Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
I don't think this is at all confusing. She probably did eat her lunch somewhere on the GK and then moved up to the curb when she saw the motorcade was approaching. I don't know that for a fact but it seems a reasonable explanation.
I didn't want to be unkind, but my sense is what Jarrett is suggesting: Mary was a dingbat.

Your explanation just doesn't work. For one thing, she said in her article the Newmans were ten feet away from her when they dove to cover their child. Uh, no. She had multiple opportunities to clarify that they had eaten lunch on the grassy knoll earlier and then walked down to Elm, but she didn't. In her 2015 interview, she said that while they were standing on Elm she looked at the grassy knoll and commented to her companions about the lax security. She said nothing about having been there herself. Mary was a dingbat.
52
The 25 witnesses who said that JFK did not continue to wave after the [loud] first shot [sound] and reacted visibly [to it] were completely wrong and all imagined the same thing that did not happen.

Was JFK waving in Z-133, when Zapruder resumed filming after a 17-second pause?

Yes.

Was he waving to Mary Woodward and her three journalism colleagues at that point?

No. They were further down the street.

Was he still waving in Z-138?

Yes,

Was he still waving in Z-139?

No. His hand was still raised, but he was looking straight ahead.

Was he quickly turning his head to his left in Z-144?

Yes.

When does he start looking to his right again?

Z-158.

When does he start waving again?

By Z-173.

Can we see Woodward and her three colleagues in Z-173?

We can see most of Woodward's colleague, Maggie Brown. Woodward and her colleagues Aurelia Alonzo and Ann Donaldson are standing to Brown's left, just out of the frame.

Was JFK waving continuously from Z-173 to Z-204?

Yes.

Who was he waving to from Z-173 to Z-204?

He was waving to his acquaintance, Mary Woodward, and her three journalism colleagues.

When was JFK hit by the first bullet that hit him?

By Z-224, about five seconds after the backfire / firecracker-like missing-everything first-of-three shots (see above).

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
53
Dr. Gary Aguilar gives his view of two shots striking JFK on 11.22, including one shot from the GK.

Aguilar is obviously intelligent, literate and informed on topic.

Interesting presentation, whether one agrees or not.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.


The issue I have is the first shot at Z313 they have from the knoll, but we know for a fact his head is pushed forward first before going backwards. They are using the acoustics evidence which is wrong.
54
We know where she was standing  That is made completely clear in the 2015 interview. The issue is why she wrote on the day of the JFKA that she was sitting and eating lunch on the thinly populated grassy knoll. And not only made that absurd error but compounded it by describing the shots as coming from behind and to her right. Her hearing problem tap dance doesn't explain how she got her location and circumstances so completely wrong. And this was a reporter for a major newspaper, no less.

She was a very flighty lady from what I had seen of her in interviews. I don't understand the deal with her on TMWKK, it was nothing she hadn't said before.
55
Not quite. I KNOW what happened. The only thing I want to think happened is what actually happened. If there were 12 gunmen shooting at JFK, that is what I would want to know happened. My only agenda is knowing the truth. And I do.

What puzzles me about the JFKA is why so many people have such a hard time figuring it out. It's really not that hard.
The formula appears to be this:

1. No one can agree on what the Z film actually shows.
2. Eyewitness and earwitness evidence is unreliable.
3. Ergo, whatever I want to think happened is what happened and you can't prove it didn't.

Isn't that about it?
The hard part is figuring out why all the witness evidence which establishes that:
1. Oswald brought his rifle to the TSBD,
2. Oswald had been on the sixth floor less than 30 minutes before the shots,
3. there were exactly three shots
4. the last shot struck JFK in the head
5. JBC was struck in the back on the second shot
6. before the last shot JFK was seen reacting to being hit
7. Oswald was seen in the 2nd floor lunch room within about 90 seconds after the shots
8. Oswald left the TSBD minutes later and got on a bus and was recognized by Mary Bledsoe seen wearing a brown shirt with a hole in the elbow
9. Oswald got off the bus, walked a bit and then took a taxi to his room on N. Bentley where his picked up his revolver.
10.Oswald left a few minutes later on foot.
11.Oswald was stopped by officer Tippit at 10th and Patton, shot the officer with the revolver, unloaded several shells and ran down a lane way.
12.Oswald entered the Texas Theatre without paying and was reported to police as a suspicious person.  13. Police arrested Oswald inside, he struggled with the arresting officer, said “Well, its all over now” and pulled his revolver out of his waistband.

is all perfectly accurate and reliable. But: the 25 witnesses who said that JFK did not continue to wave after the first shot noise and reacted visibly were completely wrong and all imagined the same thing that did not happen.
56
LP--

I largely concur with your sentiments. In fact, many associated with the EF-JFKA have died off, and the remaining often reminisce about the 1960s, which is still the defining decade in all history, in their view.

Like Larry Hancock, I conclude the WC and FBI generally followed President LBJ's instructions that nothing be found out about the JFKA that could trigger a nuke war. That is to say, no leads back to Havana or Moscow.

That may seem farfetched today, but in 1962 the US very nearly went to a nuke war with Russia over Cuba. LBJ, like everybody else, lived with the daily specter of A-bombs from the sky in October 1962 (as did myself).

Due to my read of the Z-film, I contend that the cadence of shots cannot be explained by a lone gunsel armed with a single-shot-per-bolt-action rifle.

I suspect LHO was the TSBD shooter, but there had to be another shooter too.

The conspiracy could be that, only two people.

LHO was dead with 48 hours, and his confederate---who knows?

If LHO's confederate was waxed by G2-DGI, dead men tell no tales. And the people waxing the second gunsel did not know why they perped the deed, or they were misinformed.

Indeed, G2-DGI'ers may have suspected one of their assets went rogue and worked with LHO, and so they then waxed that asset, based on a reasonable suspicion. 

One sad aspect of this: Moscow and IRGC $ has warped JFKA narratives, as understood by many.

If you have credible evidence that Oswald had one or more confederates, please provide that. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
57

Except for the evidence that the same few people were
 behind monitoring DeMohrenschildt before shots were fired in
Dallas, smearing JFK’s legacy after he died, shaking down
Billy Joe Lord. Compare all of that to a sole coincidence, the son
of one of the folks I am describing scheduled to dine
with the brother of the man who earlier on that same day
intended to fire shots resulting in that son experiencing the
elevation of his VPOTUS father to POTUS.

One of the group I am referring to just happened to be a
CIA officer who was the college housemate of Priscilla’s CIA
minder, and a lifelong, hometown friend of a man
who also met with DeMohrenschildt separately on the same April day
in 1963 and who chose as his best man ....
(a former CIA officer who also was the best man in Bush sister Nancy's 1946 wedding)



...a hometown fellow who was prep school housemate of both Demohrenschildt’s
nephew and of Bush.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3098.0

This latter fellow positioned E Howard Hunt
to attempt to use altered diplomatic cables to make it
appear JFK had ordered the assassination of South Vietnam’s
leader.

The discovery of the image below prompted my question to Joan Mellen,:

A class of 20 boys who had been together for the prior 8 years was reduced to half as these
ten departed Rochester, NY to attend (Peter Dryer) Choate Academy or (Hawley Ward) St. Paul's..
.


So, Hawley Ward was an usher in book editor MS Wyeth's wedding, the two having
been classmates at St. Paul's after transferring out of the school where Ward had
been Tom Devine's and Peter Dryer'a class of 20 classmates for eight years.







https://d6rq5l99ggc22d.archive.is/esTuB/1d3f3f7ff94f5a7c77899dfc489a073d9b017bcc.jpg





Priscilla’s HSCA testimony implicated Dulles family cousins
and her book editor, who was associated both with DeMohrenschildt and the
folks I described above, wth the 15 year sequestering of Marina Oswald!
Silenced, 1964 - 1978:
Knowlton was also Priscilla's book agent.:

Priscilla's book editor, MS Wyeth, happened to be the son of the architect who designed DeMohrenschildt's father in law's, Philip Sharples' home on
dead end, Woodbridge  in Palm Beach in 1951. The Wyeths lived two lots away, at 152 Woodbridge, from the Sharples. The elder Wyeth also designed, in 1925,
the lifelong residence of Joseph Dryer at 80 Middle Rd. and resided at 62 Middle Rd. until he moved to dead end, Woodbridge. Wyeth Sr, also designed Mar-A-Lago.

Keep digging that rabbit hole deeper. Absolutely nothing in there than indicates anyone was an accomplice to the assassin. Anyone who rejects that Oswald was the assassin has no hope of ever figuring out the truth of the assassination, and the only way to make the case for conspiracy is to provide evidence that somebody, anybody, conspired with Oswald to kill JFK. We're coming up on the 63rd anniversary of the assassination and no one has been able to make that connection. Is there any reason to believe anyone ever will.

CTs keep treating the JFKA as if it is giant game of Clue and they think if they keep reshuffling the cards, they can produce a different outcome. The only correct answer is that Oswald, did it from the TSBD, with a Carcano rifle.
58
Now is a good time to discuss the HSCA testimony of Richard Lipsey. Lipsey was an aide to Major General Philip Wehle, the commanding general of the military district of Washington, D.C. Lipsey was ordered by Wehle to monitor JFK's body during the autopsy. Lipsey arrived at the autopsy just before the body was taken out of the casket, and he remained in the autopsy room long after Sibert and O'Neill left. Lipsey noted that he was about 12-15 feet from the autopsy table.

Lipsey confirmed that the autopsy doctors found that the back wound had no exit point. He said the doctors were "bound and determined to find that bullet because it didn't have an exit mark" (HSCA interview: Richard Lipsey, 1/18/78, p. 5). He said they spent some two hours trying to find the back-wound bullet (p. 7). He described how the doctors opened the chest cavity and removed all the chest organs (pp. 8, 13-14). Said Lipsey,

. . . then they cut his chest open, you know, and they got all of his insides out, that was the only gory part, they took them out a piece at a time and laid them up on, I remember, a beautiful clean stainless steel rack. . . .

I remember they were bound and determined to find that bullet because it didn't have an exit mark. . . .

But the one that I remember they spent so much time on, obviously, was the one they found did not come out. There was a bullet -- that's my vivid recollection cause that's all they talked about. For about two hours all they talked about was finding that bullet.

They turned the body up at one point to determine where that bullet that entered back here that didn't have an exit mark. Where was that bullet? And so when it got to down to where they thought it hit his chest cavity, they opened him up and started looking in here. That's why I remember one thing, they took, after they had taken all his organs out, during the autopsy they had them sitting up there: "Now let's see if we can find the bullet". . . .(pp. 5, 7, 8, 14)


In a fascinating twist, Lipsey said the doctors concluded that the bullet that hit low in the back of the head had exited the throat (pp. 7, 20). This is a revealing datum because we know from the 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript that one of the first drafts of the autopsy report said a fragment from the head shot exited the throat, that the throat wound was the exit point for a head-shot fragment. This is also further proof that the pathologists knew about the throat wound during the autopsy.

This datum is also important because it is further evidence that the rear head entry wound was near the EOP/hairline, as the autopsy doctors reported, and not 4 inches higher above the lambda in the parietal bone. Lipsey said the wound was in the "upper neck/lower part of your head" and "in the hairline" (pp. 22). Lipsey several times spoke of the area just above the hairline as being part of the "upper neck," but he clarified this to mean "lower part of your head."

BTW, Lipsey said there was visible damage to JFK's face but that the face looked "great" after the morticians did their reconstruction work. He said the visible facial damage included considerable loss of structure, and that the damaged area included the right eye, the right forehead, and an area slightly beyond the hairline (pp. 6-7).

Now this is mighty interesting because this is the damage you'd expect to see in the "stare of death" autopsy photo, given the frontal-bone damage shown in the skull x-rays. No wonder Smithsonian Institution forensic anthropologist Dr. Doug Ubelaker told the ARRB that "the apparent absence of bone in much of the anterior portion of these x-rays seems inconsistent with the intact appearance of the right forehead in the photos" (ARRB meeting report: Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, 1/26/96, p. 2).

Lipsey's testimony is also crucial because he heard the autopsy doctors talking about a wound scenario after Sibert and O'Neill left the autopsy room that was different from the one the doctors had conveyed shortly before Sibert and O'Neill had departed. Lipsey said the autopsy doctors concluded that three bullets hit JFK: one on the right side of the head, one just above the hairline, and one in the lower part of the neck. Dr. David Mantik:

Horne’s clue to this changing story came from a 1978 HSCA interview with Richard Lipsey, the former military aide to the commanding general of the military district of Washington, General Philip C. Wehle. Horne emphasized that in 1978, Lipsey “was very certain of his recollections—his oral account is noteworthy for the conviction with which he recounted his memories.” He continued: “Mr. Lipsey relayed an account that is different from both the Sibert-O’Neill report, and from the autopsy now present in the Archives, CE 387.” He then stressed the following:

"It is a virtual certainty that the autopsy conclusions he [Richard Lipsey] was privy to were identical with the contents of the first draft of the autopsy which was reviewed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and [Robert O.] Canada [the commanding officer of the naval medical hospital at Bethesda] on Saturday, November 23rd, and which was destroyed less than twenty four hours later in the fireplace of James J. Humes."

According to Lipsey, sometime after midnight -- and after the two FBI agents had disappeared -- the pathologists declared that JFK had been hit by three shots from behind. That first autopsy draft had concluded that the sole headshot had “entered the back of the head and blew out part of the right side of the skull, creating one large defect that represented both the bullet’s entrance and exit.” It also concluded that a “second bullet entered very high up on the back of the neck, just inside the hairline [i.e., on the back of the head between the hairline and the EOP], and exited from the throat” -- and a “third bullet entered at the bottom of the neck, or high in the back, and did not exit.”

Horne asked a critical question: “Why didn’t the autopsy conclusions, reported by Richard Lipsey, and committed to writing in the first draft of the autopsy report, become the official conclusions?” He elucidated:

"The answer to this question, I believe, is a simple one. By the time Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Canada met and reviewed the draft autopsy report on Saturday, November 23rd, the entire nation, and indeed the world, had become aware that one shot had missed, and had wounded bystander James Tague in the cheek, after striking a curb on Main Street in Dealey Plaza. This account was in the Dallas newspapers Saturday morning, and 'hit the wire' the same day, thus becoming available to newspapers (and radio stations) all across the country. This meant that the autopsy conclusions witnessed by Richard Lipsey could not stand, for the central conclusion reached by the pathologists after midnight was that the President had been hit by three shots.

"It was for this reason that the autopsy conclusions witnessed by Richard Lipsey, and likely memorialized in the first written draft of the autopsy protocol, did not last for even 24 hours. Because any report that postulated that President Kennedy had been hit by three bullets was now contradicted by ‘the facts on the ground.’ James J. Humes destroyed the first draft of the autopsy protocol, along with any notes indicating three shots hit the President, in his fireplace before dawn on Sunday November 24th, 1963. In response to the missed shot that hit James Tague, the autopsy conclusions now evolved back into a two-hit scenario, but one which now accounted for the bullet wound in the anterior neck." [Quoting Doug Horne, Inside the ARRB, Vol. 3, pp. 856-857, 863]

According to Lipsey, sometime after midnight -- and after the two FBI agents had disappeared -- the pathologists declared that JFK had been hit by three shots from behind. That first autopsy draft had concluded that the sole headshot had “entered the back of the head and blew out part of the right side of the skull, creating one large defect that represented both the bullet’s entrance and exit.” It also concluded that a “second bullet entered very high up on the back of the neck, just inside the hairline, and exited from the throat”—and a “third bullet entered at the bottom of the neck, or high in the back, and did not exit.” (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 59-61)


MTG remains stuck in neutral. He can't get past the early erroneous observation of "no exit" which the autopsy team abandoned once they opened up the chest as saw that there was a clear trail of tissue damage leading from the back entrance wound to the tracheostomy incision in the throat. When they observed the damaged trachea which was just short of the incision, they only logical conclusion at that point was the bullet had exited there. Of course they would need to confirm that with Dr. Perry which apparently they did. MTG insists they have to stick with the early observation of "no exit" and ignore that trail of tissue damage which led to a much different conclusion than the idea they floated earlier.

As is his custom, MTG turns to the least qualified person in the room to bolster his desired beliefs and ignore what the prosectors discovered during the remaining hours of the autopsy and in their communications with Perry. What an asinine way to analyze the autopsy results but that is what we have come to expect from MTG.
59
We know where she was standing  That is made completely clear in the 2015 interview. The issue is why she wrote on the day of the JFKA that she was sitting and eating lunch on the thinly populated grassy knoll. And not only made that absurd error but compounded it by describing the shots as coming from behind and to her right. Her hearing problem tap dance doesn't explain how she got her location and circumstances so completely wrong. And this was a reporter for a major newspaper, no less.

I don't think this is at all confusing. She probably did eat her lunch somewhere on the GK and then moved up to the curb when she saw the motorcade was approaching. I don't know that for a fact but it seems a reasonable explanation.
60
Patients Grasshopper.  And stop being so fcukin' hateful.

Bill,

He probably is a patient, but I think you meant to say "patience."

-- Tom
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10