You lied by saying statements/testimony as if they were the same thing.
In the Zodiac case the police were flooded with thousands of phony witness reports and confessions.
And because you are a kook you try to claim that I think Oswald was the lone shooter. I have never said that Oswald was a shooter.
I specifically reject the witness identifications which they tried to use to place Oswald in that window shooting. Even Curry admitted that they couldn't place Oswald in that window shooting.
My belief that three shots came from the sniper's nest is based solely on the scientific evidence and none of the eyewitnesses.
I didn't know that I was required personally to call every kook a
, but if it will help I am glad to call Whittaker and Glanges
, although I don't know what you think they lied about. They might have simply been misstaken.
Why do you think the video talks about a MISSING bullet? Shaw did not know that it was just a tiny fragment which they decided to leave in the thigh.
YOU didn't know about an additional fragment they recovered from Connally which did not match the other fragments they found.
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login
We do not know exactly where this additional fragment came from because an FBI scratched out three words on the original.
I am not accusing the CIA as an institution either. Think departments and sections Specifically DD/P.
"In an interview with the New York Times [Dec 25, 1974]
Angleton was asked about alleged wrongdoing [in the CIA]. He
answered, 'I've got problems ... A mansion has many rooms, and
there were many things going on during the period of the
[antiwar] bombings.'
"And seemingly out of nowhere, Angleton added: 'I'm not
privy to who struck John [Kennedy].'"
Sorry for the delayed response, the real world intruded.
Nice catch on Zodiac. Other than the Fincher movie I don't know anything about the case, so can't comment much. A preliminary response might be to state that it was a high-profile serial killing that dragged out over months. The bizarre mask and cryptic messages seem a deliberate invitation to the lunatic fringe. Who knows, if the cops had taken a closer look at the more credible witnesses they might have actually, y'know,
solved the case.
I specifically asked you to correct me if I was I was wrong about your identifying Oswald as he shooter. Re-read my post.
To paraphrase and summarize some one of your recent (unsupported) comments on this forum: 3 shots from behind + no frontal shots + no suspicious bystanders + no damage in Altgens 6 . This usually equals 'Oswald did it', but apologies for that anyway. If you have a book or collection of articles online I'll give 'em fair shake, but I can't be expected to follow you all over the internet to get a full & complete grasp of your thinking. At first glance you sound like Bugliosi.
I've visited the Rouge Plant a few times and you could hide an army in there. Whittaker, a supervisor at the Glass Plant, had a very close look at a through & through hole from the front and helped use the damaged windshield to create a template for new ones. He wasn't 'mistaken' about what he saw. I've yet to meet a 'kooky' supervisor in the auto industry. They wouldn't last long.
There's a few more reporters, DPD & feds that you need to consign to the puzzle factory before you can discount the hole in the windshield, but in particular you might want to re-consider the case of SA Charles Taylor who states in his 11/27/63 FBI report
"...of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.."In '75, after a few more iterations, this becomes
"...I never examined this apparent hole to determine if there had been any penetration of the glass, nor did I even get a good look at the windshield in well-lighted surroundings."Not mentioned is the fact that Taylor was a passenger in the limo as it travelled to the WH garage. Only through a supreme act of will could he have avoided scrutiny of the hole. Could you? Could a trained SS Agent?
If we are dealing with a mere non-penetrating fragment strike from the rear then why was Taylor's report classified 'Top Secret' and why did he change his story so many times? Or why were relevant Z frames obscured, for that matter?
Reasonable people can quibble over the finer points, but I'd say that dozens of dedicated researchers have made a case for frontal shots, body alteration, film alteration and faked x-rays & autopsy photos. I'd throw in a reconstructed windshield and a refurbished limo interior. To not do the last two would break a clear pattern of fraud & obfuscation.
I applaud your efforts at a scientific approach, but we're left with very little, if any, hard physical evidence to work with. Photo/audio analysis is highly subjective and studies of the x-rays, bullet fragments, assumed trajectories etc. won't cut it if the source data is as corrupted as I - and many others -feel it to be.
I used to think Shaw mistook a bullet fragment also, but now I think he meant what he said: a bullet. Just like Dr. Perry meant what he said: a throat shot from the front. Any later statements or testimony to the contrary are worthless. The fix was in and people fell in line for obvious reasons.
I'd encourage you to be a lot more cynical with the medical/ballistic record and start examining at least some of the witnesses. We need to burrow very deep into their original statements - as opposed to often misleading testimony - to see how it fits with later declassified documents. I don't have to press too hard on this point as a new generation of researchers seem to be doing just that.
Good luck on your future research. I mean that. This isn't a personal attack - at least not on my end. I'll leave you the last word, if you so desire, but I'm done with this thread.
Sorry to other forum members for thread drift & excess verbiage on my part. Won't happen again.
I originally posted to point out the Doug Weldon interview link in what I thought was a timely thread because of his recent passing. The poor guy really put his back into the windshield issue and died leaving behind an unpublished manuscript and tons of research that I hope will see the light of day eventually. I think you'll agree that the witnesses to a bullet hole in the windshield aren't remotely as 'kooky' as Mr. Marsh would have you think. They were terrified.
