Jump to content
The Education Forum

William Cooper - Behold a Pale Horse


Lee Forman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mark Valenti

Hi Smitty,

No worries, it's just another day at the JFK Corral.

There are many theories floating around that could indeed fit the scenario, and many frameworks that dovetail into the events. Jackie could have used an explosive device from within her glove. There could have been a remote-control weapon buried under the seat of the limo. JFK's watch might have exploded. They might have switched JFK's body with a robot double.

Some theories, IMO, are so deeply flawed they don't rise to the minimum degree of credibility, and this is one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, let's see...great minds think alike, do they? I'd love to know which other of William Cooper's theories you cozy up to? You know, seeing as how your mind is great and all.
Paul Rigby wrote in Post #8 in this thread, Dec 30 2006, 11:12 PM:

By the way, I think Cooper either a nut or a disinformationist. He was beaten to the punch on the Greer-did-it scenario by twenty years. Newcomb and Adams' Murder From Within remains indispensable reading.

Intelligent response, Mark. So glad you can read. It gets better:
Look, there was an overpass within yards of the limo, why not wait until the car was hidden from view to fire the killshot? Greer and everybody else in Texas could plainly see that many dozens of people were filming the motorcade. Do you truly believe someone with Secret Service training would believe he could sneak a shot in without being seen/photographed/filmed??

Perhaps you'd care to share with us Austin Miller's response to where the shots originated? Or some of the other interesting testimony from observers on the overpass?

So now we know: Sheep seldom differ.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Rigby,

Your Hitchens-lite ripostes, addled as they are with your usual withering insults, do little to advance the hunt for an answer. You're a clever boy, but you've aligned yourself with a rather bizarre theory. That's your burden, do try to carry it with dignity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rigby,

Your Hitchens-lite ripostes, addled as they are with your usual withering insults, do little to advance the hunt for an answer. You're a clever boy, but you've aligned yourself with a rather bizarre theory. That's your burden, do try to carry it with dignity.

As I general rule, I bother to read my opponents and quote them fairly. You should try it some time.

Oh, and Austin Miller?

Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?”

Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225

Verily, a "bizarre" theory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Austin Miller's testimony is easily impeached.

"I thought at first the motorcycle backfiring or somebody throwed some firecrackers out."

Do you suppose he believed there was a motorcycle in the limo?

The truth is that he wasn't certain where the sound came from - could have been this, could have been that.

His testimony has him moving around the overpass, trying to find the source of the disturbance. Had he said he thought someone lit a firecracker and threw it into the car, that would be a different matter. But he doesn't say that. He says it could be a motorcycle, it could be a firecracker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin Miller's testimony is easily impeached.

"I thought at first the motorcycle backfiring or somebody throwed some firecrackers out."

Do you suppose he believed there was a motorcycle in the limo?

The truth is that he wasn't certain where the sound came from - could have been this, could have been that.

His testimony has him moving around the overpass, trying to find the source of the disturbance. Had he said he thought someone lit a firecracker and threw it into the car, that would be a different matter. But he doesn't say that. He says it could be a motorcycle, it could be a firecracker.

Mark, in his voluntary statement to the Dallas Sheriff's Department, given the same day President Kennedy was murdered, Miller stated, "I heard what sounded like a shot a short second two more sharp reports.....one shot apparently hit the street past the car...."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol19_0252a.htm

You're debating with someone who maintains that Harold Weisberg was a "witting servant of the CIA," and implies the same about Josiah Thompson. Speaking of Josiah Thompson and Austin Miller, he once posted this:

Nathan,

Do you have the misfortune to own a copy of Thompson's Six Seconds?

If not, let me know and I'll do you a photocopy of the witness table at the back - it makes fascinating reading, particularly when you compare Thompson's versions of who said what was fired from where, with what they actually said. (bold added)

If you have a copy already, start with, let me see, Austin Miller, perhaps?

Best wishes,

Paul

This is what Thompson's table said on page 262 about Austin Miller's statement:

No. of shots
: 3

Bunching of shots
: 2 & 3

Direction of sound/shots
: ---

Date of report
: 11/22/63

Total time of shots
: few seconds

References
: 6H223-227 19H485 24H217 Archives CD 205, p. 27

Remarks
: Saw "smoke or steam" coming from a group of trees N. of Elm: saw shot hit street past car.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0117a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol19_0252a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol24_0118a.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti
Mark, in his voluntary statement to the Dallas Sheriff's Department, given the same day President Kennedy was murdered, Miller stated, "I heard what sounded like a shot a short second two more sharp reports.....one shot apparently hit the street past the car...."ol24_0118a.htm[/url]

Thanks for that timely info -

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin Miller's testimony is easily impeached. "I thought at first the motorcycle backfiring or somebody throwed some firecrackers out." Do you suppose he believed there was a motorcycle in the limo?

Ah, such wit. Er, no, do you?

Mark Valenti: The truth is that he wasn't certain where the sound came from - could have been this, could have been that. His testimony has him moving around the overpass, trying to find the source of the disturbance. Had he said he thought someone lit a firecracker and threw it into the car, that would be a different matter. But he doesn't say that. He says it could be a motorcycle, it could be a firecracker.
He wasn't certain where the shots came from? Quite sure?

Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?”

Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225

Plainly, a man who had no firm opinion.

Hogan: "You're debating with someone..."

So are you...

Hogan continued:"...who maintains that Harold Weisberg was a "witting servant of the CIA,"
Yep, you have that honour...
More Hogan:"....and implies the same about Josiah Thompson. Speaking of Josiah Thompson and Austin Miller, he once posted this:
Nathan,

Do you have the misfortune to own a copy of Thompson's Six Seconds?

If not, let me know and I'll do you a photocopy of the witness table at the back - it makes fascinating reading, particularly when you compare Thompson's versions of who said what was fired from where, with what they actually said. (bold added)

If you have a copy already, start with, let me see, Austin Miller, perhaps?

Best wishes,

Paul

This is what Thompson's table said on page 262 about Austin Miller's statement:

No. of shots
: 3

Bunching of shots
: 2 & 3

Direction of sound/shots
: ---

Date of report
: 11/22/63

Total time of shots
: few seconds

References
: 6H223-227 19H485 24H217 Archives CD 205, p. 27

Remarks
: Saw "smoke or steam" coming from a group of trees N. of Elm: saw shot hit street past car.

Thanks for reviving that - vindication. In the column entitled "Direction of shot/sounds," hyper-reliable Thompson would have the reader believe Miller offered nothing on the subject. Oh yeah? You can't be serious? Happily, you are. Let's revisit Miller not offering a view on where the shots originated:

Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?”

Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225

This the best you could do? C'mon gents, raise the old game.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti
This the best you could do? C'mon gents, raise the old game.

Paul

Paul Rigby believes JFK was killed by William Greer.

'Nuf said. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This the best you could do? C'mon gents, raise the old game.

Paul

Paul Rigby believes JFK was killed by William Greer.

'Nuf said. :blink:

C'mon fellas, play nice! lol! Im not speaking for Paul, but this thread was started by Lee [where is he anyway?? lol!] and Paul and I started discussing how many of the events "COULD" have played into that particular scenario. I dont believe Paul ever said he was "positively sure" that this is what happened, and neither did I. I dont believe either of us flat out dismissed all theories, and proclaimed that the "Greer did it" theory was the final answer to this 40+ year quest. All that was said, I repeat, that there were many things that happened, and many posibilities, that could be related to that theory. I believe Paul is just defending his right to believe, as do I, what our opinions are. Being attacked for thinking about similarities in a theroy and what we think may have happened, is sad. No matter how ridiculous it may sound to others. As I said before about having an opinion, and putting it out there, is just that. Everyone is entitled to their own, and it doesnt mean that its our final say to anything. There ARE alot of things that could be attributed to that theory, if you think about it, including eyewitness testimony, no matter how you look at it. If you stay in one zone, think it ridiculous, well then you wont put any thought into it. I did the same before. Now I realized after Lee [anybody see him?? lol] brought this up, that I had closed my mind to such thinking years ago. But I see that thinking on things you think may be ridiculous at the time, may be very fruitful to a point later on. Not just this theory, but anything, theory or not, related here, needs consideration. Now where is that Forman??? lol!

Just my opinion FWIW. thanks-smitty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Paul is just defending his right to believe, as do I, what our opinions are. Being attacked for thinking about similarities in a theory and what we think may have happened, is sad.

Smitty.....

Please go back and read this thread from the beginning and look at where the sniping and sarcasm began. Take a look at who was first to take the discussion away from the issues and attempt to turn things personal. Who was the first to denigrate the opinions of other Forum members? How come no one "attacked" you? The answers may reside in the comments below.

Remove the blinkers, Erick, and have a good, long, honest look at what was actually said and written, not what the grassy knollers have fruitlessly parroted for the past 5 decades.
You're also quite right about the explanatory power of the Greer-did model: so much falls into place. If you wanted proof of its potency, watch the lies, smears and evasions to follow!
Mr. Griggs' most honest and coherent contribution to the subject yet, x2. Keep up the good work.
Great minds think alike - or fools seldom differ?

Either of you got an argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Paul is just defending his right to believe, as do I, what our opinions are. Being attacked for thinking about similarities in a theory and what we think may have happened, is sad.

Smitty.....

Please go back and read this thread from the beginning and look at where the sniping and sarcasm began. Take a look at who was first to take the discussion away from the issues and attempt to turn things personal. Who was the first to denigrate the opinions of other Forum members? How come no one "attacked" you? The answers may reside in the comments below.

Remove the blinkers, Erick, and have a good, long, honest look at what was actually said and written, not what the grassy knollers have fruitlessly parroted for the past 5 decades.
You're also quite right about the explanatory power of the Greer-did model: so much falls into place. If you wanted proof of its potency, watch the lies, smears and evasions to follow!
Mr. Griggs' most honest and coherent contribution to the subject yet, x2. Keep up the good work.
Great minds think alike - or fools seldom differ?

Either of you got an argument?

Thanks Michael, I understand what you are saying. But I believe it was in responce to the theory being called

"stupid". That can imply other things as well, and people tend to defend themselves when that happpens. Regardless, Im not going to dwell on this. I just wish people would get along here a little better than they do. It really isnt needed. Just my opinion FWIW

thanks-smitty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTlhICiBK5M...ted&search=

Found it. Let the dead man speak for himself. You can find the other pieces here as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDDALr9nqaA...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgZb83V8Qu4...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTrOVDWqFZ0...ted&search=

I don't believe the man was a disinformationist - just mistaken. He was doing his bit the best that he could.

At least I had the opportunity to see what Cooper was showing with respect to 'Dallas Revisited' --

easier to be mistaken using a rough B&W copy of the z-film.

It's worth watching the whole thing - I had never seen some of the live footage on the hearings before, etc.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTlhICiBK5M...ted&search=

Found it. Let the dead man speak for himself. You can find the other pieces here as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDDALr9nqaA...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgZb83V8Qu4...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTrOVDWqFZ0...ted&search=

I don't believe the man was a disinformationist - just mistaken. He was doing his bit the best that he could.

At least I had the opportunity to see what Cooper was showing with respect to 'Dallas Revisited' --

easier to be mistaken using a rough B&W copy of the z-film.

It's worth watching the whole thing - I had never seen some of the live footage on the hearings before, etc.

- lee

Lee,

Thanks for digging that up.

But you are wrong about Cooper being sincere.

William Cooper acknowledges from the git go that his information comes from the USN - ONI PACIFIC COMMAND - records, that he was trained in intelligence and at the end, that he is trying to counter the contentions of Robert Groden.

Disinformation is defined as originating from a government intelligence organization, and Cooper says in the beginning that this whole story originates from ONI.

I see the shinney head of hair of the SS agent in the front passenger seat - remember Brill Cream? A little dab'll do you. Well that's what I see, not a silver plated pistol that fires a shell fish toxin dart.

Kennedy's head was blown open by a bullet, and he was dead before the car got to the tripple underpass, so why would they need shell fish toxin poision?

While what Cooper says about Groden's education is probably true, he did work for a photographic company that handled the Zap film at some point, and has certainly learned a lot about pictures to be a special expert witness in court. But I didn't really think he was that much of a threat to sick a counter-op guy like Cooper on him.

I think Groden and Dick Gregory may have been targeted after getting Rivera to show the Zap film on nationwide TV, and had to be discredited with theory even more incredible than the one proposed by Groden.

I thought, in his book Cooper says that he has another film - other than the Zapruder film, which clearly shows Greer doing the dirty deed - with his left hand.

I still haven't seen that happen. What I see is an ex-ONI officer and trained intelligence operative selling snake oil to conspiracy theorisits.

Greer and the Secret Service however, were most certainly guilty of letting their guard down to allow the assassination to happen, possibly intentionally.

While it's not clear that Greer is doing the shooting, it is clear that Cooper is the disinformationist, not Groden.

BK

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...