JFK Assassination Forum

Duplicate post

Michael Brownlow was the leading expert on the Tippit case. He solved these issues decades ago and has documented his research on many videos online confirming Oswald's guilt at 10th and Patton.

You and Brownlow are full of beans and KGB disinformation whether you realize it or not.

An excerpt from page 121 of Mortal Error.
……….Finally, Donahue found a statement made by S M Holland.  Holland was a rail traffic supervisor with the Union Terminal Co.  He had watched the motorcade come down Elm St from atop the triple overpass, and he’d received considerable attention due to his claim that he’d seen a puff of smoke on the grassy knoll at the time of the shooting.  Holland’s observations about the Secret Service agent appeared in   The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report   , a 1967 book Donahue had read some years before:

Interviewer:  After the second time he was hit, what did the Secret Service men do?
Holland:  Well, i noticed that this Secret Service man stood up in the car, in the President’s car.
Interviewer:  When did he stand up in the car?
Holland:  Just about the same time the President was shot the second time. He jumped up in the seat and was standing up in the, on the seat. Now I actually thought when they started up, I actually thought he was shot, too, because he fell backwards just like he was shot, but it jerked him down when they started off.
Interviewer:  What did he do when he stood up?
Holland:  He pointed this machine gun right towards that grassy knoll behind that picket fence.

Holland was transfixed. Holland had put the gun in the agent’s hands at the moment the last shot was fired and said the agent then fell over………..

It's a simple proposition. Either you accept the evidence as genuine, you have reasons/excuses for not accepting it as genuine, or you are arbitrarily dismissing evidence you don't want to accept as genuine.

Which of the above applies to you.

Either you accept the evidence as genuine,

Like you do, you mean?

you have reasons/excuses for not accepting it as genuine,

I don't need reasons or excuses. Evidence needs to be authenticated, conclusive and persuasive. Either it is or it isn't!

or you are arbitrarily dismissing evidence you don't want to accept as genuine.

Again, I haven't dismissed anything as not genuine. There wouldn't be any point.

Which of the above applies to you.

None. All you are showing, by asking this question, is your own "black or white", "right or wrong", "with us or against us" approach to this case.

Outright acceptance of evidence being genuine or dismissal of the same evidence is a pointless proposition which only demonstrates a predisposed bias.

You do understand that "genuine" evidence (whatever that means) still may not support an assumption or assertion that's made based on that evidence, don't you?

Bizarre is a polite way to describe Cinque's beliefs. He seems to have been chased off of every forum where he once posted. I believe he is now operating some kind of alternative health clinic out of his home in the south. And here he is writing letters to FBI Director Kash Patel 

https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2025/03/an-open-letter-to-fbi-director-kash.html

Glad to hear Cinque is still around. As far as I know, he wasn't kicked off the McAdams forum. I think he left on his own years before John passed away. Of all the crackpots I've dealt with over the years, his quirkiness made him somewhat likeable. I wouldn't say that about most of the CTs I've sparred with over the last 35 years.

I doubt Cinque's letter ever got upstairs to Kash Patel unless someone reading the letter thought Kash might get a good chuckle out of it. I know I did.