So why doesn’t Clint Hill react to a Z150 of Z170 or a Z190 1sr shot?  John C .  argues the 1st shot missed JFK. OK so maybe since Clint  was keeping his eye on JFK and saw no movement of JFK.But  How Ciint and the other SS agents don’t hear this loud report of the rifle  fire seems improbable imo.

Or If a  Z190 shot which hits  JFK there would be some neurological response in just a 1/2 sec or less if Dans posted info is valid which would cause JFK to move earlier and thus Clint Hill seeing that earlier movement should have reacted quicker and in Altgens Z255 photo ,  One of Hills feet should be more off the running board at least.

AI-version:

Investigative journalist and assassination expert Gus Russo maintains that elements of the Cuban intelligence service (known as the G-2, or DGI) likely encouraged Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy in retaliation for continuous U.S. plots to overthrow or assassinate Fidel Castro.

Russo, along with other researchers, argues that Oswald—a fervent Castro supporter—traveled to Mexico City in September 1963 and made contact with Cuban diplomats and intelligence operatives. According to Russo's investigations (detailed in his book Live by the Sword), members of the Cuban regime were made aware of U.S. attempts to assassinate Castro, and they may have in turn accepted or encouraged Oswald’s offer to eliminate Kennedy.

Russo's research builds on declassified documents and interviews with Cuban defectors. For instance, a controversial 2006 documentary co-authored by Russo (Rendezvous with Death) further alleged that Cuban intelligence contracted Oswald to carry out the assassination.

---30---

I have watched the Rendezvous With Death documentary, and it is pretty good.

It is interesting to note that some lone-gunman theorists still cite Russo in their debates with conspiracy theorists, when in fact Russo posits a conspiracy. It's just that Russo's conspiracy has only one shooter, and the shooter is Oswald.

Russo is no longer active, at least as far as I can tell, but he did a great deal of valuable research for his book Live By the Sword.

An interesting follow-up to Russo's research is the 2015-2017 investigation done by former CIA officer Robert Baer and his team, which included former LAPD detective Adam Bercovici, former FBI profiler Steve Gomez, and former Special Forces Army Ranger Marty Skovlund. In 2017, the History Channel aired Baer's seven-part documentary titled JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald.

Here are some of the findings and discoveries made by Baer and his team:

-- Oswald received intelligence training and had some kind of connection with the U.S. Government after he left the Marines.

-- Oswald associated with anti-Castro Cubans and even trained with them in New Orleans. Oswald also associated with Cuban intelligence operatives.

-- The owner of Henry's Market, aka Henry's Bar, in New Orleans said Oswald came to the bar many times, and that the day after the assassination two Cubans came to the bar and told him Oswald was innocent and that Oswald had been framed.

-- Oswald's job at the Reilly Coffee Company in New Orleans was a "cover for action," that his job was a "front," a "cover." Oswald could have found a job much closer to his residence in New Orleans. Reilly's was across the street from the Crescent City Garage, which was used by federal agents as a kind of motor pool for their vehicles.

-- Adrian Alba, the owner of the Crescent City Garage, was telling the truth when he reported that he saw an FBI agent hand Oswald an envelope in front of the Reilly Coffee Company.

-- Silvia Odio told the truth when she reported that Oswald and two anti-Castro Cubans visited her residence in Dallas weeks before the assassination, and that one of the Cubans phoned her a few days later and told her that Oswald was an expert marksman and that Oswald had said that anti-Castro Cubans should have already killed JFK over the Bay of Bigs.

-- A Dallas police report noted that Oswald was seen visiting a house used by Alpha 66 members in Dallas. Alpha 66 was a violent anti-Castro and anti-JFK group. The house, located on Harlandale Avenue, was rented by Manuel Rodriguez Orcaberro, an Alpha 66 member who was known to be virulently anti-JFK.

-- Oswald was trying to reach the Harlandale house after the assassination. The bus transfer allegedly found on Oswald hours after he was arrested could have taken him to a point very close to the Harlandale house.

-- Oswald conspired with anti-Castro Cubans to kill JFK.

-- Oswald was the only shooter, but he was supported by Alpha 66 members and other anti-Castro Cubans. If Oswald had made it to the Harlandale house, Alpha 66 members would have helped him escape.

-- The Russians played no role in the assassination, and Oswald was not working for the Russians.

-- Castro was aware of the Alpha 66 plot to assassinate JFK but did nothing to stop it. He monitored it but did not intervene to prevent it.

Ghosts are mentioned in the forum title, so let's get with it here. No, I have never seen one.

"I don't believe in ghosts" is one of those inane statements people make all the time in an effort to seem intellectually superior. Actually, they reveal that they are uninformed dolts. Ghosts are a well-documented phenomenon that cannot be denied. "I don't believe ghosts are evidence of survival after death" would be an intellectually defensible statement, or even "I don't believe ghosts are a supernatural phenomenon."

Ghosts are often confused with apparitions. The classic ghost is a figure (usually human, but sometimes animal) that seems attached to a particular place, unaware of or uninterested in its surroundings, and repetitive in its actions. I have no real idea as to what a ghost is, but it seems to be more a "remnant" or "memory" of what was once a life than a fully-formed spectral representation of a life. My guess would be that this is what most ghosts are - i.e., some sort of electrical remnant or imprint, more like a video than a person.

There are, however, exceptions. Some that more closely fit the profile of ghosts than apparitions DO seem to have some level of awareness and DO interact, albeit in a minimal way, with their surroundings or observers. So there may be some sort of sliding scale of ghostliness.

One popular notion is that ghosts are "trapped" by past deeds or experiences and can be "freed" or "released" by psychic intervention. I doubt it, but maybe. (Ghost Hunter-type TV programs are ridiculous from top to bottom and not to be taken seriously. Dr. Payette has been a member of both the (British) Society for Psychical Research and the American Society for Psychical Research, so you can pretty much take what he says as Ghost Gospel.  )

Apparitions are a different story. They do not appear repetitively. They may be fully formed, indistinguishable from living persons. They may be observed by multiple persons, and their reflections may be seen in mirrors. Sometimes they deliver very meaningful messages and information. They are something entirely different, and the 100 or 1000 best cases (out of millions) would constitute compelling prima facie evidence of survival after death.

It is suspected that, real as apparitions may seem, they may involve some sort of telepathic link between the observer and the apparition. In some cases, the apparition is seen by one or more observers and not by others.

I've never seen an apparition either, unless you count my dog Dusty as described above. However, I did experience a couple of pretty convincing ADCs from my wife's relatives. "Why would they communicate with YOU and not with ME?" she pouted, since I wasn't particularly close to them. My best guess at an explanation was that some people are, for whatever reason, simply better "receivers" and the deceased make use of whomever they can reach.

One of the stories I heard personally was from Michelle, a longtime Mormon secretary in my office. She was upstairs in the middle of the afternoon, sitting on the bed, fully lucid and worrying about the baby she was carrying. Her late father-in-law, whom she had never met and knew only from photos, materialized at the foot of the bed, big as life, simply smiled and said "It'll be OK," and dematerialized in front of her eyes. Astonishing as this may sound, it wouldn't even make the cut of the 10,000 most impressive and well-documented cases.

Acknowledged bucket expert Dr. Payette must say that he does not see a top on the bucket - scrub or kick, as the case may be - in Trauma Room One. Dr. Payette sees a handle, but not a top. You may be correct, however, inasmuch as Agent Kinney is reported to have shrieked at a nurse, "Not a kick bucket, you witless bimbo! I want a scrub bucket and three cans of Ajax cleanser NOW!!!" The poor woman burst into tears and resigned.

Actually, NONE of the kick buckets that Dr. Payette has inspected has a top, to wit: https://www.alimed.com/collections/kick-buckets?srsltid=AfmBOormn9JKXOrdGiiCFT8sQxi9sYL20Ok-kbkqpmedFUtIdOxPBuPs. Many do have wheels, however, advertised as "especially useful in outdoor use when cleaning up assassination scenes and related uses."

I don't know when I've had this much fun on a thread! If folks wonder how I can possibly be this bored, I can relate that the plumbers are now on the FOURTH day of what was supposed to be a ONE day bathroom remodel. I'm glad my wife isn't here, because the cats are already asking if I could possibly sleep outside until the shower is available.

I see that the Supremes upheld birthright citizenship. As with so many things, no one way back when could have anticipated the problems and abuses of today. The notion of wholesale birthright citizenship strikes me as absurd. I will be curious to see if the SCOTUS decision rests on substantive grounds (i.e., birthright citizenship is sacred) or procedural ones (i.e., Trump lacked the authority). I gather from the headlines it was something less than a complete endorsement of birthright citizenship, so possibly there is room for Congress to scale it back with something short of a constitutional amendment.

It's always amusing to me when SCOTUS Justices don't vote "the way they were supposed to" according to those who appointed them, as though the SCOTUS were just another political branch. (Off-topic, but one of my absolute favorite quotes is about Justice Hugo Black, who had been a member of the KKK but became a champion of civil rights on the SC: "Justice Black used to go around in white robes scaring Black people. Now he goes around in black robes scaring White people.")