Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter  (Read 23060 times)

Offline Allan Fritzke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #64 on: March 05, 2018, 04:24:07 PM »
Advertisement
So because Mrs Connoly got some things wrong You extrapolate that to mean her husband wasn't shot? And me want me to prove he was? Fuck me.

Some things wrong?  What did she get right?  The President ended up dying!    As I said, were they not married for many years after?  Were there not any scars left that she could see entrance/exit holes.  If you don't even corroborate the factual scars with what you are projecting as truth  and a baseball sized wound midchest- there is something very very wrong with the story!   
There is no need to swear either as if you can't see the 99% lie!   There is no need to get upset when confronted with the truth!  You are making it into a personal vindication!

Furthermore, I have had a busted rib before and they are very painful - no evidence of that in his interview 5 days later.  He did have a nurse on standby at back of room while he gave his stump speech!  He even believes the shot was intended for him as well!   Again, there is a nice shot of Connally's "black back of head"  sitting back up at frame 374 in front of the green flowers on her side of car.  Between the blurred frames prior, you can see his head move up to that position. Obviously never was lying face up on Nelly's lap (her story)  and not in a lot of stress from pulverized rib, fractured wrist and "fragments" embedded in thigh and gasping for air and regaining consciousness (his story)!   Her head at this moment was behind Connally's back and below seat level -  near the President's knees at this time!



Why not tell how it really happened in the car?  Why all the lies?   Coming up with a fabricated story is usually used to conceal something not true and protect yourself and or make yourself look better.    In the case of The Connally's,  the film does not match at all their false recollections of the filmed event!   The closest to the truth would have been Connally's  first interview 5 days later.     Certainly was coached.  If his story changes from that initial recollection that he had, it was modified to match the story line for good reason and corroborating the evidence.   
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 04:45:27 PM by Allan Fritzke »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #64 on: March 05, 2018, 04:24:07 PM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #65 on: March 05, 2018, 06:16:41 PM »
Yes, the story gets better and better as time passes.  Did anyone ever photograph Connally's wounds?   On a beach or otherwise by chance?  There are only reports written.  Show me some pictures and I will retract the hypothesis.   Shots in his displayed suit don't even match. Even there,  if he was shot, the exit wound was at the back of the suit coat, not the front.  Nelly's story is just that - better and better as time passes!  She obviously made it up and didn't really know where he was hit.  Never saw a wound even if she was married to him and did live with him for her entire life!  Her story of him lying on her lap face up is a blatant lie she tells in her interview many years later on ABC.  Look at her interviews and try to make this scenario match her position as seen in the "Film"!  Also envision  Mrs. Kennedy with the brains in her hand.  A remarkable story that doesn't match in the slightest - oh other than that the President was shot and killed!
The reality is her head was over and behind her husband when the shooting took place when you actually analyze the Zapruder frames, look at her movements, the flowers and his movements.  Everyone was ducked down when the shot came in from front.   Pure fabrication on Nelly's part!   
Unless of course you want to throw out the entire Zapruder film as a Hollywood production and believe her rendition instead?   Absolute none sense what she says in her interviews.   There is a difference between 99% truth and 99% lie - I will leave you to figure out which it is.  Her words are 99% different than the story told by the Zapruder film!   A pretty good yarn - about as good as Jean Hill's as the years pass by when compared to her initial interview!   Fortunately we have the very old film footage and interviews and can match the interviews to the film.    You can't miss the game changer shot at frame 329 and the very apparent reaction to that frontal head shot by Mrs. Kennedy!   Why did Nelly not just tell the truth?  She likes the limelight or the truth hurts and needs concealment?

Hi Allan,

Welcome to the forum.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #66 on: March 06, 2018, 12:05:08 AM »
We were on this merry go round before John!

Yes we were.  As I recall, you looked at the date a clip of a Summers interview was uploaded to Youtube and deduced that the interview took place on that date.  But I would be fascinated to see your neck and birthmark analysis.

You wouldn't happen to be actually named Ralph Cinque, would you?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #66 on: March 06, 2018, 12:05:08 AM »


Offline Allan Fritzke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #67 on: March 31, 2018, 09:05:07 PM »
Is that like calling Gary Mack Larry Dunkel - didn't like his real name?

I have looked long at the 2 films again, the hour long interview done by the History Channel (2002) and then compared it to the 22 second and 8 second clips found in the 1988 Nova Film at 26:57 and 34:08.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?288318-1/kennedy-assassination-malcolm-summers   (History Channel)


(Nova Film)

As a key witness of the assassination, the closest person standing to the President when he was shot was the man rolling off into the grass next to the assassination scene.   Exhausted he seemingly laid there for sometime if you look at other videos!   Obviously winded from what he had just accomplished in his run by pass!   Was there ever an earlier interview of this man?    This man and Altgens were the two people that had the closest view to the assassination.   Obviously the man rolling into the grass would be the closest person at the scene as he was right at the front. What reason negated conducting an immediate interview or soon after as they seemingly did with Mary Moorman and Jean Hill and James Altgens?  That is very suspicious in itself when you don't find out until 1988 who this man was?   It took the release of a Zapruder film in order to begin that investigation?!   As far as Malcom Summers goes,  he was not required for scene introduction until someone questioned who this man in the actual picture was!  What about umbrella man - similar circumstances?

Upon looking at the footage of the History Channel and The Nova Film,  I would have to say he is one and the same person.   There was considerable aging -  aging spots on his temple visible in the History Channel interview 14 years after the Nova clip.     The biggest similarity in the two interviews was the mailbag carrier's physical deformity from carrying a mailbag all his life on his shoulder.   He worked in the "mailing room department" he said and that fits!   He sounded like he had his own business - maybe a subcarrier for the Main Annex Terminal!   It looks to me like he had the heavy mail bag slung over his shoulder for an extended period of time which caused the deformity in his posture!  (That is my opinion and speculation.)

However, what I have labeled as the  "Assassin in the picture" was the guy  "someone" began to label in 1988 as Malcom Summers.   Again, was this man coached and provides a needed role to fill as was Altgens, Gene Hill and Mary Moorman?   His 1988 account when compared to his 2002 History Channel account do not match well and appears to be corroborated from some external influences on his spoken statement.   What truths can we discover?   He was interviewed by Gary Mack (Larry Dunkel)?  Or was it Mr. West as Malcom Summer calls him at 37:10? in the history channel interview?

Malcom Summers did not willfully verify his position as he outset in 1988, 14 years earlier.   He carefully avoided or reworded so that it was like a little "white lie".    At 7:50, he answered and hesitated when he mentioned that he crossed the "2 islands and ended up on the grassy knoll side of Elm Street" 5 minutes before the assassination.  Take note the hesitation in his speech pattern as he added the "Elm Street" after a moment's hesitation when making his statement.     Next in that interview, he noted that a policeman dumped his bike, right where he was laying and he said the policeman looked aboveo him as if the assassin was standing behind him on the grassy knoll.   We have never heard of or saw a bike laid down on the island side which was quickly dumped and then picked up and sped after the President's limousine as Malcom Summer's noted in the interview.   Nor was there ever a hint that any policeman  thought that the shot came from the island (the driver's side of roadway).   It was always maintained to be the grassy knoll if it wasn't the TSBD building. 
Also, there is no elevation at that position so that he could continue to look into the car as he states.   None of his testimony adds up between his 22 and 8 from the 1988 Nova FIlm and his second recount statements in the 2002 History Channel interview conducted over an hour long in comparison!  This is kind of like when Jean Hill said in her initial interview "that the President was on our side of the street" and then later recanted that they were on the driver's side on one of the islands.   Coaching is the word of the day!

At 56:20 of the 2002 History Channel, Malcom Summers does not really acknowledge what the interviewer was trying to "pigeonhole"  him in to saying or acknowledging his position statement initially once more.   Again, why did the interviewer deem this important to get his placement just perfect as if he didn't like the answer given the first time at 7:50!  He asked Malcom if he crossed the street "again" implying that his original position was on the middle island.  Summers answered  yes but then said he crossed the streets and went back to his Post Office which was located further down the street at the corner of Houston and Commerce streets.  Never really acknowledged or recounted his intial pathway!   In his interview, I sense a certain change and or denial taking place when you compared what he said in 1988 in those 30 seconds with that stated in 2002.    Besides,  changing his story, he seems to paint a much clearer picture in 2002.   Although how could you compare a lot from  22 second and 8 second blurbs in the Nova Documentary with an hour long interview.  Obviously they only used what they wanted for the show and maybe clipped and dubbed in as required.   In 1988 he said the shooter was "likely" on the 6th floor although he saw nothing and that he saw a man with a machine gun pistol under his jacket.  When you heard the second 1 hour account in 2002,  he said 3 shots came in not from same position, the last 2 being very close together.  So that should cause more confusion?

On that basis, he becomes more like the umbrella man brought forward as well in the 1988 Nova Film to firm up the storyline.   That man staked a claim to be the umbrella man in the Zapruder Film and they made fun of the umbrella as being a gun in disguise in front of the hearing - "careful where you point that thing!".      That man too is a self-appointed witness introduced many years after the fact!  You could even compare him again to the Jean Hill and Mary Moorman - heavily coached by someone and found to "plug the dike hole" by putting your finger in it.  The stories never introduced until many years after 1963 - time has a habit of allowing things to get swept under the carpet without question.   

I would like to see a Lightbox rendition of Frame Z356 as this shows the best facial shot of "my assassination man" in question.  That man appeared to be "built"!   Frames such as Lightbox Z347 have his head totally scratched out and faded into the grass.   Was there a deliberate action on the part of someone to hide the identity of this man?   Even "Altgens" head shows up clearly in Z347.    To me, blending his head into the grass raises serious ethical questions and clearly makes him unidentifiable and a very serious suspect as a result of a deliberate attempt to hide his identity.  Who would want to do such a thing.  Mere coincidence I suppose just as Camerman Altgens failed to produce an image as he waited to click the shutter for that close up - never flinched either and oblivious to the man rolling beside him!   Again, how many copies of the Zapruder Film are there? Five?   Is there not any others that survived in the archives somewhere?   Somethings like this are really too valuable to destroy or go missing unless it is an intentional act and on purpose.  Compare 2 or 3 copies of the 5!  Can't seem to find them buried under all that bureaucracy!  What a sham!

To me, it is still clear that the headshot was at Z329 as after the blur, the editor's pretty well cut the head right out of the frames.   It is at about Z335 that Jacqueline reacts in a very real reaction to the shot at Z329, not something supposed to occur 1 second earlier.   She decides to bail as she could be next!    Remember, JFK's head magically reappeared for a number of frames after Z312 -  the supposed "death blow" shot.   They left his ear in position for much of the remainder frames at they cut and pasted obscurement.   The editors also pasted in a facsimile for Connally's head over those frames to make sure the obvious frontal head shot would have had to come through the windshield and pass through his body - an obvious impossible shot!  It is also very obvious on lightbox frames as photo alterations are very difficult to hide.

Looks like serious frame editing done (square cuts) when looking at the lightbox frames when you zoom in on them and blow them up!  Nice dark/light lines visible and obvious brilliant sunlight used to its max as required for touchup.  Obvious blacking in over Nellie's dress on Lightbox Frame Z335 to make it look like Connally was still there!  He was under the yellow flowers (maybe stetson?) in reality.  You can't help but notice the "brush strokes" around the black blob as if it was only blur!   Well, it wasn't, look at the semi-circular pattern all the way up the back side.   Note I am talking about the "black" feathering, not the "fur/blur" you see when compared to Altgen's suit external to this pattern!

https://1b65352e-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z335.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cphxMOHCLZampRksZBVMhQmqd6yUkMhOU1Y2hdVK18P7wfiSZwDw-mkCv6b8CioBdKWNG9dw0iXe-ghLSKRV-0XpM9enQaGDRdI0QVHCS_LKd3vuovPm_-G3AIIt9GkXyzq-Z1ueW5hrh0Tio5KdPhDwcYqvpSsFYp_mq4--naSPTLuVULVCLvB_x_bod5XM3B-IH72L9oUcPc0EpHq-P6ztKNve3yLSstNlTe-OWl4zhSCfIY%3D&attredirects=0
« Last Edit: March 31, 2018, 09:11:32 PM by Allan Fritzke »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #68 on: April 01, 2018, 01:01:43 AM »
Yes, the story gets better and better as time passes.  Did anyone ever photograph Connally's wounds?   On a beach or otherwise by chance?  There are only reports written.  Show me some pictures and I will retract the hypothesis.   Shots in his displayed suit don't even match. Even there,  if he was shot, the exit wound was at the back of the suit coat, not the front.  Nelly's story is just that - better and better as time passes!  She obviously made it up and didn't really know where he was hit.  Never saw a wound even if she was married to him and did live with him for her entire life!  Her story of him lying on her lap face up is a blatant lie she tells in her interview many years later on ABC.  Look at her interviews and try to make this scenario match her position as seen in the "Film"!  Also envision  Mrs. Kennedy with the brains in her hand.  A remarkable story that doesn't match in the slightest - oh other than that the President was shot and killed!
The reality is her head was over and behind her husband when the shooting took place when you actually analyze the Zapruder frames, look at her movements, the flowers and his movements.  Everyone was ducked down when the shot came in from front.   Pure fabrication on Nelly's part!   
Unless of course you want to throw out the entire Zapruder film as a Hollywood production and believe her rendition instead?   Absolute none sense what she says in her interviews.   There is a difference between 99% truth and 99% lie - I will leave you to figure out which it is.  Her words are 99% different than the story told by the Zapruder film!   A pretty good yarn - about as good as Jean Hill's as the years pass by when compared to her initial interview!   Fortunately we have the very old film footage and interviews and can match the interviews to the film.    You can't miss the game changer shot at frame 329 and the very apparent reaction to that frontal head shot by Mrs. Kennedy!   Why did Nelly not just tell the truth?  She likes the limelight or the truth hurts and needs concealment?

LOL

Apparently everyone else in the limo, and those caught on film or in photographs along the motorcade  and in fact anywhere anyone was caught in the bright, noon Dallas sunlight had the area of their person not catching direct sunlight 'painted in'.

Or maybe these 'black holes' were simply lost in shadow.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 05:20:43 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #68 on: April 01, 2018, 01:01:43 AM »


Offline Paul May

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #69 on: April 02, 2018, 04:03:55 AM »
What evidence "implicates" LHO?

Every single piece of ALL the evidence implicates Oswald.  No different than in 1963. You obviously do not know the totality of the evidence.  Is that a fair assessment?  The evidence has not changed in 58 years and NOBODY, in any context and prove what doesn?t exist. The issue after this amount of time is not whether Oswald did the deed. The issue is can conspiracy be ruled out?  The answer is no it cannot be. Somebody may have been pulling Oswald?s strings. The point is, we will never know that.  Ever.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2018, 12:58:07 AM »
Every single piece of ALL the evidence implicates Oswald.

Bull.  If it did, you would be able to show that, not just claim it.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2018, 12:58:07 AM »


Offline Paul May

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
Re: Feel Free to Name Your Shooter
« Reply #71 on: April 03, 2018, 01:26:25 AM »
It?s been shown and discussed endless times on endless blog forums. Why not simply answer this threads question.  You cannot name a shooter because there is NO evidence pointing to a shooter other than LHO. For one to dispute that 55 years after the crime is insanity. I have said numerous times, one cannot rule with 100% certainty there was not a conspiracy. 99% is good nough for me.