I share your concerns. 

In my view, the evidence is good enough in the JFKA, and does not need to be enhanced, and when it is the JFKA research community loses credibility. 

The basic evidence is the sequence of shots to JFK, JBC, JFK was accomplished too quickly to have been done by a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle. 

I also contend that beyond reasonable doubt there was a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll area, largely due to the numerous experienced witnesses smelling gunsmoke in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. A good guess is a discharge from a snub-nose .38. The man flashing Secret Service ID in that very area is deeply suspicious. 

My only reservation is that we should save our harshest criticism in the JFKA for those who have withheld evidence, or manipulated evidence, and prevented a real investigation of the JFKA. 

People in the JFKA community have been groping in the dark, and straining for answers, and trying to the right thing---and have unearthed plenty. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that a transcript of Bowers interview with Lane existed.  I stand corrected, if it captures his statements to Lane accurately.  Bowers may not have seen anyone on his side of the fence but Mary Moorman's photo does seem to show the same anomaly in the area that Tink staged with someone standing there, and the evidence of debris exhausted from the back of JFK's head onto the driver's side taillight & officer Hargis lines up with a shot originating from that position, so I'm inclined to think that Bowers didn't see one or more people who were actually there. The other unnerving possibility is that the transcript is not an accurate representation of what he actually said, and it's just not possible to tell with certainty.  Given the extent to which the official record in this case has been doctored to create evidence for a lone assassin and suppress other evidence, a written transcript discovered long after the event it describes strikes me as suspicious. The preponderance of evidence seems to impugn the integrity of the Bowers-Lane interview transcript, as far as I can see. Thanks to Pat for helping clarify the facts in evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

I wasn't aware that a transcript of Bowers interview with Lane existed.  I stand corrected, if it captures his statements to Lane accurately.  Bowers may not have seen anyone on his side of the fence but Mary Moorman's photo does seem to show the same anomaly in the area that Tink staged with someone standing there, and the evidence of debris exhausted from the back of JFK's head onto the driver's side taillight & officer Hargis lines up with a shot originating from that position, so I'm inclined to think that Bowers didn't see one or more people who were actually there. The other unnerving possibility is that the transcript is not an accurate representation of what he actually said, and it's just not possible to tell with certainty.  Given the extent to which the official record in this case has been doctored to create evidence for a lone assassin and suppress other evidence, a written transcript discovered long after the event it describes strikes me as suspicious. The preponderance of evidence seems to impugn the integrity of the Bowers-Lane interview transcript, as far as I can see. Thanks to Pat for helping clarify the facts in evidence.

As I recall, the transcript was created for the director of Rush to Judgment and gifted with some of his personal items to an historical society in Minnesota. It was not an official document. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

I wasn't aware that a transcript of Bowers interview with Lane existed.  I stand corrected, if it captures his statements to Lane accurately.  Bowers may not have seen anyone on his side of the fence but Mary Moorman's photo does seem to show the same anomaly in the area that Tink staged with someone standing there, and the evidence of debris exhausted from the back of JFK's head onto the driver's side taillight & officer Hargis lines up with a shot originating from that position, so I'm inclined to think that Bowers didn't see one or more people who were actually there. The other unnerving possibility is that the transcript is not an accurate representation of what he actually said, and it's just not possible to tell with certainty.  Given the extent to which the official record in this case has been doctored to create evidence for a lone assassin and suppress other evidence, a written transcript discovered long after the event it describes strikes me as suspicious. The preponderance of evidence seems to impugn the integrity of the Bowers-Lane interview transcript, as far as I can see. Thanks to Pat for helping clarify the facts in evidence.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/pdf/lane_interviews/bowers.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2021 at 1:20 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

I also contend that beyond reasonable doubt there was a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll area, largely due to the numerous experienced witnesses smelling gunsmoke in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. A good guess is a discharge from a snub-nose .38. The man flashing Secret Service ID in that very area is deeply suspicious. 

 

 

 

How did you arrive at a snub-nose .38?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer anyone to the interview Conway did with Bowers' supervisor in Beyond the Fence Line.

That should be definitive on the subject.

Its always surprising to me that anyone could take anything from Dale M seriously after he constructed a cartoon for national TV and then called CE 399 the Single Bullet Fact.

There was a shot from the right front.  And its not a matter of wish fulfillment, its using the other side's own evidence that establishes it. Evidence they were not aware of, or they wished to hide.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I refer anyone to the interview Conway did with Bowers' supervisor in Beyond the Fence Line.

That should be definitive on the subject.

Its always surprising to me that anyone could take anything from Dale M seriously after he constructed a cartoon for national TV and then called CE 399 the Single Bullet Fact.

There was a shot from the right front.  And its not a matter of wish fulfillment, its using the other side's own evidence that establishes it. Evidence they were not aware of, or they wished to hide.

 

If you're suggesting this transcript be disregarded, I totally disagree. If we reject evidence because we don't like it, we're no better than the WC's staff. My recollection is this didn't come from Myers. It was Mack who dug it up and evidently sat on it awhile as it damaged his Badgeman argument. And he didn't dig it up from a questionable source. It came from the papers of the director of Rush to Judgment, and it's obviously legit, or a very very clever fake--way too clever for someone like Myers to make up. There are a number of transcripts in that historical society's archives that support the CT side, including, on the whole, Bowers', as he once again describes the last two shots as bang bang. There appears to have been no tampering there. And when you compare what Bowers says in the transcript to his WC testimony it's clear he hasn't really changed anything, it's just that he appears to have changed things because of the spin Lane put on the original testimony, and the editing of the Rush to Judgment interview for Lane's movie. 

So, yeah, Dale Myers scored a point. Let him have it. He's scored a number of points. But he's still behind like 100-10. We most certainly agree on that. 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tony Rose said:

How did you arrive at a snub-nose .38?

Tony--

Thanks for your question. 

I spell out a version of events here: 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27353-gunsmoke-gunfire-in-dealey-plaza-a-diversion/

The short answer is a snub-nose .38 was the default concealed weapon of the time, and snub-nose .38s release a great deal of muzzle flash, smoke and noise, in comparison to longer barreled weapons, especially rifles. 

So, if you were planning a diversion gunshot, and wanted to conceal your weapon before and after discharging it, the snub-nose .38 was perfect. 

Hand-packing .38s is common, that is filling the hulls with your own powder, and putting on the slug. This would allow the use of smoky gunpowders. 

In addition a snub-nose .38 was found in a paper bag a few blocks from Dealey Plaza, on the sidewalk, the next morning. 

In today's money, weapon worth about $150, and also untraceable---it had been manufactured in the US, sent to Great Britain in the war, and then made the return trip. But no one throws away $150 weapon, with resale value...unless it was a throw-away gun used n the commission of crime. 

So that's where I leave it. The Z-film sure looks like JFK was shot from the Grassy Knoll. But bodies react strangely to gunshots. We know now that surviving medical evidence may have been altered. CE-399 is almost surely a fraud. 

But the sequence of shots seen in the Z-film is too rapid to have been accomplished by a single-shot bolt action rifle. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Tony--

Thanks for your question. 

I spell out a version of events here: 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27353-gunsmoke-gunfire-in-dealey-plaza-a-diversion/

The short answer is a snub-nose .38 was the default concealed weapon of the time, and snub-nose .38s release a great deal of muzzle flash, smoke and noise, in comparison to longer barreled weapons, especially rifles. 

So, if you were planning a diversion gunshot, and wanted to conceal your weapon before and after discharging it, the snub-nose .38 was perfect. 

Hand-packing .38s is common, that is filling the hulls with your own powder, and putting on the slug. This would allow the use of smoky gunpowders. 

In addition a snub-nose .38 was found in a paper bag a few blocks from Dealey Plaza, on the sidewalk, the next morning. 

In today's money, weapon worth about $150, and also untraceable---it had been manufactured in the US, sent to Great Britain in the war, and then made the return trip. But no one throws away $150 weapon, with resale value...unless it waIs a throw-away gun used n the commission of crime. 

So that's where I leave it. The Z-film sure looks like JFK was shot from the Grassy Knoll. But bodies react strangely to gunshots. We know now that surviving medical evidence may have been altered. CE-399 is almost surely a fraud. 

But the sequence of shots seen in the Z-film is too rapid to have been accomplished by a single-shot bolt action rifle. 

 

I had forgotten about revolver in the paperbag.  That's a pretty strong reason to posit a .38 as a distraction weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Rose said:

I had forgotten about revolver in the paperbag.  That's a pretty strong reason to posit a .38 as a distraction weapon.

Tony R.-

Yes. As stated, who throws away a working revolver, that has a resale value? Yes, a modest weapon, but worth $150 in today's money. 

I think it is reasonable to assume someone tossed the weapon away purposely. To me, that indicates use in a crime. A throw-away weapon. 

Of course, maybe the weapon was used in an ordinary crime, and tossed afterwards. Unfortunately, the time for tracing the weapon and trying to line it up with recent run-of-the-mill crimes on Nov. 22 in Dallas has long passed. 

My guess is someone was walking or driving from the Dealey Plaza area, and did not want the recently fired weapon upon them. Perhaps the bogus Secret Service agent tossed the weapon.  In an appropriate unobserved moment, he left the weapon in a paper bag on the street. 

It still stupifies the imagination that DPD'er Joe Smith and Sheriff Seymour Weitzman both testified they witnessed a man flash Secret Service credentials on the Grassy Knoll...and the Warren Commission let it go. The HSCA did not seem inclined to really dig into this one either. 

Debra Conway wrote an excellent article on the topic:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/25817589/the-secret-service-agent-on-the-knoll-jfk-lancer

So it goes....

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...