Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Video: Hoffman Hill & Oliver
« Last post by Royell Storing on Today at 11:49:28 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on Today at 10:30:03 PM
As far as I can tell, Lamb Chop is the classic Royell factoid. It has no provenance whatsoever. It is based solely on someone attempting to rehabilitate Jean Hill and finding a pareidolic Lamb Chop in the photos of Jackie holding flowers at Love Field. As far as I can determine, no one ever suggested that Jackie had actually been handed a Lamb Chop at Love Field or had one in the limousine (why would she have been handed one? would the Secret Service have allowed this?). Like the supposed getaway car, it is strictly a matter of photographic misinterpretation by some Royell predecessor. Pathetic that this is actually being discussed. Wake me up when it hits 68,000 views.

      I encourage this Forum to recognize that the above is doing everything it can to Avoid addressing the "Image Evidence". What do you SEE on 29:30? Do you see Lamb Chop's: (1) BLACK on the end of the Snout?, (2) Thin BLACK CIRCLE wrapping around the Snout?, (3) BLACK Eyes?, and (4) Floppy Ear? We are forever told to rely on the JFK Assassination "Image Evidence". 29:30 contains "Image Evidence" supporting Jean Hill's story of seeing a "small dog" on the backseat of the JFK Limo.
     I believe this Lamb Chop Issue is important as it demonstrates that from that Elm St eyewitnesses could see DOWN, INSIDE, the JFK Limo. This is important with respect to "blood splatter" and "skull fragments" falling inside the JFK Limo. I do Not recall a single Elm St Eyewitness being questioned about what they might have seen with respect to seeing JFK blood/brain matter & skull fragment(s) DOWN INSIDE the JFK Limo. Jean Hill has proven that Elm St eyewitnesses could see down inside the JFK Limo.       
2
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Rethinking LBJ
« Last post by Lance Payette on Today at 11:29:48 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 09:53:41 PM
That's not how criminal investigators identify suspects. They look at the available evidence and figure out who that evidence indicates committed the crime.  They don't start out with who had a motive. That's a bassackwards approach. The purpose of an investigation is to whittle down the number of suspects. Looking at who had a motive will increase the number of suspects. There were far many more people who had motive to kill JFK than there were people who took part in the crime. When one takes an evidence base approach, they end up with only one suspect.

You seem almost compelled to attempt kneejerk oneupsmanship on every thread. Your statement is simply wrong. I spent 20 of my 40 years as a lawyer working in offices that did little but criminal prosecution. The cui bono inquiry is often one of the initial stages in crime analysis and one of the most critical. Cui bono "is a foundational principle in crime analysis used to identify potential suspects and motives by determining who gains from a criminal act." Often, as in the Nancy Guthrie case, the evidence leads nowhere. Sometimes there is no meaningful evidence. Cui bono is a tool to identify those who had a motive, which the investigative process can then whittle down. For those not inclined to accept the LN verdict, cui bono would put LBJ and probably Carlos Marcello at the top of the list, even if neither actually had anything to do with the JFKA. As I said, with LBJ there is really no credible evidence, but this does not mean that a cui bono inquiry is illegitimate.
3
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Hypothetical question
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 10:56:58 PM »
Quote from: Zeon Mason on Today at 08:01:32 PM

What makes the least sense is the conventional WC theory that the 1st shot missed the entire limo and that it was fired at Z124, or Z140 deflecting off a light pole, or at Z150.,Z160, or Z170. None of those are in keeping with a 3/4th majority witness hearing 3 shots rapidly fired and the last 2 “back to back”.
Progress Zeon!  All very reasonable points.

You are beginning to realize that there is no way the evidence can fit a first shot miss.  However, I would not agree that JFK's reaction is delayed. It is rather difficult to accept that JFK is not reacting between z193 and before z224:



JBC's reaction was not to being hit by it in the back/armpit. So his reaction will be delayed because he has to process the significance of the sound, realize that the President may have been hit by a rifle shot and begin to turn around to catch sight of the President.

Dan's first shot SBT scenario might be more persuasive if there was a reasonable explanation for JBC being absolutely sure that he was not hit in the back/armpit by the first shot - and if there was cogent evidence of a third shot miss. Also, the shot had to be a bit earlier than z224. 

   
4
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Video: Hoffman Hill & Oliver
« Last post by Lance Payette on Today at 10:30:03 PM »
As far as I can tell, Lamb Chop is the classic Royell factoid. It has no provenance whatsoever. It is based solely on someone attempting to rehabilitate Jean Hill and finding a pareidolic Lamb Chop in the photos of Jackie holding flowers at Love Field. As far as I can determine, no one ever suggested that Jackie had actually been handed a Lamb Chop at Love Field or had one in the limousine (why would she have been handed one? would the Secret Service have allowed this?). Like the supposed getaway car, it is strictly a matter of photographic misinterpretation by some Royell predecessor. Pathetic that this is actually being discussed. Wake me up when it hits 68,000 views.
5
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Larry Hancock's JFKA Blog
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 10:03:53 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on Today at 07:31:25 PM
Just quick points:

1. I don't believe Oswald cared about escaping. I think he was completely astounded to find himself on the sidewalk outside the TSBD. I think he viewed this act as the end of his life, the big opportunity Fate had finally handed him. He would either be martyred for the Cuban cause or be taken into custody and have the opportunity to spout his political philosophy at a trial. If this had been a KGB or G2 operation, they darn well would have cared about the participants escaping if they had been so doltish as to use participants whose backgrounds screamed KGB or G2.

2. TSBD6 was a good location to shoot JFK; the roof of the Dal-Tex or County Records building would have been better by all I have read. In comparison to those, the TSBD6 was fantastically risky. Getting the weapon inside and assembling it when an entire floor-laying crew would be working all morning was risky enough. Betting the floor would be empty and no one would choose to watch the motorcade from that vantage point was fantastically risky. Betting Oswald could cleanly exit the floor and building and make his way to Wherever was likewide fantastically risky. Oswald did this for the reasons set forth in #1 above. No KGB or G2 organizer in his right mind would have chosen TSBD6. Oswald could have simply gone to lunch and found a preplanted rifle at a much, much safer location. If Oswald had cared about escapting, even he wouldn't have chosen TSBD6.

3. It's not a matter of thinking the "perps think as I do." It's a matter of thinking the perps at least think rationally. A JFKA by LN Oswald shooting from inside the TSBD makes sense for the reasons set forth in #1 above and because Oswald was Oswald and the JFKA was a last-minute, flying-by-the-seat-of-his-pants decision. Having the principal gunman fire from inside a building, with absolutely no control over what the circumstances would be at the time, just makes no sense unless the conspirators were the Three Stooges. What I think is going on here is pretty much what is always going on: You're stuck with Dealey Plaza and a JFKA in which Oswald was indeed firing from TSBD6 and this all has to be rationalized even though it's irrational in the context of any conspiracy. The conspirators needed a "diversion" from the TSBD6 on the GK when THERE WAS NO REASON TO HAVE A GUNMAN IN TSBD6 IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why would a gunman need a diversion? Oswald's choice of the TSBD was the only choice available to him for from that standpoint it made sense. Oswald might very well have not known where he would fire from until the last few minutes. Who knows what he would have done had Bonnie Ray Williams decided to remain on the 6th floor. Maybe he takes the shots anyway. Maybe he goes up to the 7th floor to see if he would be alone there. As it turned out, the 6th floor turned out to be a perfect location. He had the floor to himself and a perfect line of fire down Elm St.

I'm not one to second guess Oswald's choices since he succeeded at what he was trying to do. It might have been the only thing he succeeded at in his whole miserable life. If only he could have been hit by a bus on 11/21/1963.
6
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Rethinking LBJ
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 09:53:41 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on Today at 03:00:39 PM
LBJ is, of course, at the very pinnacle of likely conspiracy participants.

Only to people who prioritize speculation over evidence.
Quote

Cui bono? (“Who benefitted?”) is the standard criminal inquiry when looking for suspects.

Well, going from a vastly underused and ridiculed VP who was likely to be dropped from the 1964 ticket, was facing Congressional investigation and likely to be removed from office to POTUS in the blink of an eye has to be as “cui bono” as it gets.

That's not how criminal investigators identify suspects. They look at the available evidence and figure out who that evidence indicates committed the crime.  They don't start out with who had a motive. That's a bassackwards approach. The purpose of an investigation is to whittle down the number of suspects. Looking at who had a motive will increase the number of suspects. There were far many more people who had motive to kill JFK than there were people who took part in the crime. When one takes an evidence base approach, they end up with only one suspect.
Quote

HOWEVER, I recently finished all four of acclaimed historian Robert Caro’s massive and highly acclaimed books on LBJ, which are regarded as among the very best works of their kind. They are collectively thousands of pages – and the last one only takes us up to a few months after the JFKA as we await Caro’s final volume that he hopes to publish in his lifetime (he’s 90).

It was refreshing to read real history by a real historian instead of JFKA blather. Caro is aware of all the conspiratorial theorizing that swirls around LBJ but says he found nothing in his exhaustive research to suggest LBJ was actually involved. (For a counterpoint, and a glimpse of true conspiratorial insanity, search “Robert Morrow” at the Ed Forum and you’ll see what non-history by a foaming-at-the-mouth LBJ crank looks like.) Caro is no LBJ worshipper, so that charge can't be laid at his feet.

I lived through LBJ's Presidency but was astounded at who he really was. Yes, he was a roughhewn character who could be rude, crude, sneaky and manipulative, but he was a political genius of the first magnitude and had a preternatural talent for motivating those around him to work as unbelievably hard as he did. “Uncle Cornpone,” as he was derisively referred to by the Kennedy crowd, was actually far more politically sophisticated and savvy than all of them put together. Immediately after the JFKA, he pledged to push through JFK’s civil rights legislation that was then hopelessly bogged down. Civil rights leaders who met with him came away awed (and even crying), saying JFK and RFK were “children” in comparison to LBJ. Again and again, dating back to his days at a Podunk college in the Texas hill country, what he achieved and how he did it is difficult to believe. Simply a genius in more ways than one.

He had said repeatedly since early childhood, in circumstances where it seemed ridiculous at the time, that he would one day be President. He wasn’t kidding. He thought it was his destiny, and it was his obsession.

Just one example: He was also obsessed with becoming wealthy. Early in his Congressional career - he was in his 20s - a Texas multi-millionaire who enjoyed being a benefactor offered him a sweetheat deal on an oil operation that would have made him wealthy overnight. LBJ thought about it but decided he couldn't risk being associated with the oil industry. The benefactor was flabbergasted. No one in Texas would have cared about an association with the oil industry, even if LBJ decided to run for Governor or the Senate. He then realized that this impoverished twentysomething newbie Congressman wasn't thinking in those terms. He was thinking about the Presidency.

Everyone – and I mean everyone – urged him not to accept the Vice Presidency. He was “Master of the Senate” (the title of Caro’s third book), already fantastically more powerful than any VP could ever be. It made no sense to anyone but LBJ. He made no bones about why he was accepting the position. He expected to die early – all the Johnson men did – and this was likely his last shot at the Presidency.

He told people why he was accepting the position. On the night of JFK's inauguration, he told Clare Booth Luce. He had previously told other trusted friends and journalists. I may not have the quote exactly right, but it was very close to this: “I’m a gamblin’ man, darlin’, and this is the only chance I got. One in six Presidents dies in office. I’ve done the research.” And he actually had done the research.

Of the 45 men who have served as POTUS, 8 have died in office so as of now, it's a little more than 1 in 6. When JFK was inaugurated, it was 7 of the first 33 presidents had died in office, so if he did the research, his arithmetic was really bad.
Quote

As it turned out, of course, his gamble paid off. His Presidency turned into a Shakespearean tragedy as Vietnam escalated from something like 15,000 American advisers to more than 500,000 troops - but he had achieved the Presidency as he had always dreamed.

Suspicious? Sure. But on the other hand, who would have spoken this brazenly before JFK's inauguration and then actually have masterminded or even participated in the JFKA? Anyone involved, up to and including LBJ, would have been risking certain execution. LBJ was very aware of his place in history – he has a far larger place than I had realized – and there is no way in my opinion (or Caro’s, I surmise) that he would’ve risked throwing it (and the vast wealth he had achieved) all away. Just an aside, but there was far more to Ladybird than I had ever realized - and I don't believe LBJ would have done that to her, either.

Of the presidents in my lifetime starting with Truman, only Biden was a worse POTUS and he was the worst of all time. LBJ was a very consequential president but most of his consequences were very bad.
Quote

He was a dutiful VP, remaining loyal through all the Uncle Cornpone stuff and the demeaning sideline role to which he was relegated. He utterly despised RFK (the feeling was mutual) but not so much JFK.

I have no doubt he regarded the JFKA as an unbelievable stroke of luck and wasn’t shedding any tears. However, the more I learn the less likely I think it is that he had any role in the JFKA or any preknowledge of it. Robet Morrow, as you will see if you care to do so, vehemently disagrees.

Here's wacky Robert, for whom a tinfoil hat simply isn't sufficient:



See https://www.wsj.com/articles/front-runner-for-texas-school-board-wants-to-teach-pole-dancing-conspiracy-theories-11583526093 ("AUSTIN, Texas—He wears a jester hat, frequently tweets photos of women’s breasts and advocates for teaching in schools that Lyndon Johnson assassinated John F. Kennedy.").

The people who think LBJ was behind the JFKA are no wackier than those who suspect the CIA, the Mafia, the FBI, the Soviets, the Cubans or anyone else. There is no evidence to implicate anyone except LHO.
7
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: A Car, A Garden, And A Coupla Guys
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 09:31:49 PM »
Quote from: Royell Storing on Today at 06:54:28 PM
   I am Not about fame and/or fortune. If I can help remove the scales from the eyes of people such as yourself, my "reward" will be forthcoming.
   The fame/fortune goals are exactly why this case remains unsolved after 62+ yrs. Way too many so called JFK Assassination Researchers were/are focused on achieving those goals vs solving the case. This is why NONE of them ever discovered the car parked alongside the Island was NOT on the Wiegman Film, or that Officer Haygood did make a time stamping 12:35 radio transmission vs the Officer Harkness 12:36 radio transmission. These discoveries are extremely time consuming. And with the JFK Assassination "researchers", time is money.   

If you think any of your claims are helping to solve the JFKA, you are only fooling yourself. The case was solved. A long time ago. All your efforts and those of all the CTs combined can't create a different reality. The assassination happened only one way. LHO snuck his cheap war surplus rifle into work, waited in a secluded spot in the TSBD for JFK to arrive, and when JFK's limo made the turn onto Elm St., Oswald opened fire. He missed his first shot, hit JFK in the back with the second, and blew JFK's brains out with the 3rd and final shot. It isn't any more complicated than that. Never was. Never will be.
8
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Jack Ruby kicks Oswald! And other interesting stuff.
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 09:25:37 PM »
Quote from: Zeon Mason on Yesterday at 02:09:03 AM
“This is an example of trying to make a point by asking a question. Questions are no evidence. You need to find answers”.  -John Corbett’s response  to me asking the question “where was the Babushka lady film?”🤗

I don't use questions to make a point. I use questions to point out the fallacies in other people's claims. What I see the CTs do is use unanswered questions as evidence of conspiracy. That's when I tell them you can't use unanswered questions as evidence. They need to answer those questions if they want them to be evidentiary.
9
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Hypothetical question
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 09:21:57 PM »
Quote from: Zeon Mason on Today at 08:01:32 PM
Well I looked at Norman’s WC testimony again and I have to say that imo he does NOT support a  2nd shot at Z224 because:

A. He described that at the time he heard the first shot, that he saw JFK with his right hand raised. That’s about at Z190 when JFKs right hand was FULLY raised and JFK is looking right to the max degree. I think his right arm starts to move at about Z175 but is not fully up until Z190.

B. Norman said he  then saw JFK  slump and only AFTER that slump  did Norman hear the next 2 shots which according to an earlier statement he made , were in only approx 2 seconds.

So… there are only  two 3 shot sequence proposals that Norman supports. One is Andrew’s Z190/270/313 and the other one is Dans 1st shot at Z224 theory , 2nd shot Z313 and a 3rd shot fired After Z313 in only 2 seconds which was the one which hit the curb near Tague.

Dans Z224 1st shot fits well enough with Norman  seeing JFK hand raised at Z190 and hearing a shot as it’s only about 1.5 sec after that at Z224.

The Z224 1st shot is supported by lack of any SS agents looking back from Z133 to Z207. Hickeys movement at Z 143 looking forward left ( and down) is NOT a response to a gunshot since he said he had looked BACK at TSBD when he heard the first shot.

Andrew’s is the more controversial theory. The bullets have to deflect more and fragment more and the Z190 shot is thru the tree foliage. The movements of JFK and JC from Z224-Z230 must be considered delayed reactions. Z190 however, does fit with the Willis girl reaction and Betzner not hearing a shot until after his Z186 photo taken.

Dans Z224 1st theory makes a lot of sense in explaining lack of reactions of not only the SS agents but people all along the road beside the limo such as Charles Brehm and 2 guys clapping and a woman walking calmly across the plaza green in the background.

The one questionable shot is a 3rd shot fired rapidly in just 2 secs , apparently UNaimed. It’s questionable if it’s a bolt action rifle why the shooter would have lost his target or why he would  fire a 3rd shot at all since he must have seen that he scored the hit at Z313.

What makes the least sense is the conventional WC theory that the 1st shot missed the entire limo and that it was fired at Z124, or Z140 deflecting off a light pole, or at Z150.,Z160, or Z170. None of those are in keeping with a 3/4th majority witness hearing 3 shots rapidly fired and the last 2 “back to back”.

Why do people keep relying on witnesses to figure out what happened. We have one reliable witness and that was Zapruder's camera. It trumps all the human witnesses combined. The only human witnesses who we should be relied upon are the ones who can be corroborated by hard evidence.
10
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Jack Ruby kicks Oswald? And other interesting stuff.
« Last post by Zeon Mason on Today at 08:31:58 PM »
If it was a conspiracy to silence Oswald, Ruby shooting him in front of cameras was about the dumbest way to do it  since there were other stealthier ways to do it.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10