JFK Assassination Forum

LP--

Thanks for your collegial reply.

If it weren't for my (admittedly layman's) analysis of the Z-film, and the injuries received by JFK and JBC, I would probably be in the LN camp.

There are reasons to have reasonable doubts about the WC narrative.

The WC says the large Western Cartridge slug (1 1/4 inch long and 1/4 in diameter) struck and entered JBC's right wrist on the dorsal side, then "tumbled" inside the wrist (ouch!) and left the ventral side, before un-tumbling and tunneling into JBC's pant leg...but that JBC held onto his Stetson hat through all of it.

And after being shot through the chest, JBC did a 180-degree turn in his seat... to check on JFK's condition.

JBC says he was pushed forward and immediately incapacitated after being shot. That is believable. I accept JBC's version.

I have reasonable doubts about the WC scenario.

The GK smoke-and-bang show was witnessed by many, and also nose witnesses smelled gunsmoke in the GK area, including police and military vets. That tends to confirm the eyewitness accounts. Few, if anyone, smelled smoke down by the TSBD.

So, the TSBD6 sniper (high probability LHO) had confederates, is my deduction.

I don't know who they were. A reasonable suspicion is suggested in the above article.

Tom Graves and John Newman contend CIA'er and KGB mole Bruce Solie was manipulating or running LHO somehow. The Minsk KGB chief said he regarded LHO as an asset.

It makes sense that cut-outs between Solie and LHO were G2'ers in Mexico or the US. Solie could not risk communicating with LHO directly.

That said, the JFKA was likely just a couple, lower-level hotheads in G2 or Alpha 66, and LHO. 

The WC narrative was necessary at the time, as mandated by LBJ.

Thanks David, I was pretty sure before but with that higher quality clip, the car's bumper definitely strikes Ruby as he slightly buckles, also it's easier to see the bottom of the jacket partially obscure the headlight.



JohnM

Physical laws apply all over the cosmos. Nothing can be done that is physically impossible. Just because someone can't explain what they saw doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. It means the explanation isn't known.

I'm not sure of the point being made here. As a matter of fact, we do not know that "physical laws apply all over the cosmos." This is an assumption of science, without which science would be virtually impossible. So-called "laws" are actually subjective models that are sufficiently accurate to make science possible. One oft-cited example is that the laws of physics as we understand them simply do not operate ("break down") inside a black hole.

When I say UFOs have been observed and recorded doing "physically impossible" things, implied in this statement is something like "assuming our present understanding of the nature of reality is at least in the ballpark of being correct." If it isn't, then all bets are off - what seems physically impossible to us may be entirely possible in the context of a reality that is far different from what we now understand reality to be. One possibility that physicists no longer regard as implausible is that we actually occupy a virtual (i.e., simulated) reality or a consciousness-based reality rather than one that is fundamentally material.

The more highly regarded UFO theories include interactions with other dimensions or universes, time travel (wild as that may sound), or manipulation of our reality from a higher reality (be it a deity, a cosmic software programmer, or whatever). Any of these scenarios could produce phenomena that appear to us to be physically impossible - but only because our understanding of reality is actually far off-base.

UFOs have been observed and recorded exhibiting instantaneous acceleration, instantaneous disappearance and reappearance and numerous other "physically impossible" characteristics. Psychic effects have been repeatedly reported. Credible witnesses have reported UFOs that were vastly larger on the inside than they appeared from the outside.

A little novel from 1884 called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions has always fascinated me. The premise is that a world of two-dimensional circles, squares and triangles is interacting with a world of three-dimensional spheres and boxes and whatnot. When you think about it, what the denizens of a two-dimensional world would experience if a three-dimensional sphere were interacting with their world is almost exactly what UFO witnesses actually report.

I'm not claiming to have any answers. I'm merely claiming to have a sufficient base of knowledge about the UFO phenomenon to know it defies simplistic or mundane explanations (and is way more mysterious and interesting than the JFKA). In fact, I regard even the ET hypothesis and Royell's "ultraterrestrial" hypothesis (as it's known) as among those that are too simplistic to explain the phenomenon. One ET hypothesis I regard as at least a mild possibility is that the phenomenon as we experience it is not the real phenomenon at all but rather a staged phenomenon generated by perhaps a single highly advanced ET source for purposes known only to it - more or less Jacques Vallee's control system idea.

Not that I care, but we have two responses that reflect an almost complete lack of familiarity with the history and scope of the UFO phenomenon. Anyone familiar with the, say, 1000 best UFO cases - multiple trained and credible witnesses, radar confirmation, physical effects and traces - could not possibly make the dismissive comments we see here.

I won't beat my own peewee encounter to death since I've previously described it, but:

1. I was in the company of a diehard skeptic who was a good friend but thought all varieties of woo-woo were nonsense - and he just about wet his knickers.
2. The encounter was during daylight hours.
3. The UFO was no more than 75 or so yards away and fully visible for 30-40 seconds.
4. Without a word to each other, we both instantly recognized that this was something weird and troubling.
5. There were commonly reported "psychic aftereffects" that confirmed for me that this was no mundane encounter.

I could easily jump on the "ET" bandwagon, but I don't believe this is what it was. The ET explanation doesn't mesh with all the facts of those 1000 best cases (and mine) any better than "optical illusion" or "sooper-dooper miltary technology." The 1000 best cases include UFOs doing unbelievable and even physically impossible things when sooper-dooper military technology still had propellers.

Physical laws apply all over the cosmos. Nothing can be done that is physically impossible. Just because someone can't explain what they saw doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. It means the explanation isn't known.