Hit List-- The Systematic Murders of JFK Witnesses

[Robert Morrow]

2 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I know what a lot of people say about the 6th floor museum, but I´d like to visit it, before judging.  One can be against their POV, but are they not preserving  items, and in a way keeping the memory alive? At least they get some credit for that part. But I haven´t been there, so I could be totally wrong.

 

Going into the Sixth Floor Museum is a must for any JFK assassination researcher, as is a visit to the Grassy Knoll. Go to the museum, look out on Houston Street and think, my God, if I were a lone nut trying to kill JFK I would just shoot him right there. Only 30 some odd yards away.

You can read the enemies propaganda and cleverly use it against him if you are smart, well read and savvy.

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited Monday at 06:50 AM by Sandy Larsen

[Ron Bulman]

10 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I know what a lot of people say about the 6th floor museum, but I´d like to visit it, before judging.  One can be against their POV, but are they not preserving  items, and in a way keeping the memory alive? At least they get some credit for that part. But I haven´t been there, so I could be totally wrong.

 

I have to agree with Robert on this one.  There is no substitute for going there, standing next to "the" window and looking down at the X's on Elm, seeing the entrance to the stairs and the old freight elevator, in spite of their LHO did it bent.  But also, not just going behind the wooden fence on the grassy knoll and looking at the X's from there as well but walking out to the tower Bowers observed the area from, albeit from a few feet lower than his perspective.  Then walking out on the overpass and seeing Sam Holland and others view, and going on to the other side for what a south knoll shooter would have seen. Up Commerce past the Postal Annex where Holems watched with binoculars, to the corner of Commerce and Houston where Ruby reputedly watched the fireworks from.  North on Houston past the turn from Main on to it and the Sheriff's office where Roger Craig ran from.  On to Houston and Elm and the Dal-Tex building where you can now go in a snack/souvenir shop on the second floor corner and see the view I think one or two shots came from.  Don't forget the Texas Historical Commission plaque across the street on the east side of the TSBD about the "Alleged" assassin.

    

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Revoking posting privileges (even for a short period of time) of someone because you think they are WRONG on the facts is the wrong way to handle an internet debate. They proper way is to put up your countervailing material and let the READER DECIDE who has the better case.

 

Robert,

Everybody knows that it is wrong for a moderator to issue a penalty to  a member just for disagreeing with them. I mean, duh!

But that is not what happened with Pat Speer when he was telling everybody that James Jenkins claimed that the gaping head wound was at the top of the head. What happened is that another member, Keven Hofeling, noticed that what Pat said was factually incorrect.

Keven set out to prove that what Pat said was untrue. I, as moderator, studied Keven's post and found that he was right, that James Jenkins didn't say what Pat claimed he said. He in fact said quite the opposite!

There is a forum rule against posting demonstrable falsehoods. I was asked to take action against Pat for violating that rule.

I informed Pat that Jenkins said the wound was on the back of the head, not the top. But that he (Pat) could continue saying what he claimed about Jenkins' position if he could show me any instances of Jenkins saying the wound was indeed at the top. Pat couldn't.

I then asked Pat to correct the falsehood he was trying to pass off as being a fact. He wouldn't.

Finally I suggested to Pat that he preface his Jenkins claim with words such as "I contend" or "I believe." That way, he could say whatever he wanted and it wouldn't be violating a forum rule.

No matter what I said, Pat refused to budge. He insisted on posting his falsehood, and so I penalized him.

 

Edited Monday at 07:00 AM by Sandy Larsen

[Ron Bulman]

Look guy's, Pat, Sandy, now Robert stirring the pot.  This has nothing to do with Hit List, an interesting thread otherwise.  This makes me think about freezing it.  Until I talk to other mod's/admin's about it.  W's on vacation a few more days, admin's haven't looked in in a few days but I can contact them for advice if need be.

[Pat Speer]

On 8/4/2024 at 9:27 AM, Paul Cummings said:

6th Floor is based upon perpetuating the lie of LHO assassinated JFK. Why would I give money to something that I believe to be a false narrative? Thus my comment to Pat Speer about not visiting his site. 

It's not as simple as that. While Gary Mack was a pain in the A for many CT's, he nevertheless remained a CT even till the end. Since his passing, Stephen Fagan has been the guy in charge of content, and he has reached out to the conspiracy community. Heck, he even invited Cyril Wecht to the museum for an interview before an audience. 

In my dealings, the 6th floor museum has been quite helpful. Sure, I took the tour and was bit annoyed that it focused on Oswald as the likely culprit. But I was surprised to see it did have a display on the HSCA which included its conclusion a second shooter was likely. So I don't think most of those visiting the museum come out convinced it was Oswald acting alone. 

If you visit the museum, moreover, or even its website, you will be given access to many oral histories of witnesses...many of whom say they thought the shots came from a different direction or that they thought there was more to it than Oswald. So one can't honestly say the museum is out to deceive, IMO.

Heck, at one point I became convinced that someone sitting on the window box in the sniper's nest--the box Oswald supposedly sat upon as he calmly shot Kennedy--would not be able to see the limo in its location for the supposed first shot. And Steve Fagan did me a solid and went up there and took pictures from this position...that proved me correct. 

Well, that's not the behavior of a cover-up artist, IMO. 

[Kevin Balch]

16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Look guy's, Pat, Sandy, now Robert stirring the pot.  This has nothing to do with Hit List, an interesting thread otherwise.  This makes me think about freezing it.  Until I talk to other mod's/admin's about it.  W's on vacation a few more days, admin's haven't looked in in a few days but I can contact them for advice if need be.

Is it possible to move the autopsy-related exchanges to another thread? On the other hand, they appear to just retread old ground and add nothing new as far as I can tell. Perhaps just delete them.

The mysterious death thread itself has value.

So many red herring, foxes and horses have gone back and forth across the autopsy stream that who knows what to believe. If any physical evidence has been faked, it was the autopsy not the police tapes or the Z-film. And no, Tippit’s body was not swapped for JFK.

[Kevin Balch]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's not as simple as that. While Gary Mack was a pain in the A for many CT's, he nevertheless remained a CT even till the end. Since his passing, Stephen Fagan has been the guy in charge of content, and he has reached out to the conspiracy community. Heck, he even invited Cyril Wecht to the museum for an interview before an audience. 

In my dealings, the 6th floor museum has been quite helpful. Sure, I took the tour and was bit annoyed that it focused on Oswald as the likely culprit. But I was surprised to see it did have a display on the HSCA which included its conclusion a second shooter was likely. So I don't think most of those visiting the museum come out convinced it was Oswald acting alone. 

If you visit the museum, moreover, or even its website, you will be given access to many oral histories of witnesses...many of whom say they thought the shots came from a different direction or that they thought there was more to it than Oswald. So one can't honestly say the museum is out to deceive, IMO.

Heck, at one point I became convinced that someone sitting on the window box in the sniper's nest--the box Oswald supposedly sat upon as he calmly shot Kennedy--would not be able to see the limo in its location for the supposed first shot. And Steve Fagan did me a solid and went up there and took pictures from this position...that proved me correct. 

Well, that's not the behavior of a cover-up artist, IMO. 

At the risk of yet another tangent, has anyone ever taken photos or notes of what the unaided eye can see in the windows of the TSBD from various points in Dealey Plaza (Arnold Rowland, Howard Brennan, Amos Euins etc.) with identical lighting conditions to those between 12:00 - 1:00 PM on November 22? I think all the windows are now closed it would be especially interesting to see the visibility of someone standing in the windows.

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

At the risk of yet another tangent, has anyone ever taken photos or notes of what the unaided eye can see in the windows of the TSBD from various points in Dealey Plaza (Arnold Rowland, Howard Brennan, Amos Euins etc.) with identical lighting conditions to those between 12:00 - 1:00 PM on November 22? I think all the windows are now closed it would be especially interesting to see the visibility of someone standing in the windows.

I sat in Brennan's position to see if one could get a good look at the sniper's nest shooter from that location. One could not if the shooter was indeed sitting on a box. For Brennan to have seen a face in that window the person would have to have been kneeling right in front of the window, and not standing back behind the window as Brennan claimed or sitting on Box D as pushed by the Commission. 

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I sat in Brennan's position to see if one could get a good look at the sniper's nest shooter from that location. One could not if the shooter was indeed sitting on a box. For Brennan to have seen a face in that window the person would have to have been kneeling right in front of the window, and not standing back behind the window as Brennan claimed or sitting on Box D as pushed by the Commission. 

 

Seems correct to me, looking from the outside in a buiding usually will not work. Unless the building had plenty of light from the inside (and if there was, white walls to reflect it around). The only other way is when the sun shines directly on the person there.

That´s difficult as at noon the sun would be at its highest point (ok, not so high as during summer, a little lower in the winter).

Very close to the window, a person could catch enough light to show some details, but even a little back would make him a shady figure. 

We see it every day when there is sun, when you have a darker room, you won´t see a thing inside (from the outside...).

About photo´s, high iso/asa and longer ST, plus diafragma opened to a max to catch whatever light there is, could reveal the person when adding more light in developping the film.

Also, the person outside the building has his pupils rather closed, due to the sun, but that makes them useless to see objects in some dark spots.  Going in, coming from bright sunlight makes you see nada for a number of seconds.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

At the risk of yet another tangent, has anyone ever taken photos or notes of what the unaided eye can see in the windows of the TSBD from various points in Dealey Plaza (Arnold Rowland, Howard Brennan, Amos Euins etc.) with identical lighting conditions to those between 12:00 - 1:00 PM on November 22? I think all the windows are now closed it would be especially interesting to see the visibility of someone standing in the windows.

I don't remember ever reading of anyone taking pictures in the right light conditions.  I have stood near the X's on Elm and looked up at the supposed snipers nest, I don't remember noticing anything, I attribute that in part to the angle and nothing in that corner sticks up very high.  Of course. no one was moving around as it's sealed off now.  Which makes me think at the moment I should have noticed any movement in the window next to it, or for the next two or three down from it.  Why I think I should have is I've been in the 6th floor museum three times.  There were people standing in the second window looking down on the street pretty much constantly when I was in the immediate area.  I've waited around a few minutes for others to move to do so myself.

In relation to your question here's a I think related aspect.  I have read somewhere several years back about the windows on the upper floors being filthy.  I think it was in a book, not on the internet or in a magazine.  Seems like an author spoke to someone who had been on the upper floors back in 1963 who made the observation.  That they were so dirty inside and out that unless someone was standing very close to one, with full sun shining on them someone near the street would not be able to identify anyone just close to one or say what they were wearing.

I realize the corner window was partially opened at some point (we don't know when do we?).  But as far as seeing people in other windows as some said, or someone noticing Oswald or whoever stacking the boxes, IDK.  

Somebody shot from that window, I think.  Possibly as just a diversion to draw attention back and up to the right.  I don't think it was Oswald.

[Kevin Balch]

51 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I don't remember ever reading of anyone taking pictures in the right light conditions.  I have stood near the X's on Elm and looked up at the supposed snipers nest, I don't remember noticing anything, I attribute that in part to the angle and nothing in that corner sticks up very high.  Of course. no one was moving around as it's sealed off now.  Which makes me think at the moment I should have noticed any movement in the window next to it, or for the next two or three down from it.  Why I think I should have is I've been in the 6th floor museum three times.  There were people standing in the second window looking down on the street pretty much constantly when I was in the immediate area.  I've waited around a few minutes for others to move to do so myself.

In relation to your question here's a I think related aspect.  I have read somewhere several years back about the windows on the upper floors being filthy.  I think it was in a book, not on the internet or in a magazine.  Seems like an author spoke to someone who had been on the upper floors back in 1963 who made the observation.  That they were so dirty inside and out that unless someone was standing very close to one, with full sun shining on them someone near the street would not be able to identify anyone just close to one or say what they were wearing.

I realize the corner window was partially opened at some point (we don't know when do we?).  But as far as seeing people in other windows as some said, or someone noticing Oswald or whoever stacking the boxes, IDK.  

Somebody shot from that window, I think.  Possibly as just a diversion to draw attention back and up to the right.  I don't think it was Oswald.

I think the dirty windows would have been a great hindrance.

Any photos taken today would probably be better than anything possible in 1963.

Putting a decoy shooter up there runs a risk of getting captured. Might as well have an actual shooter.

[Kevin Balch]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I sat in Brennan's position to see if one could get a good look at the sniper's nest shooter from that location. One could not if the shooter was indeed sitting on a box. For Brennan to have seen a face in that window the person would have to have been kneeling right in front of the window, and not standing back behind the window as Brennan claimed or sitting on Box D as pushed by the Commission. 

 

Weren’t there reports of boxes being moved after the shots? Seems incredible as you would think the first instinct would be to get the hell out of there.

If true, someone felt very comfortable being there, had some familiarity with the building, had the help of at least one insider as a lookout, was perhaps an insider himself and did not immediately flee the building and perhaps remained in the building for a substantial period of time.

But what could be the purpose for moving the boxes?

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Weren’t there reports of boxes being moved after the shots? Seems incredible as you would think the first instinct would be to get the hell out of there.

If true, someone felt very comfortable being there, had some familiarity with the building, had the help of at least one insider as a lookout, was perhaps an insider himself and did not immediately flee the building and perhaps remained in the building for a substantial period of time.

But what could be the purpose for moving the boxes?

I think there was one witness to say she saw someone moving the boxes around after the shots were fired. I'm skeptical about this person actually moving the boxes just back of the window. (We know Box B was on the window ledge because it was captured in photos within seconds of the shooting.) But the possibility exists in my mind that the sniper had a stack of boxes behind him (to assure no one ran up on him from behind), And then moved those out of the way to make his exit.