JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Chapman on February 24, 2018, 05:26:45 PM

Title: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 24, 2018, 05:26:45 PM
 ;)
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Joe Elliott on February 24, 2018, 06:00:22 PM

Lee Harvey Oswald

Had training.

Evidence found which implicates him.

Has a firing position where the target is heading almost directly away from him, allowing a target with a low angular velocity for the second and third shots (3.7, 1.8 and 0.55 degrees per second for the three shots respectively).
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 24, 2018, 06:18:51 PM
;)

The shooter was the guy who pulled the trigger
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Allan Fritzke on February 24, 2018, 07:19:14 PM
The shooter was the guy standing in front of the car, coming through the windshield at frame 329.   Glass spray evident from light.   The absence of the front of the car from any pictures a tattletale sign.   He rolled into the grass as the car sped up after shooting was over.    That was recorded in the Zapruder's film.  I can tell you who that is not!    It was not Malcom Summers!    The gunman is a mystery man who has had his identity hid for 50 years.  So is the umbrella man standing "in front" of the sign with the Cuban alongside who was likely responsible for the first shot or played a role in it for distraction!

Glass spray and the absence of Kellerman (ducked below dash at that instant, Connally out of way).   Definitely can't be a shot from behind as Kennedy's head moves back a foot and raises his arm in anticipation of what came from the front.   Definitely not a 6th floor bolt action rifle coming from above and behind.   Look at Zapruder frames, painted in headshot at 313/315 to a continued slumped Kennedy (paint added) who goes back in seat several frames later and raises right arm - a defensive move contrary to a stated shot supposedly coming from behind.  An extremely unusual move, must have been a spinal "knee jerk" reaction I guess when head was just struck from behind!   

Frames 329 and on critical as Zapruder's camera blurs/shakes - likely reacting to a very visible head shot and loud noise at 329.   No reaction of Zapruder's camera at 313,  nothing happened at that instant.  It shows a 6 foot plume of blood and brain spray!  There was a red blur though after frame 329.  This begs explanation.  6 foot plume of blood and brain spray,  white face for 14 frames, and then a re-appearance of a blurred red blob (real) at frame 330 and on and Mrs. Kennedy's reaction to that.  She had no reaction to the 6 foot high plume of blood and brain matter spray as she continues to look at JFK in the neck area and moves her hands.     No frontal pictures of limousine to disprove this theory, none taken or maybe all removed/destroyed?    Kennedy's brain still missing , car not examined (a few pictures),  no Oswald tax return telling you who he was paid by and how he funded his trips to Cuba and Russia.   No room for a CT here!     It is a matter of national security!   You were not supposed to question his framing - a lone gunman!   An expert marksman duplicated by no one on a first attempt - the best in the world he was -no denying!
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 24, 2018, 07:35:16 PM
Feel free to post your evidence that it was Oswald.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on February 24, 2018, 10:39:44 PM
Anybody with  half a brain knows Oswald was the shooter. The only unknowns were if any one else was involved and if there were that will never be proven now.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Colin Crow on February 24, 2018, 10:47:12 PM
Anybody with  half a brain knows Oswald was the shooter. The only unknowns were if any one else was involved and if there were that will never be proven now.

So those of you who know who it was only have half a brain?  :D
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 24, 2018, 11:29:00 PM
The shooter was the guy who pulled the trigger

... name him
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 24, 2018, 11:46:31 PM
Feel free to post your evidence that it was Oswald.

Why are you trying to hijack my topic?
Where did I ever say I could prove it was Oswald?

Oswald remains prime suspect to this day.
No alternate suspects named here so far.

Don't be shy, guys.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2018, 12:00:12 AM
The shooter was the guy standing in front of the car, coming through the windshield at frame 329.   Glass spray evident from light.   The absence of the front of the car from any pictures a tattletale sign.   He rolled into the grass as the car sped up after shooting was over.    That was recorded in the Zapruder's film.  I can tell you who that is not!    It was not Malcom Summers!    The gunman is a mystery man who has had his identity hid for 50 years.  So is the umbrella man standing "in front" of the sign with the Cuban alongside who was likely responsible for the first shot or played a role in it for distraction!

Glass spray and the absence of Kellerman (ducked below dash at that instant, Connally out of way).   Definitely can't be a shot from behind as Kennedy's head moves back a foot and raises his arm in anticipation of what came from the front.   Definitely not a 6th floor bolt action rifle coming from above and behind.   Look at Zapruder frames, painted in headshot at 313/315 to a continued slumped Kennedy (paint added) who goes back in seat several frames later and raises right arm - a defensive move contrary to a stated shot supposedly coming from behind.  An extremely unusual move, must have been a spinal "knee jerk" reaction I guess when head was just struck from behind!   

Frames 329 and on critical as Zapruder's camera blurs/shakes - likely reacting to a very visible head shot and loud noise at 329.   No reaction of Zapruder's camera at 313,  nothing happened at that instant.  It shows a 6 foot plume of blood and brain spray!  There was a red blur though after frame 329.  This begs explanation.  6 foot plume of blood and brain spray,  white face for 14 frames, and then a re-appearance of a blurred red blob (real) at frame 330 and on and Mrs. Kennedy's reaction to that.  She had no reaction to the 6 foot high plume of blood and brain matter spray as she continues to look at JFK in the neck area and moves her hands.     No frontal pictures of limousine to disprove this theory, none taken or maybe all removed/destroyed?    Kennedy's brain still missing , car not examined (a few pictures),  no Oswald tax return telling you who he was paid by and how he funded his trips to Cuba and Russia.   No room for a CT here!     It is a matter of national security!   You were not supposed to question his framing - a lone gunman!   An expert marksman duplicated by no one on a first attempt - the best in the world he was -no denying!

Thanks for posting and giving your take on this in the spirit of what I intended. But not giving a name seriously weakens your argument; no evidence, so far, points in the direction of anyone but Oswald.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2018, 12:04:21 AM
So those of you who know who it was only have half a brain?  :D

Perhaps you have an alternate shooter to replace Oswald as a candidate for prime suspect...
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Colin Crow on February 25, 2018, 12:09:12 AM
Perhaps you have an alternate shooter to replace Oswald as a candidate for prime suspect...

I agree Bill.....Oswald was the prime suspect and remains so... why do I need an alternate?
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Dan DAlimonte on February 25, 2018, 12:20:38 AM
It was Oswald & Co. which did the job but it went out of business
after they all got stiffed.  The names of the others are in a file which,
with any luck, will be released by, 2576.  I'll get back to you ...
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Michael O'Brian on February 25, 2018, 12:36:26 AM
;)

Gay general walkers x comrade
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2018, 04:49:28 PM
I agree Bill.....Oswald was the prime suspect and remains so... why do I need an alternate?

Only if you have a more plausible shooter in mind.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2018, 04:57:47 PM
                                                    - Allan -
 
    Very well thought out presentation. Hope we see more of your thoughts regarding this 54+ year Whitewash.

Can you address the topic directly and name your shooter? Or is it just 'anyone but Oswald'... just a 'random guy' as one brainiac put it.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2018, 05:44:42 PM
Thanks for confirming you only have half a brain.

Like the rest of the bunch.

Not that I ever had doubts about it.

The term 'Half a brain' is an idiom for common sense
Even Waldo knows that; he uses the term all the time.

So if one has half a brain, one has 'common sense', apparently.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 25, 2018, 05:57:20 PM
Lee Harvey Oswald

Had training.

Evidence found which implicates him.

Has a firing position where the target is heading almost directly away from him, allowing a target with a low angular velocity for the second and third shots (3.7, 1.8 and 0.55 degrees per second for the three shots respectively).

That Oswald did it should be a given by now.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 25, 2018, 07:39:55 PM

That Oswald did it should be a given by now.


Those with more than half a brian will wonder just how comforting having a feeble mind must be to those with only half a brain
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Anthony Clayden on February 25, 2018, 08:20:41 PM
Oswald most likely but..

Dougherty was closer to the scene, acted out of character, had no alibi (the one person who he said he spoke to failed to remember him), his testimony was totally garbled, was former military, was not seen by anyone else moving about the 5th/6th floors...Why wasn't he at least  properly interrogated as an accomplice??
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2018, 08:44:37 PM
That Oswald did it should be a given by now.

   Keep repeating that as has been done for 54+ years and Maybe it will  become accepted as being a fact. Up until Now, that obviously is not the case.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 26, 2018, 01:45:06 AM
Those with more than half a brian will wonder just how comforting having a feeble mind must be to those with only half a brain

Tell us what the 'half a brain' expression is an idiom for...

And name your shooter



Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 26, 2018, 01:52:09 AM
   Keep repeating that as has been done for 54+ years and Maybe it will  become accepted as being a fact. Up until Now, that obviously is not the case.

Name your shooter
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 26, 2018, 02:08:16 AM
Oswald most likely but..

Dougherty was closer to the scene, acted out of character, had no alibi (the one person who he said he spoke to failed to remember him), his testimony was totally garbled, was former military, was not seen by anyone else moving about the 5th/6th floors...Why wasn't he at least  properly interrogated as an accomplice??

Explain how JackD 'acted out of character'
Jack took the elevator to the first floor as soon as he heard the 'first loud noise'

Bugliosi:

'Jack Dougherty, another Book Depository employee, gave an
affidavit on the afternoon of the assassination that he also saw
Oswald ?on the sixth floor shortly before noon? (CE 2003, 24 H 206).
However, Dougherty, being somewhat mentally retarded, doesn?t have too
much credibility. In fact, the very next day he told the FBI he did
?not recall seeing [Oswald] at work after 11:00 a.m.? (CD 5, p.366)."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 461 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      "Depository superintendent Roy S. Truly told the Secret Service
that "although Dougherty is a very good employee and a hard worker, he
is mentally retarded and has difficulty in remembering facts, such as
dates, times, places, and has been especially confused since the
assassination." .... Obviously, Dougherty is not the kind of witness
one can rely on to substantiate whether Oswald carried a package into
the [Depository] building that morning [11/22/63] or not." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page 820 of "Reclaiming History"


Tell us why conspirators would rely on JackD to pull off a shooting; or why he himself would be motivated to do it on his own.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 26, 2018, 02:17:57 AM
The shooter was the guy who pulled the trigger

... probably Oswald
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Anthony Clayden on February 26, 2018, 03:07:14 AM
Bill Chapman,

Out of character was that Jack D normally took the whole lunch break but on that day he went back to work early.
He was reliable enough to be the person who daily turned up early, get things going before others turned up at the TSBD.

His testimony (IMHO) reads like someone who was coached on what to say and screws it up because it doesn't match the truth.
He gives answer to questions that weren't asked. He constantly contradicts himself.

His reason for not watching the parade is absolute bull, is that he didn't think there would be enough space outside. Despite any number of TSBD employees watching from Windows from various floors.
He relates a garbled conversation with Piper that Piper has no recollection of.
He was not seen by BRW (or saw BRW) when BRW went from the 6th to 5th around 12:25
He was on 5th till after Truly and Baker left the lift well area on the 1st, leaving him at the rear of the 5th whilst Oswald had to be descending, if he were on the 6th so as to meet T&B.

Nothing here, moving along.....
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 26, 2018, 03:23:47 AM
Tell us what the 'half a brain' expression is an idiom for...

And name your shooter

Why do you assume I used it as an expression?
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 26, 2018, 04:35:59 AM
Bill Chapman,

Out of character was that Jack D normally took the whole lunch break but on that day he went back to work early.
He was reliable enough to be the person who daily turned up early, get things going before others turned up at the TSBD.

His testimony (IMHO) reads like someone who was coached on what to say and screws it up because it doesn't match the truth.
He gives answer to questions that weren't asked. He constantly contradicts himself.

His reason for not watching the parade is absolute bull, is that he didn't think there would be enough space outside. Despite any number of TSBD employees watching from Windows from various floors.
He relates a garbled conversation with Piper that Piper has no recollection of.
He was not seen by BRW (or saw BRW) when BRW went from the 6th to 5th around 12:25
He was on 5th till after Truly and Baker left the lift well area on the 1st, leaving him at the rear of the 5th whilst Oswald had to be descending, if he were on the 6th so as to meet T&B.

Nothing here, moving along.....

So JackD is your shooter, then? Got it.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 26, 2018, 04:47:52 AM
LOL! The fact that you have NO evidence showing that it was LHO doesn't trouble you at all, does it?

Feel free to name your shooter.

Well?
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on February 26, 2018, 02:49:15 PM
Tell us what the 'half a brain' expression is an idiom for...

And name your shooter

What it means is one only needs half a brain to realise Oswald was the shooter.
In other word 'it aint difficult'.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on February 26, 2018, 02:52:21 PM
Those of us with a full brain know that the evidence does NOT support the claims of the WCR.

You won't have noticed because you're not vigilant, but I have never mentioned the WCR on this Forum. I have never supported their claims or argued on their behalf.

Your default position that LNers are WC supporters is flawed.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 26, 2018, 06:34:43 PM
Anybody with  half a brain knows Oswald was the shooter.

And anyone with a whole brain doubts it.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 26, 2018, 06:36:39 PM
Can you address the topic directly and name your shooter? Or is it just 'anyone but Oswald'... just a 'random guy' as one brainiac put it.

You're the only "brainiac" who ever said anything about a "random guy".
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 26, 2018, 06:42:28 PM
Explain how JackD 'acted out of character'
Jack took the elevator to the first floor as soon as he heard the 'first loud noise'

Whaddaya mean, "first loud noise"?  He only heard one.

Quote
However, Dougherty, being somewhat mentally retarded, doesn?t have too much credibility.

That's easy for Bugliosi to say.  What's his excuse?

Quote
Obviously, Dougherty is not the kind of witness one can rely on to substantiate whether Oswald carried a package into the [Depository] building that morning [11/22/63] or not."

Brilliant, Vince.  Smear the "retarded" guy because he didn't say what you wanted him to.  Now, you're left with nobody at all who saw Oswald enter the building from the annex.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 26, 2018, 06:45:51 PM
His testimony (IMHO) reads like someone who was coached on what to say and screws it up because it doesn't match the truth.
He gives answer to questions that weren't asked. He constantly contradicts himself.

Pretty much everybody was coached on what to say.  Markham, Lovelady, Tomlinson were perhaps the most obvious.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 26, 2018, 06:46:54 PM
So JackD is your shooter, then? Got it.

LOL.  He demands a name and then scoffs at it.  So what?  I scoff at your name.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on February 26, 2018, 09:55:23 PM
Then what are you basing your belief on? Be specific.

Work it out you mug.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 26, 2018, 10:05:56 PM
Pretty much everybody was coached on what to say.  Markham, Lovelady, Tomlinson were perhaps the most obvious.

There you go again. Speaking for the witnesses.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on February 27, 2018, 02:07:35 AM
Didn't JackD say something like he stopped for lunch at 12pm and heard one shot prior to lunch?
Kindly put he wasn't a reliable witness.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Mytton on February 27, 2018, 04:52:39 AM
Pretty much everybody was coached on what to say.  Markham, Lovelady, Tomlinson were perhaps the most obvious.




(https://media1.tenor.com/images/9d05216b994af1a4c9defd82bf7cf75a/tenor.gif?itemid=5270010)



JohnM
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Colin Crow on February 27, 2018, 07:44:40 AM
Pretty much everybody was coached on what to say.  Markham, Lovelady, Tomlinson were perhaps the most obvious.

(https://preview.ibb.co/hCaKdH/533_B04_C2_47_BA_4418_9_E83_35_F6_B7563_AFF.jpg)

(https://preview.ibb.co/frtmsc/AD456_B18_B708_4_CF0_8400_BBD265_D569_AC.jpg)


From "Inquest"
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on February 27, 2018, 03:00:02 PM
🚷 He is afraid to say nothing. He either has half-a-brain or an agenda.

Do you seriously not understand that the Warren Commission is not the only source of information on the Kennedy assassination?
Have you ever heard of the internet? It's a source of vast resources much of which is free to access.

As for agenda you don't fool anyone man. You have been posting the same tripe for years with no intention of ever changing you views on anything regardless of any new information you may be exposed to. You might as well be a spam bot.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Royell Storing on February 27, 2018, 03:15:27 PM
Do you seriously not understand that the Warren Commission is not the only source of information on the Kennedy assassination?
Have you ever heard of the internet? It's a source of vast resources much of which is free to access.

As for agenda you don't fool anyone man. You have been posting the same tripe for years with no intention of ever changing you views on anything regardless of any new information you may be exposed to. You might as well be a spam bot.

  He has done Far more Damage to the CT Movement than Bugliosi and Posner combined. Bill Brown turns him into a pinata Every time.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 27, 2018, 03:38:29 PM
The testimony of Roy S. Truly was taken at 2:30 p.m., on May 14, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. BALL. Now, Mr. Truly, this is a continuation of your deposition. I took the last one and you have been sworn and I don't know that it is exactly necessary for you to take the oath again, since this is a continuation of the deposition. I took the last one, didn't I?
Mr. TRULY. Oh, no; I gave a statement that was under oath.
Mr. BALL. Oh, no; this is a deposition. You appeared before the Commission--that's right.
Mr. TRULY. Mr. Belin took my sworn deposition also about a week before I went up there when you both were in Dallas and he also took a recorded deposition.
Mr. BALL. Yes; but that was just an investigation, an inquiry. We didn't record that. You weren't under oath then. Will you stand up and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Another confused witness, or...?

... pretty sure Truly didn't go to law school.

 ::)
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Royell Storing on February 27, 2018, 04:22:42 PM
... pretty sure Truly didn't go to law school.

 ::)

  It would be interesting to read the "RECORDED Deposition(s)" that people such as Mr Truly gave Prior to their WC Testimony. These "RECORDED Deposition(s)" have to be Buried somewhere.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Royell Storing on February 27, 2018, 04:24:18 PM
The testimony of Roy S. Truly was taken at 2:30 p.m., on May 14, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. BALL. Now, Mr. Truly, this is a continuation of your deposition. I took the last one and you have been sworn and I don't know that it is exactly necessary for you to take the oath again, since this is a continuation of the deposition. I took the last one, didn't I?
Mr. TRULY. Oh, no; I gave a statement that was under oath.
Mr. BALL. Oh, no; this is a deposition. You appeared before the Commission--that's right.
Mr. TRULY. Mr. Belin took my sworn deposition also about a week before I went up there when you both were in Dallas and he also took a recorded deposition.
Mr. BALL. Yes; but that was just an investigation, an inquiry. We didn't record that. You weren't under oath then. Will you stand up and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Another confused witness, or...?

     Bump regarding "RECORDED Deposition(s)".
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 27, 2018, 05:14:05 PM
From "Inquest"

Thanks Colin!

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10393&relPageI=9#relPageId=4&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10393&relPageI=9#relPageId=4&tab=page)

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10393/images/img_10393_4_300.png)

Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Mike Orr on February 27, 2018, 10:09:32 PM
John Ernst , Clyde Foust , Lawrence Loy Factor , Mac Wallace , Eugene Hale Brading and Harry Weatherford as per Gaylon Ross Sr. in his book " The Elite Serial Killers ". People are named by Billie Sol Estes and others who name the attendees at the gathering at Clint Murchison's house the night before the JFK assassination. Ross had become friends with Estes 18 yrs. before Billie Sol had passed away in 2013 and Billie Sol Estes told Gaylon Ross Sr. about who was there and what they were there for , which of course was the killing of JFK . Madeleine Brown was a source along with a newsman from the AP named Lexdale Owens. there were 26 Wheeler Dealers there along with 14 press people. Cliff Carter was running the meeting.  There is a 3-part series on You Tube named  "Gaylon Ross Sr. Who Really Killed JFK Episode 1 "
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Royell Storing on February 27, 2018, 10:39:24 PM
Sure. I do damage to the CT cause by showing over and over how the WC lied to us and that a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK. Good one.

This is the same guy who just thanked a poster for presenting new ideas by saying some of the blood in the limousine was Jackie's menstrual blood. What a loon this Storing is. He is also a LNer most likely too as NO real CTer would ever think that the "King of Games" Bill Brown schools anyone.

    If you have Evidence to refute the new poster, let's see it. Otherwise, go back to your MO of wildly Slandering Everyone that challenges your "Theories".
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2018, 03:36:49 AM
John Ernst , Clyde Foust , Lawrence Loy Factor , Mac Wallace , Eugene Hale Brading and Harry Weatherford as per Gaylon Ross Sr. in his book " The Elite Serial Killers ". People are named by Billie Sol Estes and others who name the attendees at the gathering at Clint Murchison's house the night before the JFK assassination. Ross had become friends with Estes 18 yrs. before Billie Sol had passed away in 2013 and Billie Sol Estes told Gaylon Ross Sr. about who was there and what they were there for , which of course was the killing of JFK . Madeleine Brown was a source along with a newsman from the AP named Lexdale Owens. there were 26 Wheeler Dealers there along with 14 press people. Cliff Carter was running the meeting.  There is a 3-part series on You Tube named  "Gaylon Ross Sr. Who Really Killed JFK Episode 1 "

Too many cooks in the kitchen
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on February 28, 2018, 11:56:44 AM
Ruby shot Oswald with blanks?

(https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.wz40E6xRUFGLoDejIN3CPQHaFj&w=209&h=156&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7)
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on February 28, 2018, 11:04:38 PM
You only receive flak when you are over the target.

That's fantasy as well.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Mike Orr on March 01, 2018, 04:20:46 AM
A lot of people "bought the farm" because they knew too much and couldn't keep their mouths shut . You are right , there were way too many cooks in the kitchen !
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 01, 2018, 04:58:07 AM
A lot of people "bought the farm" because they knew too much and couldn't keep their mouths shut .

Name them.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on March 01, 2018, 05:36:57 PM
As I figured  -- you can't. You don't even know where the evidence is located let alone cite it.

It would take a better man than me to educate you.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on March 02, 2018, 02:52:50 AM
I am educated.
Oswald didn't fire a shot.
Lee and Harvey are real.
Mum is an imposter.
Oswalds brothers are imposters.
Ruby used blanks.
Oswald wasn't shot by Ruby's gun.
You only receive flak when you are over the target.
I am educated.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Allan Fritzke on March 02, 2018, 04:21:06 PM
Pretty much everybody was coached on what to say.  Markham, Lovelady, Tomlinson were perhaps the most obvious.

Who was the assassin right at the front of the car that rolled into the grass and was assumed to be Malcom Summers?

Following this rabbit trail,  I think it could have been Lucien Sarti or Luis Carriles, both tied to CIA.   Both faces could be that of the "guy rolling in the grass".
Lucien Sarti
https://www.google.ca/search?q=lucien+sarti&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=3nGZWv7CDoq6-QOYopGIDQ (https://www.google.ca/search?q=lucien+sarti&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=3nGZWv7CDoq6-QOYopGIDQ)

Posada Carriles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles)

A third suspect may have been Cord Meyer who may have had a personal grudge and vengeance against Kennedy and may have been used.   His wife was killed soon after the assassination - the one that supposedly had the affair with JFK.  He only had one eye though!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Pinchot_Meyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Pinchot_Meyer)

The person that did the assassination was in very good shape and a very good handgun marksman with good hand to eye coordination and athletic. Would a forty year old be able to roll that well into the grass?   Obviously very fit .  I certainly would suspect that he came out of the CIA organization and part of the Allen Dulles Team.

I also believe that the initial neck shot may have come from Marita Lorenz.  I always felt that the first shot came from the driver's side of the boulevard from the person that put the hands behind the back.  At first I thought this could have been Marita Lorenz.  Later it looked like a balded man in a dress with a black man in shadow behind.

https://jezebel.com/the-story-of-marita-lorenz-the-cia-agent-who-was-sent-1789382434 (https://jezebel.com/the-story-of-marita-lorenz-the-cia-agent-who-was-sent-1789382434)

I later changed my mind because it isn't an ideal shot, shooting in between Jacquie and Nelly - could possibly hit them in a moving car.  It did look like Nelly squeezed herself to the front of the car as best she could though!  The best shot comes most direct from the guy in front of the sign holding the umbrella and had the "Cuban" waving his hand in the air.  That is the most favorable unhindered shot.  His presence and position can only be seen in the Zapruder Frames, no other films/frames place him or the "Cuban"  that close to the limousine.  His position was coincidental with the President reaching up to his neck and was conveniently done behind the sign so Zapruder Frames didn't catch it.   The addition of a firecracker almost coincidentally distracted the audience to look away while it took place.  The umbrella in the picture was unwavering, unusual as there were heavy winds that day!

Apart from that,  I look at the list of coincidental deaths to see who had to be kept quiet - just like LHO.  If it wasn't the above, it likely was one from the list of mystery deaths!

https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/articles/deaths.php (https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/articles/deaths.php)

I always maintain the Zapruder film is the only footage that give you timing and gives you a picture of the whole scene.    All other testimonies must match it.   

James Altgens was the closest to the car and as an AP reporter did not get a picture (or it was destroyed).  His testimony, as I pointed out in my own thread does not match what you see in the Zapruder Frames!  He certainly was briefed just as John Iaocaletti said most were!  Someone had coached him on what to say and is why the newsman didn't capture anything with his camera, even though that is what he makes his money from and gets paid the big bucks for!    Note he did not mention in his testimony that JFK's lifted his arm and moved back in his seat, the most obvious motion!  He did notice a slight frontal movement just prior however to coincide with LHO's bullet from the sixth floor and frame 313/314!!   His testimony was entered into the WCR 6 months later, pretty good memory for that little detail and an avoidance of the rather large one of which he was a witness 20 feet in front of him!   Very very strong indications of coaching!

Look at my reply to my own post, Repy #7, rather lengthy but the truth! 

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,101.0.html
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 02, 2018, 10:58:02 PM
Who was the assassin right at the front of the car that rolled into the grass and was assumed to be Malcom Summers?

It was the non-assassin, Malcolm Summers.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Allan Fritzke on March 03, 2018, 03:49:01 AM
It was the non-assassin, Malcolm Summers.

We were on this merry go round before John!   The history channel interview (an hour long) never finds Malcom Summer's on the island.   The "actor" from the Nova Film does though.   As I said before 2 different people or a guy that really really changed his story?    Different neck and birthmark.    History Channel places him on the grassy knoll side only, never on the island in the middle.   Gary Mack tried to get him there but failed!    He point blank asked him where he was at.  He never said he crossed the road after the shooting to end up on the grassy knoll - he was on the grassy knoll side all along standing near the curb.   When the policeman tipped his motorcycle right in front of him,  he certainly wasn't on the island -  if you listen to his interview.   Just like re-"placing" Jean Hill and Mary Moorman onto the island.  Jean Hill's initial interview the same day of the assassination  has her stating that "he was on our side of the street", referring to JFK if you listen and reflect the context of her speech.    She was describing the events about JFK, not the limo, not the driver!   That was an initial interview done before the FBI interview.   She told us this in that interview and implies that she was over near the sign when the shot came in, right near where the neck shot came in, not 150 feet up the street!   I am skeptical  if she was even present that day at all.  The initial interviews are always the best and most accurate.  Stories can change later to match events and "coaching".  Later interviews, she got her story "right" (cynicism intended) and sang a different tune, many times becoming an "expert" witness and stretching it further and further from the truth as time passed!
 
A lot of coaching!  There is no footage present that match Malcom Summers description of a policeman dumping his bike right in front of him.  The followup/procession cars pulled up to the "island" side and people jumped in, lots left the scene as you watched them running off the grassy knoll and running down the street.   That begs to tell you that there were people fleeing the scene, not looking for an assassin and possible story!   They were getting out of there before the crowds came!   These people were not interested in hanging around for questioning!   They were fleeing the scene.  Never saw a bike dumped on island side at all.    The only footage shown with a bike laid over was by the storm sewer drain and the steps leading up to the grassy knoll.  How many bikes were laid on the side that day?  In the History Channel interview,  Malcom Summers said the policeman looked up and over him as if the shooter was up above on the grassy knoll!  That was his story.   

The Nova film was an interesting documentary, including their analysis of a bullet being shot into a "jello" block and changing flight path.  All bullets do that when they get near "0 "velocity and end the flight path in a tumble or a skewing as it comes to a complete stop.   This is certainly not the scenario if a bullet leaves Kennedy and changes direction and pulverizes out an entire rib of Connally at full speed.  Then, it fractures a wrist and ends up lodging in a leg - truly unbelievable!   There was also suggestion that some traces (fragments) were in his leg yet. In other words a frangible bullet!   They cremated his body and refused to do an autopsy.   Some had wanted to reclaim some of these fragments from the leg for analysis and compare it to evidence on file - that was refused.   Of course, this is also a contradiction to finding a pristine bullet on Connally's  stretcher showing up miraculously !   It was same scenario as Kennedy's brain - it disappeared!  It was suggested that brother Bobby stole it back for "proper" burial!   
Connally's first interview speech from a hospital bed 5 days later, shows that he has no ill effects and confirms what you would expect if he was not wounded or superficially grazed.   I would expect an occasional coughing spell or something from someone who has just had a rib blown to smithereens!   He made a pretty long winded speech from the bed - didn't see any of that film cut, never grabbed a drink of water or lost his wind or struggled with words!    Years later his wife Nelly describes his wound as the size of a baseball mid-chest.  As I said before,  she must have never slept in the same bed as her husband as she stretched the story to an unbelievable state.   My impression is the whole story was made up as the bullet came from the front!   "He was bleeding to death and she needed to put her hand over the gaping hole so that he could even draw in a breath!"   

Oh and there Connally was in the Zapruder film sitting back up in the front corner behind the driver after the assassination was over and they are speeding off to the hospital!   You can see the top of his head!   It is little wonder they held that film from the public for 15 years - really a matter of national security!    The truth hurts - truly a miracle only the half brains can believe!
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on March 03, 2018, 02:50:05 PM
Connaly was either not wounded or was superficially grazed? It gets better and better.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 03, 2018, 06:59:29 PM
We were on this merry go round before John!   The history channel interview (an hour long) never finds Malcom Summer's on the island.   The "actor" from the Nova Film does though.   As I said before 2 different people or a guy that really really changed his story?    Different neck and birthmark.    History Channel places him on the grassy knoll side only, never on the island in the middle.   Gary Mack tried to get him there but failed!    He point blank asked him where he was at.  He never said he crossed the road after the shooting to end up on the grassy knoll - he was on the grassy knoll side along standing near the curb.   When the policeman tipped his motorcycle right in front of him,  he certainly wasn't on the island -  if you listen to his interview.   Just like re-"placing" Jean Hill and Mary Moorman onto the island.  Jean Hill's initial interview the same day of the assassination  has her stating that "he was on  our side of the street", referring to JFK if you listen and reflect the context of her speech.    She was describing the events about JFK, not the limo, not the dirve!   That was an initial interview done before the FBI interview.   She told us that in the interview and  implies that she was over near the sign when the shot came in, right near where the neck shot came in, not 150 feet up the street!   I am skeptical  if she was even present that day at all.  That initial interviews are always the best and most accurate.  Stories can change later to match events and "coaching".  Later interviews, she got her story "right" (cynicism intended) and sang a different tune, many times becoming an "expert" witness and stretching it further and further from the truth as time passed!
 
A lot of coaching!  There is no footage present that match Malcom Summers description of a policeman dumping his bike right in front of him.  The followup/procession cars pulled up to the "island" side and people jumped in, lots left the scene as you watched them running off the grassy knoll and running down the street.   That begs to tell you that there were people fleeing the scene, not looking for an assassin and possible story!   They were getting out of there before the crowds came!   These people were not interested in hanging around for questioning!   They were fleeing the scene.  Never saw a bike dumped on island side at all.    The only footage shown with a bike laid over was by the storm sewer drain and the steps leading up to the grassy knoll.  How many bikes were laid on the side that day?  In the History Channel interview,  Malcom Summers said the policeman looked up and over him as if the shooter was up above on the grassy knoll!  That was his story.   

The Nova film was an interesting documentary, including their analysis of a bullet being shot into a "jello" block and changing flight path.  All bullets do that when they get near "0 "velocity and end the flight path in a tumble or a skewing as it comes to a complete stop.   This is certainly not the scenario if a bullet leaves Kennedy and changes direction and pulverizes out an entire rib of Connally at full speed.  Then, it fractures a wrist and ends up lodging in a leg - truly unbelievable!   There was also suggestion that some traces (fragments) were in his leg yet. In other words a frangible bullet!   They cremated his body and refused to do an autopsy.   Some had wanted to reclaim some of these fragments from the leg for analysis and compare to evidence on file - that was refused.   Of course, this is contradictory to finding a pristine bullet on Connally's  stretcher showing up miraculously !   It was same scenario as Kennedy's brain - it disappeared!  It was suggested that brother Bobby stole it back for "proper" burial!   
Connally's first interview speech from a hospital bed 5 days later, shows that he has no ill effects and confirms what you would expect if he not wounded or superficially grazed.   I would expect an occasional coughing spell or something from someone who has just had a rib blown to smithereens!   He made a pretty long winded speech from the bed - didn't see any of that film cut, never grabbed a drink of water or lost his wind or struggled with words!    Years later his wife Nelly describes his wound as the size of a baseball mid-chest.  As I said before,  she must have never slept in the same bed as her husband as she stretched the story to an unbelievable state.   My impression is the whole story was made up as the bullet came from the front!   "He was bleeding to death and she needed to put her hand over the gaping hole so that he could evendraw in a breath!"   

Oh and there Connaly was in the Zapruder film sitting back up in the front corner behind the driver after the assassination was over and they are speeding off to the hospital!   You can see the top of his head!   It is little wonder they held that film from the public for 15 years - really a matter of national security!    The truth hurts - truly a miracle only the half brains can believe!

You're a genius. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Allan Fritzke on March 05, 2018, 05:33:44 AM
Connaly was either not wounded or was superficially grazed? It gets better and better.

Yes, the story gets better and better as time passes.  Did anyone ever photograph Connally's wounds?   On a beach or otherwise by chance?  There are only reports written.  Show me some pictures and I will retract the hypothesis.   Shots in his displayed suit don't even match. Even there,  if he was shot, the exit wound was at the back of the suit coat, not the front.  Nelly's story is just that - better and better as time passes!  She obviously made it up and didn't really know where he was hit.  Never saw a wound even if she was married to him and did live with him for her entire life!  Her story of him lying on her lap face up is a blatant lie she tells in her interview many years later on ABC.  Look at her interviews and try to make this scenario match her position as seen in the "Film"!  Also envision  Mrs. Kennedy with the brains in her hand.  A remarkable story that doesn't match in the slightest - oh other than that the President was shot and killed!
The reality is her head was over and behind her husband when the shooting took place when you actually analyze the Zapruder frames, look at her movements, the flowers and his movements.  Everyone was ducked down when the shot came in from front.   Pure fabrication on Nelly's part!   
Unless of course you want to throw out the entire Zapruder film as a Hollywood production and believe her rendition instead?   Absolute none sense what she says in her interviews.   There is a difference between 99% truth and 99% lie - I will leave you to figure out which it is.  Her words are 99% different than the story told by the Zapruder film!   A pretty good yarn - about as good as Jean Hill's as the years pass by when compared to her initial interview!   Fortunately we have the very old film footage and interviews and can match the interviews to the film.    You can't miss the game changer shot at frame 329 and the very apparent reaction to that frontal head shot by Mrs. Kennedy!   Why did Nelly not just tell the truth?  She likes the limelight or the truth hurts and needs concealment?
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 05, 2018, 06:45:53 AM
Yes, the story gets better and better as time passes.  Did anyone ever photograph Connally's wounds?   On a beach or otherwise by chance?  There are only reports written.  Show me some pictures and I will retract the hypothesis.   Shots in his displayed suit don't even match. Even there,  if he was shot, the exit wound was at the back of the suit coat, not the front.  Nelly's story is just that - better and better as time passes!  She obviously made it up and didn't really know where he was hit.  Never saw a wound even if she was married to him and did live with him for her entire life!  Her story of him lying on her lap face up is a blatant lie she tells in her interview many years later on ABC.  Look at her interviews and try to make this scenario match her position as seen in the "Film"!  Also envision  Mrs. Kennedy with the brains in her hand.  A remarkable story that doesn't match in the slightest - oh other than that the President was shot and killed!
The reality is her head was over and behind her husband when the shooting took place when you actually analyze the Zapruder frames, look at her movements, the flowers and his movements.  Everyone was ducked down when the shot came in from front.   Pure fabrication on Nelly's part!   
Unless of course you want to throw out the entire Zapruder film as a Hollywood production and believe her rendition instead?   Absolute none sense what she says in her interviews.   There is a difference between 99% truth and 99% lie - I will leave you to figure out which it is.  Her words are 99% different than the story told by the Zapruder film!   A pretty good yarn - about as good as Jean Hill's as the years pass by when compared to her initial interview!   Fortunately we have the very old film footage and interviews and can match the interviews to the film.    You can't miss the game changer shot at frame 329 and the very apparent reaction to that frontal head shot by Mrs. Kennedy!   Why did Nelly not just tell the truth?  She likes the limelight or the truth hurts and needs concealment?

BS. Kennedy's head was blown clean off and rolled into a nearby sewer and was quickly devoured by rats and immediately ascended to heaven. His body eventually wound up in hell for having been naked with way too many women. Didn't you see the real film? Everybody in Dealey Plaza was in involved in the assassination. They ducked to give all those shooters a better shot at Mrs Connally, who was the real target.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Anderson on March 05, 2018, 03:03:29 PM
So because Mrs Connoly got some things wrong You extrapolate that to mean her husband wasn't shot? And me want me to prove he was? Fuck me.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Allan Fritzke on March 05, 2018, 04:24:07 PM
So because Mrs Connoly got some things wrong You extrapolate that to mean her husband wasn't shot? And me want me to prove he was? Fuck me.

Some things wrong?  What did she get right?  The President ended up dying!    As I said, were they not married for many years after?  Were there not any scars left that she could see entrance/exit holes.  If you don't even corroborate the factual scars with what you are projecting as truth  and a baseball sized wound midchest- there is something very very wrong with the story!   
There is no need to swear either as if you can't see the 99% lie!   There is no need to get upset when confronted with the truth!  You are making it into a personal vindication!

Furthermore, I have had a busted rib before and they are very painful - no evidence of that in his interview 5 days later.  He did have a nurse on standby at back of room while he gave his stump speech!  He even believes the shot was intended for him as well!   Again, there is a nice shot of Connally's "black back of head"  sitting back up at frame 374 in front of the green flowers on her side of car.  Between the blurred frames prior, you can see his head move up to that position. Obviously never was lying face up on Nelly's lap (her story)  and not in a lot of stress from pulverized rib, fractured wrist and "fragments" embedded in thigh and gasping for air and regaining consciousness (his story)!   Her head at this moment was behind Connally's back and below seat level -  near the President's knees at this time!

(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z374.jpg)

Why not tell how it really happened in the car?  Why all the lies?   Coming up with a fabricated story is usually used to conceal something not true and protect yourself and or make yourself look better.    In the case of The Connally's,  the film does not match at all their false recollections of the filmed event!   The closest to the truth would have been Connally's  first interview 5 days later.     Certainly was coached.  If his story changes from that initial recollection that he had, it was modified to match the story line for good reason and corroborating the evidence.   
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 06:16:41 PM
Yes, the story gets better and better as time passes.  Did anyone ever photograph Connally's wounds?   On a beach or otherwise by chance?  There are only reports written.  Show me some pictures and I will retract the hypothesis.   Shots in his displayed suit don't even match. Even there,  if he was shot, the exit wound was at the back of the suit coat, not the front.  Nelly's story is just that - better and better as time passes!  She obviously made it up and didn't really know where he was hit.  Never saw a wound even if she was married to him and did live with him for her entire life!  Her story of him lying on her lap face up is a blatant lie she tells in her interview many years later on ABC.  Look at her interviews and try to make this scenario match her position as seen in the "Film"!  Also envision  Mrs. Kennedy with the brains in her hand.  A remarkable story that doesn't match in the slightest - oh other than that the President was shot and killed!
The reality is her head was over and behind her husband when the shooting took place when you actually analyze the Zapruder frames, look at her movements, the flowers and his movements.  Everyone was ducked down when the shot came in from front.   Pure fabrication on Nelly's part!   
Unless of course you want to throw out the entire Zapruder film as a Hollywood production and believe her rendition instead?   Absolute none sense what she says in her interviews.   There is a difference between 99% truth and 99% lie - I will leave you to figure out which it is.  Her words are 99% different than the story told by the Zapruder film!   A pretty good yarn - about as good as Jean Hill's as the years pass by when compared to her initial interview!   Fortunately we have the very old film footage and interviews and can match the interviews to the film.    You can't miss the game changer shot at frame 329 and the very apparent reaction to that frontal head shot by Mrs. Kennedy!   Why did Nelly not just tell the truth?  She likes the limelight or the truth hurts and needs concealment?

Hi Allan,

Welcome to the forum.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 12:05:08 AM
We were on this merry go round before John!

Yes we were.  As I recall, you looked at the date a clip of a Summers interview was uploaded to Youtube and deduced that the interview took place on that date.  But I would be fascinated to see your neck and birthmark analysis.

You wouldn't happen to be actually named Ralph Cinque, would you?
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Allan Fritzke on March 31, 2018, 09:05:07 PM
Is that like calling Gary Mack Larry Dunkel - didn't like his real name?

I have looked long at the 2 films again, the hour long interview done by the History Channel (2002) and then compared it to the 22 second and 8 second clips found in the 1988 Nova Film at 26:57 and 34:08.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?288318-1/kennedy-assassination-malcolm-summers  (https://www.c-span.org/video/?288318-1/kennedy-assassination-malcolm-summers)  (History Channel)


 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oHAbCu_LbM&t=1638s)(Nova Film)

As a key witness of the assassination, the closest person standing to the President when he was shot was the man rolling off into the grass next to the assassination scene.   Exhausted he seemingly laid there for sometime if you look at other videos!   Obviously winded from what he had just accomplished in his run by pass!   Was there ever an earlier interview of this man?    This man and Altgens were the two people that had the closest view to the assassination.   Obviously the man rolling into the grass would be the closest person at the scene as he was right at the front. What reason negated conducting an immediate interview or soon after as they seemingly did with Mary Moorman and Jean Hill and James Altgens?  That is very suspicious in itself when you don't find out until 1988 who this man was?   It took the release of a Zapruder film in order to begin that investigation?!   As far as Malcom Summers goes,  he was not required for scene introduction until someone questioned who this man in the actual picture was!  What about umbrella man - similar circumstances?

Upon looking at the footage of the History Channel and The Nova Film,  I would have to say he is one and the same person.   There was considerable aging -  aging spots on his temple visible in the History Channel interview 14 years after the Nova clip.     The biggest similarity in the two interviews was the mailbag carrier's physical deformity from carrying a mailbag all his life on his shoulder.   He worked in the "mailing room department" he said and that fits!   He sounded like he had his own business - maybe a subcarrier for the Main Annex Terminal!   It looks to me like he had the heavy mail bag slung over his shoulder for an extended period of time which caused the deformity in his posture!  (That is my opinion and speculation.)

However, what I have labeled as the  "Assassin in the picture" was the guy  "someone" began to label in 1988 as Malcom Summers.   Again, was this man coached and provides a needed role to fill as was Altgens, Gene Hill and Mary Moorman?   His 1988 account when compared to his 2002 History Channel account do not match well and appears to be corroborated from some external influences on his spoken statement.   What truths can we discover?   He was interviewed by Gary Mack (Larry Dunkel)?  Or was it Mr. West as Malcom Summer calls him at 37:10? in the history channel interview?

Malcom Summers did not willfully verify his position as he outset in 1988, 14 years earlier.   He carefully avoided or reworded so that it was like a little "white lie".    At 7:50, he answered and hesitated when he mentioned that he crossed the "2 islands and ended up on the grassy knoll side of Elm Street" 5 minutes before the assassination.  Take note the hesitation in his speech pattern as he added the "Elm Street" after a moment's hesitation when making his statement.     Next in that interview, he noted that a policeman dumped his bike, right where he was laying and he said the policeman looked aboveo him as if the assassin was standing behind him on the grassy knoll.   We have never heard of or saw a bike laid down on the island side which was quickly dumped and then picked up and sped after the President's limousine as Malcom Summer's noted in the interview.   Nor was there ever a hint that any policeman  thought that the shot came from the island (the driver's side of roadway).   It was always maintained to be the grassy knoll if it wasn't the TSBD building. 
Also, there is no elevation at that position so that he could continue to look into the car as he states.   None of his testimony adds up between his 22 and 8 from the 1988 Nova FIlm and his second recount statements in the 2002 History Channel interview conducted over an hour long in comparison!  This is kind of like when Jean Hill said in her initial interview "that the President was on our side of the street" and then later recanted that they were on the driver's side on one of the islands.   Coaching is the word of the day!

At 56:20 of the 2002 History Channel, Malcom Summers does not really acknowledge what the interviewer was trying to "pigeonhole"  him in to saying or acknowledging his position statement initially once more.   Again, why did the interviewer deem this important to get his placement just perfect as if he didn't like the answer given the first time at 7:50!  He asked Malcom if he crossed the street "again" implying that his original position was on the middle island.  Summers answered  yes but then said he crossed the streets and went back to his Post Office which was located further down the street at the corner of Houston and Commerce streets.  Never really acknowledged or recounted his intial pathway!   In his interview, I sense a certain change and or denial taking place when you compared what he said in 1988 in those 30 seconds with that stated in 2002.    Besides,  changing his story, he seems to paint a much clearer picture in 2002.   Although how could you compare a lot from  22 second and 8 second blurbs in the Nova Documentary with an hour long interview.  Obviously they only used what they wanted for the show and maybe clipped and dubbed in as required.   In 1988 he said the shooter was "likely" on the 6th floor although he saw nothing and that he saw a man with a machine gun pistol under his jacket.  When you heard the second 1 hour account in 2002,  he said 3 shots came in not from same position, the last 2 being very close together.  So that should cause more confusion?

On that basis, he becomes more like the umbrella man brought forward as well in the 1988 Nova Film to firm up the storyline.   That man staked a claim to be the umbrella man in the Zapruder Film and they made fun of the umbrella as being a gun in disguise in front of the hearing - "careful where you point that thing!".      That man too is a self-appointed witness introduced many years after the fact!  You could even compare him again to the Jean Hill and Mary Moorman - heavily coached by someone and found to "plug the dike hole" by putting your finger in it.  The stories never introduced until many years after 1963 - time has a habit of allowing things to get swept under the carpet without question.   

I would like to see a Lightbox rendition of Frame Z356 as this shows the best facial shot of "my assassination man" in question.  That man appeared to be "built"!   Frames such as Lightbox Z347 have his head totally scratched out and faded into the grass.   Was there a deliberate action on the part of someone to hide the identity of this man?   Even "Altgens" head shows up clearly in Z347.    To me, blending his head into the grass raises serious ethical questions and clearly makes him unidentifiable and a very serious suspect as a result of a deliberate attempt to hide his identity.  Who would want to do such a thing.  Mere coincidence I suppose just as Camerman Altgens failed to produce an image as he waited to click the shutter for that close up - never flinched either and oblivious to the man rolling beside him!   Again, how many copies of the Zapruder Film are there? Five?   Is there not any others that survived in the archives somewhere?   Somethings like this are really too valuable to destroy or go missing unless it is an intentional act and on purpose.  Compare 2 or 3 copies of the 5!  Can't seem to find them buried under all that bureaucracy!  What a sham!

To me, it is still clear that the headshot was at Z329 as after the blur, the editor's pretty well cut the head right out of the frames.   It is at about Z335 that Jacqueline reacts in a very real reaction to the shot at Z329, not something supposed to occur 1 second earlier.   She decides to bail as she could be next!    Remember, JFK's head magically reappeared for a number of frames after Z312 -  the supposed "death blow" shot.   They left his ear in position for much of the remainder frames at they cut and pasted obscurement.   The editors also pasted in a facsimile for Connally's head over those frames to make sure the obvious frontal head shot would have had to come through the windshield and pass through his body - an obvious impossible shot!  It is also very obvious on lightbox frames as photo alterations are very difficult to hide.

Looks like serious frame editing done (square cuts) when looking at the lightbox frames when you zoom in on them and blow them up!  Nice dark/light lines visible and obvious brilliant sunlight used to its max as required for touchup.  Obvious blacking in over Nellie's dress on Lightbox Frame Z335 to make it look like Connally was still there!  He was under the yellow flowers (maybe stetson?) in reality.  You can't help but notice the "brush strokes" around the black blob as if it was only blur!   Well, it wasn't, look at the semi-circular pattern all the way up the back side.   Note I am talking about the "black" feathering, not the "fur/blur" you see when compared to Altgen's suit external to this pattern!

https://1b65352e-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z335.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cphxMOHCLZampRksZBVMhQmqd6yUkMhOU1Y2hdVK18P7wfiSZwDw-mkCv6b8CioBdKWNG9dw0iXe-ghLSKRV-0XpM9enQaGDRdI0QVHCS_LKd3vuovPm_-G3AIIt9GkXyzq-Z1ueW5hrh0Tio5KdPhDwcYqvpSsFYp_mq4--naSPTLuVULVCLvB_x_bod5XM3B-IH72L9oUcPc0EpHq-P6ztKNve3yLSstNlTe-OWl4zhSCfIY%3D&attredirects=0 (https://1b65352e-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z335.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cphxMOHCLZampRksZBVMhQmqd6yUkMhOU1Y2hdVK18P7wfiSZwDw-mkCv6b8CioBdKWNG9dw0iXe-ghLSKRV-0XpM9enQaGDRdI0QVHCS_LKd3vuovPm_-G3AIIt9GkXyzq-Z1ueW5hrh0Tio5KdPhDwcYqvpSsFYp_mq4--naSPTLuVULVCLvB_x_bod5XM3B-IH72L9oUcPc0EpHq-P6ztKNve3yLSstNlTe-OWl4zhSCfIY%3D&attredirects=0)
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 01, 2018, 01:01:43 AM
Yes, the story gets better and better as time passes.  Did anyone ever photograph Connally's wounds?   On a beach or otherwise by chance?  There are only reports written.  Show me some pictures and I will retract the hypothesis.   Shots in his displayed suit don't even match. Even there,  if he was shot, the exit wound was at the back of the suit coat, not the front.  Nelly's story is just that - better and better as time passes!  She obviously made it up and didn't really know where he was hit.  Never saw a wound even if she was married to him and did live with him for her entire life!  Her story of him lying on her lap face up is a blatant lie she tells in her interview many years later on ABC.  Look at her interviews and try to make this scenario match her position as seen in the "Film"!  Also envision  Mrs. Kennedy with the brains in her hand.  A remarkable story that doesn't match in the slightest - oh other than that the President was shot and killed!
The reality is her head was over and behind her husband when the shooting took place when you actually analyze the Zapruder frames, look at her movements, the flowers and his movements.  Everyone was ducked down when the shot came in from front.   Pure fabrication on Nelly's part!   
Unless of course you want to throw out the entire Zapruder film as a Hollywood production and believe her rendition instead?   Absolute none sense what she says in her interviews.   There is a difference between 99% truth and 99% lie - I will leave you to figure out which it is.  Her words are 99% different than the story told by the Zapruder film!   A pretty good yarn - about as good as Jean Hill's as the years pass by when compared to her initial interview!   Fortunately we have the very old film footage and interviews and can match the interviews to the film.    You can't miss the game changer shot at frame 329 and the very apparent reaction to that frontal head shot by Mrs. Kennedy!   Why did Nelly not just tell the truth?  She likes the limelight or the truth hurts and needs concealment?

LOL

Apparently everyone else in the limo, and those caught on film or in photographs along the motorcade  and in fact anywhere anyone was caught in the bright, noon Dallas sunlight had the area of their person not catching direct sunlight 'painted in'.

Or maybe these 'black holes' were simply lost in shadow.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Paul May on April 02, 2018, 04:03:55 AM
What evidence "implicates" LHO?

Every single piece of ALL the evidence implicates Oswald.  No different than in 1963. You obviously do not know the totality of the evidence.  Is that a fair assessment?  The evidence has not changed in 58 years and NOBODY, in any context and prove what doesn?t exist. The issue after this amount of time is not whether Oswald did the deed. The issue is can conspiracy be ruled out?  The answer is no it cannot be. Somebody may have been pulling Oswald?s strings. The point is, we will never know that.  Ever.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2018, 12:58:07 AM
Every single piece of ALL the evidence implicates Oswald.

Bull.  If it did, you would be able to show that, not just claim it.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Paul May on April 03, 2018, 01:26:25 AM
It?s been shown and discussed endless times on endless blog forums. Why not simply answer this threads question.  You cannot name a shooter because there is NO evidence pointing to a shooter other than LHO. For one to dispute that 55 years after the crime is insanity. I have said numerous times, one cannot rule with 100% certainty there was not a conspiracy. 99% is good nough for me.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Paul May on April 03, 2018, 02:35:51 AM
I wouldn?t bother Tony, that?s the point. There is simply nothing left to discuss re: JFK.  It would be both revolutionary and refreshing to discuss anything new. Has any event EVER in history been as thoroughly researched? I don?t believe so.  So, what are we left with? History says Oswald?s the guy. I can live with that.  Why can?t you?
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2018, 04:19:35 AM
It?s been shown and discussed endless times on endless blog forums. Why not simply answer this threads question.  You cannot name a shooter because there is NO evidence pointing to a shooter other than LHO. For one to dispute that 55 years after the crime is insanity. I have said numerous times, one cannot rule with 100% certainty there was not a conspiracy. 99% is good nough for me.

No, it's just been claimed endless times on endless "blog forums" that Oswald did it.  By people who fastidiously avoid the actual evidence just like you do.  You can't get past 50% that Oswald did it, so you have to resort to shifting the burden while claiming a "certainty" that just isn't supported by the evidence.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2018, 04:20:14 AM
I wouldn?t bother Tony, that?s the point. There is simply nothing left to discuss re: JFK.  It would be both revolutionary and refreshing to discuss anything new. Has any event EVER in history been as thoroughly researched? I don?t believe so.  So, what are we left with? History says Oswald?s the guy. I can live with that.  Why can?t you?

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out then.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Steve Taylor on April 03, 2018, 03:11:21 PM
I've always been partial to the guy withdrawing the rifle on the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex underneath Dave Morales' butt.

(https://i.imgur.com/CTYPq1r.jpg)
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Paul May on April 04, 2018, 02:44:26 AM
You cannot possibly be this stupid in real life.  That role is reserved for Caprio.  So, post, as YOU said, the ACTUAL evidence for conspiracy which you claim I ignore.  This will be fun.
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 04, 2018, 03:57:46 AM
No, it's just been claimed endless times on endless "blog forums" that Oswald did it.  By people who fastidiously avoid the actual evidence just like you do.  You can't get past 50% that Oswald did it, so you have to resort to shifting the burden while claiming a "certainty" that just isn't supported by the evidence.

Show us your 'actual' evidence
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 04, 2018, 04:27:23 AM
Naming a shooter is totally different from PROVING that person fired at JFK. Numerous people have been named as a shooter, but like LHO there is no supporting evidence to show that they did.

Off the top of my head these people have been named over the years.

- Malcolm Wallace
- James Files
- Jack Lawrence
- Roscoe White
- JDT
- Harry Weatherford
- Lucien Sarti
- Michael Mertz
- Johnny Roselli
- various Cubans
- Charles Harrelson
- Frenchy

There are more too. Feel free to add their names. The point is - many other shooters have been named, but as usual the LNers just ignore this.

Eliminate the ones without a noticeable bald spot

 ;)
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Jon Banks on April 04, 2018, 05:01:59 AM
In terms of probable suspects, we know for a fact that LHO had the means and opportunity to shoot JFK.

However, no one can prove he brought a rifle to work or fired the rifle on 11/22/63

He also doesn't have a known motive...
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Allan Fritzke on April 04, 2018, 07:19:56 AM
LOL

Apparently everyone else in the limo, and those caught on film or in photographs along the motorcade  and in fact anywhere anyone was caught in the bright, noon Dallas sunlight had the area of their person not catching direct sunlight 'painted in'.

Or maybe these 'black holes' were simply lost in shadow.

Look at the ABC Interview of Nelly Connally and then compare it to lightbox slides or Costella slides and see if you can match up a word about where her husband was with his wound the size of a baseball and her putting pressure on it so he doesn't bleed to death.  If there was no Zapruder film and slides you could believe her story.  But her story doesn't fit the slides when you go through them.   No different than Connally and which direction he said he turned during his first interview 5 days after.   He later corrected that. 

Even AP newsman Altgens story about when he took his first picture in his testimony and his recording under oath don't match Kennedy's head movements.   His recorded first picture did not coincide with the first neck shot (1.5 seconds different?)  Then, he notes a slight head movement forward in frames Z312/313  (I mean very sliggggggght).  This was 1/18 of a second in length and not very obvious.  You have to look carefully at the 2 frames to note it.   However if you were 15 feet away like Altgens was, you couldn't have missed Kennedy raising his arm and moves his head back about a foot in a reactionary manner to something he sees at the front of the car.   Instead he says absolutely nothing about that very significant move.  Why not?   You can't miss that as it is a extremely important and significant move.     That movement my friend tells me that it wasn't from a rear shot (involuntary presumption) and that it actually is a reaction to what he saw in front of him and extremely close to the car so that he saw it.  It wasn't a sniper staged on the overpass.  The glass spray appears to be fairly horizontal in frame Z329.    Again, Altgens never mentions.   Kennedy's movement coincidentally ended with a windshield "light pattern spray" in frame Z322, aka as a bullet penetration.  A much larger glass shatter in the sun can be seen at Z329 and it is thereafter that you see Mrs. Kennedy's reaction and a disappearance of his head!   Up until this time Kennedy has a very visible head in the frames prior to Z329 and thereafter.   Maybe you would like to suggest that the frame Z312 was an acid shot and his head dissolved by the time Z332 came around?     The only reason there is a Zapruder film is so that frames 312/313 were the incriminating evidence provided to convict LHO of the assassination de facto.      Remember the best marksmen in the world that could duplicate the sniper's nest position shots using a bolt action rifle.   LHO was not that good.  Again, someone mentioned he had no motive either.  Pure frame job.  If it was a frame, it is an inside job without question.

Mrs. Kennedy has not changed her position during the frames Z312/313 and not much change in her posture as there was no real shot there.  However, about 4 frames after the shot at Z329, her eyes became as big as saucers and she decides to get out of there and starts climbing out.  Clearly the film pictures don't lie.   Remember Hollywood had a lot of experience with film editing already as this is not a new field.   Bugs Bunny was already created and there were experts in the field of illusion and cutting and splicing and redeveloping films.    Some believe that the Kodak Film Lab (Hawkeye Productions from Rochester, NY)  were the masters behind the edit.  These were the same people that analyzed the U2 plane footage and go over it with a fine tooth comb.

Open up your eyes Billy Bob and look at her interview carefully - then make a comment LOL.  Look carefully at those frames to see how her story DOES NOT match at all.    Connally ends up sitting in the corner - Nelly had her head down by Kennedy's feet.   You can see these moves.  Explain it to me  - I am eager to hear your take on it!   You can see her head goes down and Governor Connally's popping back up and appears in Nellie' corner of the car on the way to the hospital!   Obviously you have to ask how did his head get there before coming back up and how did her head get to where you see it go down.   The movements that you can't see are perfectly masked - some would say it is merely sunlight - I would say it is paint!  At any rate, something occurs in the "black" which you have no way of deciphering in the film.  However, you have to say that with what you are given and what you can see clearly,  somethings have been altered as interfaces are not as perfect as they should be with a film exposure untouched.   Again, I showed a picture in my post.  Where is the head of the assassin rolling in the grass - just an old film or is it an attempt to make sure he is never identified?

Then consider the obvious sunlight glare on shattered glass from shots fired at close range through the windshield at a dazed Kennedy.  He tries to avoid it as he sees it coming!   That is the only plausible reason for his reaction as he raises his arm feebly and moves back in his seat.   Look at how much movement back and then ask why Altgens testimony under oath about Kennedy's movement doesn't mention or match this.   He says "He moved ahead slightly and then just hung in the air briefly before falling forward"- give me a break!   
Something again which Altgens fails to comment on.    But he did sure see the slight movement in Frames 312/313 (1/18 of a second).   Coached to testify that but never coached to testify the big move that was never entered  in his Warren Commission testimony.   

Another good one in the film is the driver's single frame cranking of his head 180 degrees (1/18 of a second).   If you consider his head never cranked at all, it would be the truth.  Did he have a face painted in at the back to make it look like he was starring at Kennedy?  Possibly.  He was looking at the white marker in the grass, the lady in red and the dark blue trench coat signals and acknowledging his move in preparing to slow down the car.    Again, those frames Z322 and Z329 all coincide with the white marker in the grass being next to Kennedy when he was shot with a slight car movement between shots (1/2 a second).   The proximity of Altgens being 15 feet away from the car means he could not have missed the rather large head and arm movement.   However he did!!    If he could have seen 1/18 of a second slight movement reported in his testimony and maybe seen on film,  he could NOT have missed the rest of that sequence which went unreported as if nothing happened!    As well, as a newspaperman waiting for that perfect shot with his camera, you would also have expected him to click the shutter - that picture would have been worth a million bucks!    There is more here than meets the eye!

Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 04, 2018, 08:47:05 PM
Show us your 'actual' evidence

For what?
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 04, 2018, 08:47:41 PM
Eliminate the ones without a noticeable bald spot

 ;)

Why?
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 05, 2018, 07:46:38 AM
Eliminate the one with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE showing that he fired a shot on November 22, 1963. Pssst...LHO.

Let's see your supporting evidence for the rest of them

 ;)
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 05, 2018, 07:49:55 AM
Why?

 ;)
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2018, 05:10:40 PM
;)

This would be prosecutor Chapman in action:

"Mr. Chapman, please present your evidence against the defendant"

"Name your shooter"

"I'm not sure how that proves your case"

"I'm 100% sure that he probably did it"

"ok, but why?"

" ;)"
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 05, 2018, 05:53:20 PM
This would be prosecutor Chapman in action:

"Mr. Chapman, please present your evidence against the defendant"

"Name your shooter"

"I'm not sure how that proves your case"

"I'm 100% sure that he probably did it"

"ok, but why?"

" ;)"

Show us where I've ever said I can prove anything here.
And tell us why you need me to do so.

 ;)
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 05, 2018, 06:46:44 PM
 Lets go with James Files for the final head shot. We know for a fact that could not have been Oswald
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2018, 09:06:32 PM
Show us where I've ever said I can prove anything here.
And tell us why you need me to do so.

 ;)

Do you care if the things that you believe are "probably true" are in fact probably true?
Title: Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 11, 2018, 04:10:26 AM
..  Dougherty was closer to the scene, acted out of character, had no alibi etc..
I've read this before 1. Why would he then alibi the accused? He could have said in testimony -"Yeah I saw Oswald. He like had this big heavy sack in his hand." 2..Jack Dougherty had no more motive to kill JFK than Oswald did. 3..Look for the guys who had a motive...those were your hitmen.