Mr. Griffith is a hopeless cause. He simply makes things up, is caught doing so, then repeats the original claim in a different manner. He doesn't link to primary sources; he takes sources and then re-interprets what he thinks they say. It's endless. His entire conspiracy explanation is a mish mash of contradictory evidence and claims, of sources who are odds with one another, with evidence that actually counters his conspiracy theory.
You are among the hopeless causes, not I. I didn't make up anything. I quoted verbatim what Curry ordered his men to do seconds after the shots were fired.
Your answer to this is to quote Curry's WC testimony given months later, after the government had bombarded the public with the story that all the shots came from behind the limo.
Curry specifically testified that he didn't know where the reports/shots came from.
Mr. CURRY - I didn't do that, sir. That was one of my inspectors, I believe that gave that order. I was riding in the Presidential parade and approximately a hundred feet, I guess, ahead of the President's car, and when we heard this first report, I couldn't tell exactly where it was coming from.
Representative FORD - What report are you talking about now?
Mr. CURRY - A sharp report as a firecracker or as it was it was the report of this rifle.
We were just approaching an underpass, and there were some people around on each side of the underpass, up in the railroad yards, and I thought at first that perhaps this was a railroad torpedo, it was a sharp crack.
Mr. CURRY - I said what was that, was that a firecracker, or someone said this, I don't recall whether it was me or someone else, and from the report I couldn't tell whether it was coming from the railroad yard or whether it was coming from behind but I said over the radio, I said, "Get someone up in the railroad yard and check."
And then about this time, I believe it was motorcycle Officer Chaney rode up beside of me and looking back in the rear view mirror I could see some commotion in the President's car and after this there had been two more reports, but these other two reports I could tell were coming behind instead of from the railroad yards.
Mr. RANKIN - What do you mean by reports?
Mr. CURRY - Sharp reports as a rifle or a firecracker, and looking in the rear view mirror then I could see some commotion in President Kennedy's car.
Mr. RANKIN - You could distinctly hear and tell that the two later reports were from behind?
Mr. CURRY - Behind.
Mr. RANKIN - Rather than front?
Mr. CURRY - That is right.
Mr. RANKIN - You weren't sure whether the first one was from behind or in front?
Mr. CURRY - I couldn't tell because perhaps of the echo or the----
Curry's full testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/curry1.htm
Well, of course, by the time the WC rolled around, Curry was not about to admit that he had believed gunfire came from the front. Notice he never explained why he ordered a man be put on the triple underpass to "see what happened there," if he had no idea where the shots came from.
I ask again, What area do you think Curry wanted the officer to look at from the triple underpass to "see what happened there"? Huh? The freeway?! The TSBD?! The obvious answer -- and yes, it is obvious -- is that Curry believed gunfire came from the area behind the grassy knoll and that he ordered that an officer get on top of the underpass to "see what happened there."
And, gee, I guess it's just yet another remarkable coincidence that this is the same area, the rail yard behind the knoll and right next to the triple underpass, that Sheriff Decker ordered to be sealed off "to determine just what and where it happened down there," the same area to which dozens of people, including some police officers, rushed after the shots were fired. I guess Corbett would say they were all just taking a wild guess. Right, it just couldn't be that they ran toward the knoll because they heard gunfire from there. Nah, forget it!
The fact that you make a big deal over Curry's belief that three shots were fired, as if this is more of your supposed evidence against the acoustical evidence, is just more silliness. What about the 58 witnesses who said they heard gunfire from the grassy knoll? Why don't you quote them? How about the fact that a number witnesses said they only heard two shots? Why don't you quote them? How about all the witnesses who said two of the shots came in very rapid succession, with virtually no interval between them? Why don't you quote them? Oh, that's right, because if two of the shots came that quickly, your theory of the shooting collapses.
But, oh, Curry says he heard three shots, and you act like you've made some grand discovery that refutes the acoustical evidence. It's always amateur hour with you guys.
I can't help but notice that you guys aren't laying a finger on any of the scientific evidence that supports the HSCA's acoustical findings, because you have no answer for it and would never gather up enough objectivity to read the detailed explanations of that evidence in the reports submitted by the BBN and Queens College acoustical scientists. No, you'd rather cling for dear life to the NRC/NAS panel's refuted claims, many of which were based on embarrassing blunders or outright distortions, in addition to the fact that the panel did not even mention, much less address, much of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented.
Finally, I would just point out for the sake of any newcomers and silent readers that Galbraith, Todd, Corbett, etc., belong to the decided minority of the Western world who still believe that a lone nut acting completely alone shot JFK.
Recent Posts
