The First Shot

[Jerry Organ]

My point being, Willis "was" in Dealey Plaza. There's proof.
I could give a rat's a$$ about Z202 vs Z204.
Aynesworth "was" somewhere. Dealey Plaza? No proof.

Don't muddle the issue.
We're back to Gerry Ford again. Regardless of what Ted Kennedy said years later, there was still a quid pro quo.

I see. In your mind, I'm the one off-topic.

Nixon resigned not knowing he would be pardoned. The pardon came a month after Nixon resigned, and after it was explained to Nixon that acceptance would mean "an admission of guilt".

    "At a 2014 panel discussion, Ford’s lawyer during that period,
     Benton Becker, explained an additional element that influenced
     Ford’s decision to issue a presidential pardon: a 1915 Supreme
     Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that
     a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon
     was "an admission of guilt.” Thus, this decision implied that
     Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also
     accepting Ford’s pardon.

     Prior to Ford’s issuance of the pardon, Becker was tasked with the
     difficult job of mediating the negotiations between Ford and Nixon.
     Becker said he took copies of the Burdick decision to California
     when he met with former President Nixon, and under Ford’s
     instructions, walked through the decision with Nixon.

     Becker said the discussion with Nixon was very difficult, and the
     former President kept trying to change the subject way from Burdick.
     Finally, Nixon acknowledged Becker’s argument about what the
     Supreme Court decision meant.

     After he left the White House, Ford carried part of the Burdick decision
     with him in his wallet in case someone brought up the pardon. In a
     later interview with Woodward for Caroline Kennedy’s book,
     “Profiles in Courage for Our Time,” Ford pulled out the dog-eared
     decision and read the key parts of it to [Bob] Woodward."

          -- The Nixon Pardon in Constitutional Retrospect
              National Constitution Center, September 8, 2020 ( Link )

                 

[John Tonkovich]

I see. In your mind, I'm the one off-topic.

Nixon resigned not knowing he would be pardoned. The pardon came a month after Nixon resigned, and after it was explained to Nixon that acceptance would mean "an admission of guilt".

    "At a 2014 panel discussion, Ford’s lawyer during that period,
     Benton Becker, explained an additional element that influenced
     Ford’s decision to issue a presidential pardon: a 1915 Supreme
     Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that
     a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon
     was "an admission of guilt.” Thus, this decision implied that
     Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also
     accepting Ford’s pardon.

     Prior to Ford’s issuance of the pardon, Becker was tasked with the
     difficult job of mediating the negotiations between Ford and Nixon.
     Becker said he took copies of the Burdick decision to California
     when he met with former President Nixon, and under Ford’s
     instructions, walked through the decision with Nixon.

     Becker said the discussion with Nixon was very difficult, and the
     former President kept trying to change the subject way from Burdick.
     Finally, Nixon acknowledged Becker’s argument about what the
     Supreme Court decision meant.

     After he left the White House, Ford carried part of the Burdick decision
     with him in his wallet in case someone brought up the pardon. In a
     later interview with Woodward for Caroline Kennedy’s book,
     “Profiles in Courage for Our Time,” Ford pulled out the dog-eared
     decision and read the key parts of it to [Bob] Woodward."

          -- The Nixon Pardon in Constitutional Retrospect
              National Constitution Center, September 8, 2020 ( Link )

                 

Phil Willis was in Dealey Plaza.
Aynesworth. No proof.

[John Tonkovich]

If you haven't looked at Chapter 2b at patspeer.com, you should probably give it a look.

Purvis and I used to hash it out on the Ed Forum. He had it in his head that the SS and FBI were on the up and up, and that the WC came along and dismantled their work.

But Purvis had NEVER bothered to read the FBI and SS memos and reports on this stuff. It turns out that the FBI and SS both claimed the head shot occurred way past Kennedy's position at Z-313, and that Eisenberg and Specter caught them in this charade, and tried to straighten things out, so that their single-assassin solution wouldn't collapse under even the slightest analysis. This is all demonstrated on my website.

In essence, I believe the SS and FBI were concerned the shots were fired too closely together, and that they deliberately moved the head shot (which they believed was the last shot) further down the road so as to give the assassin (whom they believed to be Oswald) more time to fire the shots. They fudged their work. And got caught.

FWIW, when confronted with the FBI internal memos proving the FBI assumed the last shot was the head shot, Purvis claimed they'd all been faked by Specter et al, to cover their tracks. These were the FBI's internal memos, from the FBI's files, which had never been provided the Warren Commission.

I lost respect for Purvis at that point.

We'd been colleagues, of sorts, in that we were at one point the only two researchers pushing there was a shot after the head shot. But I couldn't go along with his claim Specter and Eisenberg and Belin et al were the bad guys in this whole fiasco, and that the SS and FBI were innocent. At the time I wondered if anti-semitism had clouded his thinking, but later came to believe his military background had led him to favor what he interpreted as hard-working men of action over sycophantic lawyer-types. And I can't say I disagree with him in that bias...

Ok, Pat. Z190. Z204. Z207. About one second we're quibbling about.
We'll discuss the two headshots some other time.

[Charles Collins]

I don't have any idea what he looked like at that time. Does anyone?

Here is what he looked like back then. It is from the book we have been discussing "The Reporters' Notes" by Dallas Morning News.



He apparently wore a crew cut. He is rather tall and lanky these days. His face appears fuller in the above photo than it does now. So he might have been a little heavier. I do remember seeing a photo that included him (from behind) as he was with the police searching for LHO in Oak Cliff. He was wearing a dark suit. My guess is that he is the man to the right (camera left) of the lady that you have pointed out. But it is difficult to say for sure because the image isn't clear enough. Good eye there James!

[Pat Speer]

I see. In your mind, I'm the one off-topic.

Nixon resigned not knowing he would be pardoned. The pardon came a month after Nixon resigned, and after it was explained to Nixon that acceptance would mean "an admission of guilt".

    "At a 2014 panel discussion, Ford’s lawyer during that period,
     Benton Becker, explained an additional element that influenced
     Ford’s decision to issue a presidential pardon: a 1915 Supreme
     Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that
     a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon
     was "an admission of guilt.” Thus, this decision implied that
     Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also
     accepting Ford’s pardon.

     Prior to Ford’s issuance of the pardon, Becker was tasked with the
     difficult job of mediating the negotiations between Ford and Nixon.
     Becker said he took copies of the Burdick decision to California
     when he met with former President Nixon, and under Ford’s
     instructions, walked through the decision with Nixon.

     Becker said the discussion with Nixon was very difficult, and the
     former President kept trying to change the subject way from Burdick.
     Finally, Nixon acknowledged Becker’s argument about what the
     Supreme Court decision meant.

     After he left the White House, Ford carried part of the Burdick decision
     with him in his wallet in case someone brought up the pardon. In a
     later interview with Woodward for Caroline Kennedy’s book,
     “Profiles in Courage for Our Time,” Ford pulled out the dog-eared
     decision and read the key parts of it to [Bob] Woodward."

          -- The Nixon Pardon in Constitutional Retrospect
              National Constitution Center, September 8, 2020 ( Link )

                 

Although I suspect there was a quid pro quo, it's long been apparent that Ford thought this quid pro quo was justified, seeing as in accepting a pardon Nixon was admitting his guilt.
The next few months shall prove quite interesting, moreover, seeing as Trump will almost certainly "pardon" a number of those around him, and will try to pretend this doesn't mean they've committed crimes.

I hope Fox News' legal analysts, if no one else, makes this clear to him...that, in pardoning his sycophants, he is admitting his own criminality.

[John Tonkovich]

Although I suspect there was a quid pro quo, it's long been apparent that Ford thought this quid pro quo was justified, seeing as in accepting a pardon Nixon was admitting his guilt.
The next few months shall prove quite interesting, moreover, seeing as Trump will almost certainly "pardon" a number of those around him, and will try to pretend this doesn't mean they've committed crimes.

I hope Fox News' legal analysts, if no one else, makes this clear to him...that, in pardoning his sycophants, he is admitting his own criminality.

Accepting a pardon is an acknowledgment of guilt?

[Andrew Mason]

Although I suspect there was a quid pro quo, it's long been apparent that Ford thought this quid pro quo was justified, seeing as in accepting a pardon Nixon was admitting his guilt.
The next few months shall prove quite interesting, moreover, seeing as Trump will almost certainly "pardon" a number of those around him, and will try to pretend this doesn't mean they've committed crimes.

I hope Fox News' legal analysts, if no one else, makes this clear to him...that, in pardoning his sycophants, he is admitting his own criminality.

Trump was the "un-indicted co-conspirator" in the offences that Michael Cohen got 3 years for - basically following Trump's instructions to do the illegal acts on his behalf contrary to Federal Election laws. Trump can't pardon himself and be assured that the pardon will be effective.  So the only way he can avoid prosecution would be for another president to pardon him.  Perhaps he will turn the Presidency over to VP Pence at the last minute.  Then Pence can pardon him and perform all the official functions in the transition and Biden's inauguration.

But a federal pardon will not help Trump in dealing with offences against state law and he appears to be the subject of investigations in New York.

[Andrew Mason]

In this interview of James Tague around 1:17-1:45 describes the shots.  The first shot was a loud firecracker sound.  He wondered why anyone would set off a firecracker and then he heard two rapid shots about a second apart, he estimates:

He does not explain why he thinks he was hit by a separate shot and not a fragment from a shot that first struck in the car and fragmented.

In this interview of Bob Jackson who was riding in the press car, he describes (1:35-1:45) hearing a loud shot and then two shots closer together:

Jerry Organ thinks these witnesses heard it all wrong, including about another 40+ who heard the same thing: the last two shots close together.  I don't know how all that evidence can be disregarded, but it must be disregarded in order for the first shot to have missed.  No matter how you look at it: a second shot at z223 and the third shot 5 seconds later at z313 does not begin to fit the last two shots being in rapid succession and closer together than 1-2.

And with all the witnesses who described JFK reacting to the first shot it gets even more difficult to understand how the first shot could have missed.

The first shot DID NOT MISS.