Author Topic: June 1961 Pictures Of JFK's SS-100-X Limousine  (Read 6634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David Von Pein

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2397
    • THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: A LONE-GUNMAN VIEWPOINT
Re: June 1961 Pictures Of JFK's SS-100-X Limousine
« Reply #56 on: April 03, 2012, 06:54:24 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I said that Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, lied and that the WC accepted his word and did not investigate. If you are going to pretend to quote me then quote the entire sentence.

Is it truly possible for someone to really not have the slightest idea what he has written just HOURS earlier? Anthony Marsh must suffer from such a strange affliction, because he definitely said the WC "lied" regarding the chrome matter. Marsh wasn't talking about just Chief Rowley in the quote shown below. He said "it lied" ("it" = the WC).

"You continued to defend the WC while it lied and said the dent was always there." -- Tony Marsh; 4/2/12; 11:44 AM EDT

Of course, as I proved earlier via Page 77 of the WCR, the WC didn't lie about a damn thing regarding this matter, with the WC saying that the chrome was possibly damaged during the assassination on 11/22/63, which is exactly the opposite of what Marsh insisted the WC said, with Marsh saying the Commission said the dent was "always there". Why did you say that, Tony? The Warren Commission never said any such thing, and Page 77 of the WCR proves it.

BTW, I have yet to come across a single lie told by the WC or its staff. Not one. The WCR is, in its totality, a remarkably accurate and forthright document. If something wasn't proven with 100% certainty (such as the exact time when the SBT occurred), the WC said so, by providing a range of frames (Z210-225) for the likelihood of the SBT occurring, instead of pinning themselves down to just a single frame.

I do happen to think that a definitive Z-frame for the SBT can be pinned down--it's almost certainly Z224--but the WC didn't box itself into such a narrow belief, which I greatly admire. They couldn't tell exactly what frame it was, so they said so and gave a range of frames instead. That's not evasion or playing fast and loose with the facts. That's called being honest and forthright. And the Commission did the same thing regarding other matters too. When the evidence wasn't strong enough to put a definitive label of truth on something, the WC said so--time and time again.

A great example of this can be found on Page 117 of the Warren Report (my favorite conspiracy-bashing page in the whole Report), where the Commission completely defeats a popular notion made by the conspiracy kooks (the one about how the WC had no choice but to adopt the SBT, because without it, the kooks say, the WC couldn't possibly have said that Oswald acted alone).

But on Page 117, that theory goes down the tubes forever when the Commission fully acknowledges the possibility of the Main Street curb damage being caused by a fragment from the head shot (vs. the Commission saying that the curb was chipped and James Tague peppered in the face by Oswald's first shot).

And conspiracy myth #2 that gets flushed down the toilet (where it belongs) on that same Page #117 is the myth about the WC being boxed in to a 5.6-second timeline for the shooting. But we can see on Page 117 that the Commission was acknowledging the distinct possibility of a 7.9-second shooting timeline for the three shots. The Commission wouldn't even say with any finality which of Oswald's three shots they thought was the shot that missed.

So when I continue to hear conspiracy theorists talk about the Warren Commission and its staff in a purely derogatory manner, as if Earl Warren and his team of Commissioners were the equivalent of a band of outlaws who should have been thrown in jail and never let out again, I know those CTers who speak in those terms are nothing but kooks of the first order. And I know they're kooks by merely reading various pages of the excellent report that those CTers love to spit on. And a very good place to start is Page number one hundred seventeen, right here:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




Page 195 is very good too:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 08:42:42 AM
by David Von Pein
»

Offline Gerda Dunckel

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
  • Germany
    • My YouTube
Re: June 1961 Pictures Of JFK's SS-100-X Limousine
« Reply #57 on: April 03, 2012, 12:09:02 PM »
someone posted a photo of Hill where Hill is holding his hand where he believes he saw a large wound.
The area Hill is describing in that image does not show a wound in the Zapruder film. Was Hill just off a few centimeters or why did he not place his hand where we see a wound in Zapruder ?!

Offline Anthony Marsh

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13807
Re: June 1961 Pictures Of JFK's SS-100-X Limousine
« Reply #58 on: April 03, 2012, 07:33:58 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And away we go, with a flood of posts, in an attempt to bury my nasty post about the witnesses who saw a large hole in the rear of JFK's head.

The topic of this thread was not the head wound. No matter what the topic is you try to hijack the thread and rant about the head wound. Why not just start your own thread?

Offline Ron Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2684
Re: June 1961 Pictures Of JFK's SS-100-X Limousine
« Reply #59 on: April 04, 2012, 03:25:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The topic of this thread was not the head wound. No matter what the topic is you try to hijack the thread and rant about the head wound. Why not just start your own thread?

Well that proves once and for all, you can agree with Anthony Marsh and David Von Pein in the same thread !!! :rofl:

Offline Anthony Marsh

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13807
Re: June 1961 Pictures Of JFK's SS-100-X Limousine
« Reply #60 on: April 05, 2012, 06:57:42 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just out of curiosity! I seem to remember reading JFK always rode in the right rear seat, yet a couple of photos show him on
the left rear.

Yes, protocol states that the head of state rides on the right side, but a couple of times he changed position, especially in a foreign country where he was not THEIR head of state.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 07:11:38 AM
by Anthony Marsh
»

Online Bill Brown

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17221
Re: June 1961 Pictures Of JFK's SS-100-X Limousine
« Reply #61 on: April 08, 2012, 06:51:46 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Anthony
Call me stupid but, if DVP's diagram shows the bullet travelling downward exiting the front portion of JFK's head, why does Z313 show a "jet" of ejected matter travelling almost vertically from JFK's head? If the force is still travelling forward, shouldn't the ejected matter blow out forwards as well?

Okay, Stupid.

It wasn't David's diagram.  It was Dale Myers'.

Online Bill Brown

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17221
Re: June 1961 Pictures Of JFK's SS-100-X Limousine
« Reply #62 on: April 08, 2012, 06:57:11 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tony Marsh,

Why can't you just admit you were dead wrong when you totally misrepresented the Warren Commission when you made this wholly inaccurate statement?:

"The WC...lied and said the dent was always there."

Tony, please point me to the WR page number where the WC definitively states that the chrome dent was "always there".

David, I have proven Anthony Marsh "dead wrong" on at least a couple occasions.  I even "bumped" the relevant thread to give him a chance to explain.  He ran then, as he is running from you now.