JFK Assassination Forum

I would be happy with either Vance, Rubio, or DeSantis. When Rubio ran in 2016 he was a Not Ready for Prime Time Player but he has gained in stature since. I think Vance would be the strongest candidate. DeSantis would be a good choice too but he doesn't seem to connect with the voters outside his home state. I can't think of a prominent GOP candidate I wouldn't vote for in 2028.

On the Dem side, I think the GOP would love to see them give Kamala another bite of the apple or go with AOC but I think it's a case of be careful what you wish for. The Dems wanted to go against Trump in 2016 because they thought it would be an easy victory and they continued to believe that right up until they started counting the votes. You can still go on TouTube and find dozens of "Donald Trump will never be President videos. I don't think the Dems want Kamala and now that she seems to have split with Doug Emhoff, she's probably even less attractive. I can see AOC getting the nod if it's a crowded field and the far left coalesces around her and the more moderate Dems spit their votes among Newsom, Buttigieg. Shapiro etc. Trump was only getting about 30% of the early primary vote in 2016 because there were so many establishment Republicans dividing the anti Trump vote. Trump ended up winning the general election because he drew in a lot of moderate Dems and independents. I can't see AOC getting many Republican votes and she won't be appealing to the independents either.

When I need a good laugh, I can still go out on YouTube and watch all the various networks and cable channels coverage of the 2016 election. The talking heads started the night smug and confident of a Hillary victory and then slowly over the next 8 hours melted down into outright despair. I really got a kick out of seeing Martha Radaatz when she realized Trump was going to win. Before Trump had even been declared the winner, NBC's Richard Engel was already talking about impeachment. I'm sure a lot of the Dem leaders were thinking the same thing even if they weren't saying it out loud.

Kamala has no chance.  The Dems will never forgive her for losing to Trump.  It will be Newsom with a female VP.  Maybe AOC but more likely someone like Whitmer.  The only I would ever consider are Shapiro and Fetterman but Shapiro has no chance in the anti-Semitic left. The Repubs will be combination of Vance/Rubio.  I can't see Vance taking the VP again, so he will likely be at the top of the ticket.  The Dems will have been in control of the House for two years at that point and will have to defend their failed policies instead of running solely on anti-Trump hoaxes. 

Dear Freon,

The KGB* works both sides of the political spectrum.

That's why it (and the GRU, and Putin's professional St. Petersburg trolls, and oodles and gobs of zombified "useful idiots," et al.) installed The Traitorous Orange Turd as our "President" on 20 January 2017.

*Today's SVR and FSB

-- Tom

Dear Tombstone: There  were 2 idiots to choose from to replace the brain dead Biden. Kamala the useless idiot and Trump the useful idiot. At the least the useful idiot did something about the border and made some money off the oil and military industrial complex so he can leave office with 14 billion instead of 7 billion before the 25th amendment kicks him out.

So what candidate do you suggest for 2028 to avoid getting another idiot?  Grok the AI?

I agree.  But JBC received his torso wound on the second shot.

Yes he did when he was starting to turn back to the front and his shoulders were turned only slightly to the right at or about Z222.

Gayle Newman said he was turned sideways when the second shot sounded and he just lay back on the seat.

You just acknowledged that the spectators would have been focused on the Kennedys so how the hell would Gayle Newman know how JBC was turned when the shot struck him, especially since you believe JFK was hit and was reacting to the first shot. You don't think seeing JFK throw his arms up in front of his throat would have drawn here attention to JFK even more than it would have?

 
Nellie told Dr. Shires that he was turned around to his right when the second shot struck him.

I don't give a rat's ass what Nellie had to say.

Dave Powers said JFK moved left after the first and JBC disappeared after the second.

Yes, that is how Powers remembered it but that doesn't establish how it actually happened. You continue to treat these witnesses as if their recollections are gospel.

I have never suggested it is a coincidence.  They are both reacting to the first shot: JFK by realizing he can’t breathe and JBC realizing JFK was being assassinated.

You most certainly have suggested a coincidence. It's a binary choice. Either their simultaneous arm movements were caused by the same stimulus or the simultaneous arm movement was a coincidence. Since you have rejected they are reacting to the same stimulus (being shot at the same time) that leaves only a coincidence. Not only that, it is a rather odd coincidence. The arm movements of both men occurred 33 frames, almost two seconds, after the shot at Z193. According to you, both had the same delayed reaction to the shot. JFK reacting to being shot and JBC reacting to the sound and the reaction they both made was to flip their arms upward.

Opening one’s eyes to reading what people said is a good thing too.

Only if you can discern what they said is right and what they said is wrong. You don't bother with that step.

Nellie was pretty clear that he said “oh, no, no” before the second shot. And she is looking at JFK after that.  She said she never looked back after the second shot.

See above.

That may be true.  But it also may be true that he did not feel the thigh wound because it didn’t generate any sensation of pain. When local injuries occur quickly and obliterate nerve endings there may be nothing to send sensory signals to the brain.

Now you are really stretching. I take Ozempic every week and I feel it when I stick the needle into my thigh. It isn't a terrible pain, but it isn't pleasant either. We're supposed to believe that a JBC did not feel a puncture wound almost two inches deep into his thigh if he was not consumed by the overwhelming sensation of having a bullet traverse his chest a millisecond earlier.

Why would a projectile’s impact be due to the forces acting on it before impact? The impact force is entirely due to velocity and mass of the projectile. In this case it may be that the fragment struck the road surface and deflected up striking the curb on an upward trajectory and deflected to Tague’s cheek.

More stretching by you. For the projectile to cause the chip on a concrete surface it would have to be traveling with a good deal of velocity. Under your scenario the bullet would have reached the apex of an arc and would coming down mainly by the force of gravity with most of the forward momentum expended. It makes no sense. Just o clear the front seat, it would have had to leave the limo on a very steep upward angle. If the bullet had any significant velocity left, it's not going to come down anywhere near Tague.

CE888 shows the approximate position of the limo at Z161 which is the closest frame to when I believe the first shot was fired (z147-148). It doesn't show where Tague was standing. To get a view of that you can go to the sniper's nest webcam.

https://www.earthcam.com/usa/texas/dallas/dealeyplaza/?cam=dealeyplaza

The camera lens would be in the approximate position of the the muzzle of the Carcano. Tague would have been closest to the line of fire for an early shot before the limo passed under the tree. The farther down Elm St. the limo went the farther left of a direct line to Tague it becomes. That would mean for a shot to deflect off JBC's wrist and hit the curb near Tague, it would not only have to deflect upward at a steep angle, it would have to deflect well to the right as well.

If you watch the webcam long enough, every once in a while, you'll see some idiot walk out in the middle of Elm St. after traffic clears and have his picture taken on the X that marks the approximate location of the headshot. I know because 18 years ago at about this time of year, I was one of those idiots. I still have the picture.

I also almost witnessed an accident. Some guy in the far left lane raced ahead of someone in the middle lane the then abruptly cut him off apparently to get to the right so he could turn onto the Stemmons Freeway. I wouldn't be surprised if someone flashed the international symbol of ill will.

Now you are just outright lying. I just gave you five.
I'm hardly the first person to recognize the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. Not just in the JFKA, but in criminal cases in general.
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/
Keep lying. It's what you do best. 

I don't know what the forum record is for most lies told in a single post but you have to be close to breaking it if you haven't already. Bennett and Williams accounts most definitely support 3 shots. Bennett said he was scanning the crowd to his right when he heard the first shot. He immediately turn to look at JFK and then saw the shot that struck him in the upper back. He then saw the third shot strike him in the head.

I could only find Willaims testimony in PDF format which doesn't allow copy and paste but you can go to page 175 of his testimony and in the first paragraph he describes the three shots.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_Williams.pdf

You question my knowledge about the JFK assassination and then show how little you know.
DING! DING! DING! I think you just broke the forum record.
or the far more likely explanation that you are wrong given how many misstatements of fact you have made in just one post.
So now you question the validity of the Z-film. Why am I not surprised. Over the past 35 years I have debated this case online, it's pretty much a given that when somebody with a goofy theory (like you) comes across a piece of hard evidence that conflicts with their theory, they will question the evidence rather than their pet theory. The Z-film shows JBC turning to his right beginning at Z164 just as he said he did in reaction to the first shot which he was adamant did not hit him. I think that is something he would know better than anybody else.
More BS. Throw out Rosemary Willis' reaction. It is the least compelling evidence of a first shot miss. JBC's recollection is only compatible with him being hit by the SECOND shot. Agent Bennett clearly describes a first shot miss followed by two strikes on JFK. Williams, Jarman, and Norman all testified to three shots.

There are 2 shot earwitnesses and 3 shot earwitnesses. Which do you think is more probable. The 2 shot witnesses didn't recognize one of the shots or the 3 shot witness imagined hearing a shot that didn't happen.
I'd love to see your source for that but I'm betting you can't produce such a source.
This has to be your biggest whopper of all. JBC was adamant every time he told the story that he was hit by the second shot. It is not my fantasy. It is his statement of fact. You are the one who seems to be out of touch with reality.
They all make more sense than you. Even Andrew Mason's goofy theory is closer to the truth than what you are trying to sell.
I can't decide if you are being deliberately dishonest or are really as ignorant of the facts as you seem to be.

Interesting that you would pick two shot witnesses to make your point about a shot that never happened.

What is obvious is that you have chosen a theory with zero witnesses that support the theory. You also have a very limited understanding of what the witnesses stated, let alone eyewitnesses vs earwitnesses. Your way of dealing with the fact this shot never happened is to pretend what the witnesses stated has no value, other than the one or two that you believe somehow support this early missed shot theory. 

Andrew's theory makes more sense than this early missed shot. It makes no sense at all. Nobody heard this shot. Nobody at all. Seriously, that is something you can believe?

And you still haven't provided a witness in support.{/

Now you are just outright lying. I just gave you five.

Have you actually spent any time researching any aspect of the assassination? My guess is when you were on the McAdams site all of this was explained to you, but your explanation then like now was to pretend the witnesses were unreliable.

I'm hardly the first person to recognize the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. Not just in the JFKA, but in criminal cases in general.
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/

It is hard to believe this is the first time it was explained to you that an Early Missed Shot has no witness support.

Keep lying. It's what you do best.

Barnett and Williams are two shot witnesses, stated immediately after the assassination, Jarman a shot after the headshot stated 2 days after the assassination, and Norman gave a no reference three shots statement four days after the assassination, then states a year later he only really heard two shots.

I don't know what the forum record is for most lies told in a single post but you have to be close to breaking it if you haven't already. Bennett and Williams accounts most definitely support 3 shots. Bennett said he was scanning the crowd to his right when he heard the first shot. He immediately turn to look at JFK and then saw the shot that struck him in the upper back. He then saw the third shot strike him in the head.

I could only find Willaims testimony in PDF format which doesn't allow copy and paste but you can go to page 175 of his testimony and in the first paragraph he describes the three shots.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_Williams.pdf

You question my knowledge about the JFK assassination and then show how little you know.

JBC was struck by the first shot, get over it.

DING! DING! DING! I think you just broke the forum record.

---------

There can be a million proponents of an early missed shot. It only means a million of you are wrong.

or the far more likely explanation that you are wrong given how many misstatements of fact you have made in just one post.

-------

It is a synopsis of JBC’s statements and compared to what is seen at Z160. I am not surprised you did not recognize it. So much for the Zapruder Film being used as hard evidence of an early missed shot.

So now you question the validity of the Z-film. Why am I not surprised. Over the past 35 years I have debated this case online, it's pretty much a given that when somebody with a goofy theory (like you) comes across a piece of hard evidence that conflicts with their theory, they will question the evidence rather than their pet theory. The Z-film shows JBC turning to his right beginning at Z164 just as he said he did in reaction to the first shot which he was adamant did not hit him. I think that is something he would know better than anybody else.

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

You seem to have missed the point. Here it is again.

Holland and Meyers understood there was no evidence of a shot. Unless you are thinking a small child running on the side walk and reacting to an imaginary shot that no adult heard is all the evidence you need.

More BS. Throw out Rosemary Willis' reaction. It is the least compelling evidence of a first shot miss. JBC's recollection is only compatible with him being hit by the SECOND shot. Agent Bennett clearly describes a first shot miss followed by two strikes on JFK. Williams, Jarman, and Norman all testified to three shots.

There are 2 shot earwitnesses and 3 shot earwitnesses. Which do you think is more probable. The 2 shot witnesses didn't recognize one of the shots or the 3 shot witness imagined hearing a shot that didn't happen.

The consensus of the “earwitnesses” was stating there were three shots but that is not what the eyewitnesses stated. The consensus of the eyewitnesses was there was only two shots.

I'd love to see your source for that but I'm betting you can't produce such a source.

The belief that JBC heard an earlier shot is your fantasy. He never stated that. He saw JFK slumped after the first shot. 

This has to be your biggest whopper of all. JBC was adamant every time he told the story that he was hit by the second shot. It is not my fantasy. It is his statement of fact. You are the one who seems to be out of touch with reality.

There  oare ther three shot narratives, maybe try one of those out and see if it makes more sense.

They all make more sense than you. Even Andrew Mason's goofy theory is closer to the truth than what you are trying to sell.

A theory without a single witness to support it is not much of a theory. Ask Andrew maybe he has a spare one he has not used in a while.

I can't decide if you are being deliberately dishonest or are really as ignorant of the facts as you seem to be.