Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
Nobody agrees with you. That would be silly. They tested only the WC's second shot miss scenario. That scenario requires the first shot to be the single bullet. Since you reject the single bullet theory, that means they didn't agree with you. They came up with their own mistake.

Since they chose the wrong scenario, it's not surprising they would reach the wrong conclusion.
They were testing a shot sequence that does not conflict with the evidence. That’s all I was saying.  They were just trying to see if three shots beginning about z208 and ending at z313 could be made. The found that it was possible. And, in at least one case, none missed.

You seem to think that I somehow invented the three shot no miss scenario.  Anyone looking at the evidence can see that there is evidence that each of the three shots struck in the limo.  If that wasn’t the case the WC would not have had a section explaining why they could not determine which shot missed.
72
When I tried to show the Davidson Enhancement of the Wiegman Film that displayed Sarah Stanton's face on Prayer Man on The Education Forum the Prayer Man people sent Private Messages to Gordon accusing me of various methodology errors...Gordon then accused me of those alleged methodology violations without checking if they were valid or not...He then did the demerit points moderation trick that website uses in an effort to make a case for banning against me...When I asked Gordon in Private Messages to please show me the specific site rules I violated and what material violated them he responded that he didn't have to and any further inquiries would result in banning...It was obvious that Gordon was over his head and the reason he was doing this was because he didn't want the site to know he wasn't capable of moderating technical analyses...The Prayer Man theory was the forum's pet theory and Gordon wasn't about to let a universally ridiculed member refute it...I was ultimately banned for being too insulting, too indisciplined, and failing to follow the rules of evidence when told...That last one was quite ironic seeing how I was posting the correct evidence so it was actually them who were guilty of what they were accusing me of...Gordon had pulled that rule out of his ***...With this The Education Forum had successfully avoided the evidence that Prayer Man was Stanton...

After I was banned I asked Beckett over on the McAdams forum how she justified keeping the correct Prayer Man evidence from her members?...Beckett refused to answer...She then ran back to the Education Forum and told them I was attacking her...She knew just the right dirty tricks to keep me from The Education Forum...
73
The mundane explanation - there is ALWAYS a mundane "explanation" - is "mass hysteria" plus "undue influence" by the investigators.

As we see even on these forums, for many people ANY mundane explanation is preferred to any non-mundane explanation.

The ones I love are those that combine multiple mundane explanations - the two pilots were misled by Venus, the aircraft and ground radar malfunctioned, the three ground witnesses at two different locations saw the Goodyear blimp, and the ground traces were made by rutting moose. A bit of an exagerration, but not by much.
74
TG--

We don't know how much LBJ knew after 11.22, but by all accounts LBJ was a cunning and smart fellow, whatever his flaws.

Within a day or two, LBJ suspected Castro. 

Some may posit LBJ was fed mis-info by the CIA, but LBJ was no naif when it came to Washington machinations. 

And then within another 48 hours, LBJ wanted all leads back to Havana snuffed out.

The LNT-SBT has always been a convenient or political answer to a physical problem. 
75
Former Ed Forum moderator Kathy Beckett and a far-left, Nosenko-loving / Bagley-hating firebwand CT by the name of Michael Clark conspired to kick me out of the so-called JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum in May 2018.

"It was long ago and far away, and so much better than it is today"

My advice, wear slippers, I inadvertently stepped on the wrong folks' toes.

I was removed from the Ed Forum by John Simkin in 2013 for the offense of making Simkin's book author friend, Peter Janney, look ridiculous.
I really pissed off Janney's Budd, Doug Horne, as well. Janney's aunt was married to Rockefeller sponsored ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Pace

And Janney's father was Personnel Director of the CIA
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Wistar_Morris_Janney
Frederick Wistar Morris Janney (March 15, 1919 – January 18, 1979) was a career Central Intelligence Agency officer who was recruited by Allen Dulles in 1949. He held a number of positions during his thirty-year career and was awarded the Agency's highest honor, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal, four days after his death.[1]

Quote
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mary_s_Mosaic/OGOCDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mary%27s+mosaic+dieugenio+protege&pg=PT348&printsec=frontcover
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, ...
books.google.com › books
Peter Janney · 2016
Found inside
... DiEugenio protégé whose name, I discovered, was Tom Scully, but he would identify himself on Amazon only as “Rational Voice.” Discussing his critical post of Mary's Mosaic in an email to a University of Georgia law professor, Scully ...

Doug Horne's review of the first edition of Janney's book that had to be rewritten to attempt to make3 it less ridiculous,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R8NNVIZE9ITM/ref=cm_cr_othr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928

Doug Horne's reaction to my Amazon review of his friend, Janney's book.:

Douglas Horne's reaction to facts he was unable to refute but did not appreciate learning of, to say the least!

Quote
Douglas 13 years ago In reply to an earlier post Report abuse

If you are a truly "rational voice" you will provide your real name and tell us exactly how you came by your citations. To not do so is cowardly. To continue not to do so will make readers wonder who you really represent, and really work for. Are you a third party surrogate (or a direct employee) working for the USG whose mission here is to attempt to discredit the confession of a hit-man? The readers of your book review here will not have forgotten that William L. Mitchell (or someone identifying himself as this person) confessed to author Leo Damore---William L. Mitchell himself told Damore that he was Mary Meyer's murderer. This event is well-documented in Janney's book.

Your attempt to suggest otherwise, via your citations, conveniently ignores this vital fact. Peter Janney has not identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer "because Mitchell could not be found," as you claim; rather, he has identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer because Mitchell confessed this to Damore. All the citations in the world will not erase this fact.

Your citations seem to me like the kind of detailed biographical information that would be maintained by the same "outfit" that would have maintained Mitchell's operational file at the Agency. Who the hell else would know these things? What ordinary reader would have the ability to look up and find the citations you so conveniently found?

If the William L. Mitchell you cite did not kill Mary Meyer in 1964, then perhaps his identity was highjacked---stolen---circa 1964, by the covert operations ("wet") arm of the Agency---and used by the hitman.

Unless you provide us with your real name and the exact means by which you came up with your citations, you will only increase everyone's suspicion of your motivations here---and your methods.

Many despicable and cold-blooded people throughout history have been well-educated. So finding a person named William L. Mitchell with three college degrees does not prove he could not have been Mary Meyer's killer. That seems like the kind of flawed "logic" an intelligence agency would use on readers in an attempt to cast doubt about the disturbing conclusions of a controversial book.

If this William L. Mitchell didn't kill Mary Meyer, why isn't he raising hell about Janney's book? We certainly haven't heard a peep from him, now, have we?

Why don't you "get real" and tell us who you are, and how you found your citations? What tools did you use? Did someone lead you to them? Did someone provide them to you? Your postings have the odor to me of a disinformation/spin operation, designed to cast doubt, and to make readers forget the basic fact that a "William L. Mitchell" confessed to murdering Mary Meyer for the CIA, to author Leo Damore. Attorney Jimmy Smith's notes of his phone call with Leo Damore prove that.
76
At least the producers at CBS agreed with me that the first shot didn’t miss.

Nobody agrees with you. That would be silly. They tested only the WC's second shot miss scenario. That scenario requires the first shot to be the single bullet. Since you reject the single bullet theory, that means they didn't agree with you. They came up with their own mistake.

Since they chose the wrong scenario, it's not surprising they would reach the wrong conclusion.
77
Nonsense.
At least the producers at CBS agreed with me that the first shot didn’t miss.
78
The first shot at 175 feet would be around z208 according to the FBI survey (CE884. It also does not have the oak tree or the street curve.  But it does show how similar all three shots are in terms of rifle position and aim if the first shot was around z208 from a downward angle starting at 21.8 degrees and ending at 15.4 degrees.  The lateral angle isn’t given but it doesn’t change much. 

According to CE883, position A is in the middle of Elm St. intersecting with the extension of the west side of Houston St. just east of the TSBD. At that point the downward angle is 40.2 degrees according to CE884.  A shot at z124 would be close to that 40 degrees making a next shot at z222 a difference of close to 20 degrees. I can’t see even an inexperienced shooter choosing to fire two shots that would require such quick and significant repositioning.

Nonsense.
79


That’s an interesting video, thanks Duncan. I don’t think it addresses an early first shot though. (One that would have occurred a few seconds before any of the first shots taken by these participants.) And it also would be nice for a replica sniper’s nest (with the window boxes, etc in their proper places) to be incorporated into the demonstration.

The first shot at 175 feet would be around z208 according to the FBI survey (CE884)..

The CBS reenactment also does not have the oak tree or the street curve.  But it does show how similar all three shots are in terms of rifle position and aim if the first shot was around z208 from a downward angle starting at 21.8 degrees and the third shot at 15.4 degrees.  The lateral angle isn’t given but it doesn’t change much. 

According to CE883, position A that is referred to in CE884 is in the middle of Elm St. intersecting with the extension of the west side of Houston St. just east of the TSBD. At that point the downward angle is 40.2 degrees according to CE884.  A shot at z124 would be close to that 40 degrees making a next shot at z222 a difference of close to 20 degrees. The change in lateral angle from a shot at z124 to a shot at Z222 would be even greater. I can’t see even an inexperienced shooter choosing to fire two shots that would require such quick and significant repositioning.
80
During WWII, George DeMohrenschildt just happened to spend a week or more at the DC home of a active duty US Navy officer.

The officer, retired by 1962 as an Admiral, resided in the large DC home he had inherited from his late STEP-father,
a typewriter manufacturer executive credited with perfecting the Japanese diplomatic code breaking machine
John Hurt relied

In 1962, the Admiral was murdered near his home on the Chicago lake front. Robbery was ruled out as the motive,
his assailant was never identified.

Quote
https://www.nytimes.com/1962/10/23/archives/retired-admiral-slain-in-chicago-paul-joachim-is-shot-by-gunman-on.html
RETIRED ADMIRAL SLAIN IN CHICAGO; Paul Joachim Is Shot by Gunman on Street
Share full article
Oct. 23, 1962
CHICAGO, Oct. 22 (AP)--A 50-year-old retired rear admiral resisted an apparent holdup attempt early today and was shot to death in a street near his apartment in the Gold Coast area on the near North Side.

Paul L. Joachim was a 1934 Annapolis Academy graduate. During the Korean War, he was executive officer on the USS New Jersey. He attained the rank of Rear Admiral on the occasion of his retirement. Joachim was shot four times and killed in a presumably still unsolved murder on October 21, 1962, in front of 1350 Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Joachim was residing at 1400 Lake Shore Drive, in business as an art dealer.

Joachim's mother, Elmina Nance, married Dr. Paul L. Joachim of Washington, DC in 1910. Their other son was Phillip Nance Joachim, later an Associated Press editor. The widowed Elmina Nance Joachim later married Carl A. Joerissen, an Underwood Typewriter Co. executive and design engineer based in the Underwood, DC office. Elmina and Carl had a daughter named Kay, who married attorney and Coast Guard Reserve Lt. CDR William Helvestine in 1944. Helvestine died in a January, 1947, private airplace crash. Helvestine's brother, Albert Harrison Helvestine was the US Navy's patent attorney.

The most interesting details of Paul L. Joachim's background are that his stepfather, Carl A. Joerissen is reported by one source to have been the chief engineer of LF Safford. In 1924, these two men quickly designed and sold the first KATA-KANA typewriters to ONI (aka CSP-62, RIP-5 or Underwood Code Machine "RIP-5").

Laurance F. Safford went on to oversee the WWII US Navy Cryptographers, and he worked with Frank Rowlett to perfect the PURPLE code breaking machinery.

Another curiousity is that Carl A. Joerissen was associated with Gertrude Laughlin Joerissen, a linguist who translated Chinese and Japanese poetry. This Gertrude is not the daughter of US Ambassador to Spain, Laughlin.

The fact that the brother-in-law of Paul Joachim's sister, Kay, was the longtime, US Navy patent attorney is also intriguing. How did George De Mohrenschildt manage to insinuate himself with navy officer Paul Joachim, and Henry C. Bruton? Is it only coincidence that Paul Joachim was murdered in the same general time period that Edwin Walker was shot at, and also when Thomas J. Devine's foreign service brother-in-law went missing and washed up dead, considering that the dead man's brother, Howard Bucknell, III was a Navy submarine commander? Does any of this increase the significance of De Morhenschildt's introduction of Oswald to Henry C. Bruton?

 
Quote
AI Overview                 
Elmina Nance Joachim Joerissen (1887–1976) was a prominent Washington, D.C. socialite, former actress, and wife of the prominent diplomat Carl Augustus Joerissen. She frequently appeared in the capital's society pages in the 1930s and 1940s and later became a fixture in local amateur theater.She was also the central figure identified by historians in an iconic historic photograph and flag collage, which was famously featured on the Family Tree Magazine platform.

Quote
https://oztypewriter.blogspot.com/2021/04/taking-it-home-to-place-it-belongs-west.html
...
In 1930 Joerissen swapped his home at 1619 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington DC, for Ross’s house in Paris, on a 15-year lease deal. However, Joerissen’s wife became ill and the couple returned to Washington, where Gertrude died in the Mayflower Hotel in 1933. Joerissen, at the age of 63, remarried the next year and he and Elmina, the former Mrs Joachim (née Nance, 1888-1976), took up residence at 2100 Massachusetts Avenue. Carl adopted his second wife’s children. The Joerissens moved to 6900 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase, just across the district line in Maryland. A $10,000 robbery there in 1938 gives a clue to their wealth: the theft included a mink coat, a silver-fox coat, linen, silverware and jewelry.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10