Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
I see Brehm clapping his hands after JFK had slumped following the first shot that hit him. I conclude one of two things. Either Brehm was oblivious to the fact JFK had just been shot or he was glad that JFK had just been shot. Which one do you think is the case?

That JFK had been struck by the first shot just as he stated and he realized he had been struck by the first shot; hence he referenced slumping just like the other eyewitnesses.
22


The image below is CE 543. It is difficult for me to tell from the photo, but if the lip is flared out it isn’t by much. The yellow circle is a round circle approximately the size of the mouth of the shell. The blue circle depicts an arc at a similar radius as the outside of the bridge on the rifle. The edge of the bridge could have made that dent in my opinion.




No, It doesn't have to be much. It is a shell not an anvil. Somebody here suggested it was a stake mark. Maybe check that out.

 I thought you liked AI? You don't believe what it produced?

The bridge can cause a dimple in the center of the dent?
23

 It can create tunnel vision and lack of perspective
.

You mean like this. You are interpreting what Brehm thought and heard that is contrary to what he said took place while he was standing there and watched it unfold.

I see Brehm clapping his hands after JFK had slumped following the first shot that hit him. I conclude one of two things. Either Brehm was oblivious to the fact JFK had just been shot or he was glad that JFK had just been shot. Which one do you think is the case?
24
In his 2009 article on evidence that Cuban intelligence had foreknowledge of the assassination and that Castro approved/allowed the hit on JFK, Gus Russo claims that while Oswald was at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, he wept and proclaimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that bastard, Kennedy":

At the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, Oswald pulled a gun, wept, and claimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that bastard, Kennedy." ("Did Castro Okay the Kennedy Assassination?", American Heritage, winter 2009, https://www.americanheritage.com/did-castro-okay-kennedy-assassination)

This was the basic fable that was energetically pushed by elements of the Intelligence Community and the news media soon after the assassination, i.e., that Oswald the devout Marxist killed JFK in the service of or in support of the Soviet Union and Cuba. This tale is still peddled by some lone-gunman theorists to this day.

Yet, this tale makes it all the more puzzling that Oswald did not do what other supposedly ideologically motivated presidential assassins have done, namely, proudly take credit for his deed and justify his deed as a worthy act done in support of a noble cause and/or done as a necessary act to combat evil. 

Oswald did the exact opposite. He adamantly insisted he was innocent. He fiercely denied shooting JFK and/or Tippit. He said the evidence against him was fraudulent. He even said he was a patsy.

Why do you keep insisting that there is a rule book that all assassins are supposed to follow? The three previous presidential assassins use a handgun at close range. Oswald carried out his assassination with a rifle at a longer range. So what. He chose a different method and had different reasons than the others. So what?
25
[...] Baker's story seems too pat to me. I'm open to the possibility that part of it may be true, but I have so many doubts about it that I have never cited it in any of my research.

The principled restraint of a serious researcher is impressive to behold.
26
Judyth Vary Baker?

Now there's a blast from the past. Does anyone believe anything that ditz has to say?
27
You are not explaining the dent, you are just hoping you stumbled onto an alternative explanation. You didn't. What on the rear bridge of the receiver can cause a dent with a dimple in the middle that makes the top of the lip flare out.



The image below is CE 543. It is difficult for me to tell from the photo, but if the lip is flared out it isn’t by much. The yellow circle is a round circle approximately the size of the mouth of the shell. The blue circle depicts an arc at a similar radius as the outside of the bridge on the rifle. The edge of the bridge could have made that dent in my opinion.




28
In his 2009 article on evidence that Cuban intelligence had foreknowledge of the assassination and that Castro approved/allowed the hit on JFK, Gus Russo claims that while Oswald was at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, he wept and proclaimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that bastard, Kennedy":

At the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, Oswald pulled a gun, wept, and claimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that bastard, Kennedy." ("Did Castro Okay the Kennedy Assassination?", American Heritage, winter 2009, https://www.americanheritage.com/did-castro-okay-kennedy-assassination)

This was the basic fable that was energetically pushed by elements of the Intelligence Community and the news media soon after the assassination, i.e., that Oswald the devout Marxist killed JFK in the service of or in support of the Soviet Union and Cuba. This tale is still peddled by some lone-gunman theorists to this day.

Yet, this tale makes it all the more puzzling that Oswald did not do what other ideologically motivated presidential assassins have done, namely, proudly take credit for his deed and justify his deed as a worthy act done in support of a noble cause and/or done as a necessary act to combat evil. 

Oswald did the exact opposite. He adamantly insisted he was innocent. He fiercely denied shooting JFK and/or Tippit. He said the evidence against him was fraudulent. He even said he was a patsy.



29
[...] They should read some of Dr. David Mantik's research on the DNA evidence that proves that DNA from most of the hijackers was found at the WTC site, at the Pentagon crash site, and at the crash site in PA, proving that planes did in fact hit the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA. [...]

I asked you recently in another thread where to find that research, but you refused to answer. Apparently, it's reserved for private email chains.
30
I didn't even cite Brehm's words. I cited what he was seen doing on the Z-film.

Sometimes a witness can be too close. It can create tunnel vision and lack of perspective.

 It can create tunnel vision and lack of perspective
.

You mean like this. You are interpreting what Brehm thought and heard that is contrary to what he said took place while he was standing there and watched it unfold.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10