Do we know anymore at 60 years?

[Royell Storing]

    You guys need to get over to YOU TUBE and review Everything posted there. With regard to the Z Film, I am seeing copies posted there that are superior to "Images Of An Assassination" DVD along with the upgraded Z Images provided in "The Lost Bullet". Connally can be seen clearly holding that Stetson of his UPRIGHT. I bring this up due to the necessary position of his Wrist/Hand to Hold/Grip the Stetson in that position. Combing through NBC/ABC/CBS news presentations or small Mom/Pop affiliates doing stories using JFK Assassination Film Footage provided by the Big 3 can produce a treasure trove. I just found a highly detailed copy of the train yard segment of the Darnell Film. So detailed that you can see what is on the ground up alongside the train cars. Spending time over at YOU TUBE is worth the effort. And while there, always check what is up with, "The JFK Theorist".  "Theory" in conjunction with his Groden connection is posting 2-3 pieces weekly that never disappoint.   

[Bill Brown]

i understand where you are coming from here Charles and what you say is not unreasonable at all , that is in the sense that you offered it IE  in a court room setting .

however i was talking about in a forum setting such as this forum or other places where people discuss the assassination online . in that sense we are dealing with specific mentalities .

for example lets take Mr brown who posts on this site . im talking about Bill now as ive seen another Mr brown also . i wouldnt want to cause any confusion .

he has long stated for example that in essence he only accepts statements from witnesses made very close to the events in question . i mean statements made in the hours or just a few days after the event .i once saw him in a discussion , and his logic above came up . in that instance he was discussing Earlene roberts . as we know in the days after the event she would say that she heard a police car outside and the driver tooted the horn . this was some thing that i do not believe she had any reason at all at the time to associate with Mr oswald  , but 5 or 6 days later she mentioned it . Bill took exception to that , i cant recall the exact wording of the post now but in essence he said that as she only said what she said near to a week after the tragic events in dallas that he didnt believe her . remember now this is just days after the event . later Bill would pop up and say Domingo Benavides positively identified Oswald as the killer . i knew that benavides certainly never IDed oswald on the day , at the time or even months later when testifying . so i enquired just for pig iron (just for fun ) exactly when Benavides made the statement now being attributed to him , well he made the statement several years AFTER THE EVENT . can you see what i am saying here ? , very simply an LN on one hand says that a statement made just days after the assassination is not acceptable but a statement made years after the assassination was because the person said what Bill liked . remember LN cite Earlene as a reliable witness who saw oswald come home , change and leave wearing a jacket , but now she is unreliable when she says something an LN doesnt like .

now this is in no way an attack on Bill at all , im just using this as a method to highlight LN logic .

another case is Wes frazier . obviously LN cite him to say Oswald had a long sack . but again when he talks about the sack being some 12 inches shorter than the 36 inch or more long sack in evidence LN suddenly question his reliability and even his IQ  level  . again it was Bill (not verbatim now ) if i recall correctly who in reference to Frazier said in essence that Frazier probably did not realize that 24 inches equals two feet . so another example of where a witness is credible and reliable when it suits LN , but then decidedly unreliable and lacking credibility when what they say does not suit LN .

how often do LN cite the word of Marina ? yet we know the many problems with her statements , not just that we have the redlich memo that tells is that she has been untruthful , and extremely contradictory in her statements . but LN still hang on her every word , that us until she starts saying oswald did not do it .

i could go on with examples . now as i said i am not attacking anyone here , not at all , i only mention Bill because i knew from here and on bob harris old forum . i am just giving examples of the LN  logic .

later Bill would pop up and say Domingo Benavides positively identified Oswald as the killer . i knew that benavides certainly never IDed oswald on the day , at the time or even months later when testifying . so i enquired just for pig iron (just for fun ) exactly when Benavides made the statement now being attributed to him , well he made the statement several years AFTER THE EVENT . can you see what i am saying here ?

You're not being fair.  For the record, I do not rely on Domingo Benavides when listing eyewitnesses who said the killer was Oswald.  In fact, this forum is littered with my posts naming the eyewitnesses who said the killer was Oswald and I never include Benavides.

However, for what it's worth, Benavides did indeed use the name Oswald in 1964 during his testimony to the Warren Commission:

"...and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car."

I don't include Benavides though since he did not attend a lineup and/or positively identify Oswald as the cop-killer to the FBI a month or two later like other witnesses did.  For the same reason, I don't include Jack Tatum either even though he says that the man he saw was undoubtedly Oswald but not until the mid 70's to HSCA investigators.

[Fergus O'brien]

You're not being fair.  For the record, I do not rely on Domingo Benavides when listing eyewitnesses who said the killer was Oswald.  In fact, this forum is littered with my posts naming the eyewitnesses who said the killer was Oswald and I never include Benavides.

However, for what it's worth, Benavides did indeed use the name Oswald in 1964 during his testimony to the Warren Commission:

"...and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car."

I don't include Benavides though since he did not attend a lineup and/or positively identify Oswald as the cop-killer to the FBI a month or two later like other witnesses did.  For the same reason, I don't include Jack Tatum either even though he says that the man he saw was undoubtedly Oswald but not until the mid 70's to HSCA investigators.

hi again Bill , yes i have read a great many of your posts both here and as i said on Bobs old forum . and i know you are very careful in what you say and in what you quote . and you did pretty much now what you did on Bobs old forum . and in so doing i have to say that it is you who is not being fair . here is what you just plucked from Domingos testimony just above .

"...and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car."

and here is what you said just before the above quote .

"However, for what it's worth, Benavides did indeed use the name Oswald in 1964 during his testimony to the Warren Commission:" Bill brown

as i said you have done here pretty much as you did on Bobs forum . you plucked a line of testimony and said in essence WELL DOMINGO USED OSWALDS NAME IN TESTIMONY , as tho that represents an IDENTIFICATION of Oswald by domingo . and you know all to well that the opposite is true . my point is that you know exactly what domingo said , now i can post the relevant section of his testimony if you desire it , but we both know that the commission noted he used the name Oswald and asked him why . and that he replied in essence that he only did so because Oswalds  name was all over the media . well look just for any readers here who are not aware of benavides testimony that i speak of now here it is . just for clarity . lets start with the full sentence that you quoted in part followed by the relevant segment of testimony .

Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.

Mr. BELIN - Then what happened? Did the officers ever get in touch with you?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there was two officers came by and asked for me, Mr. Callaway asked me---I had told them that I had seen the officer, and the reporters were there and I was trying to hide from the reporters because they will just bother you all the time.
Then I found out that they thought this was the guy that killed the President. At the time I didn't know the President was dead or he had been shot.
I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and these two officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told him yes, and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. It this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have.
Mr. BELIN - Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you could identify him?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; they didn't.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or both, or neither?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like.
Mr. BELIN - Pardon.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I showed--I believe they showed pictures of him every day for a long time there.

so we can see that domingo never went to a line up , and did not ID mr Oswald as the man he saw either at the time of shooting or even months later in testimony . and we can see that he told the commission that he was only figuring it was Oswald and only used the name Oswald because he had seen his face in the media on tv and in newspapers since the assassination .

[Fergus O'brien]

hi Royell , by the way merry christmas to you and yours .

youtube really does have a wealth of very useful jfk assassination related content . there are several versions of the Zapruder film . i mean that you can see close up etc . the more we can see , the better we can see it the better our understanding gets . so youtube can be an invaluable tool for anyone researching or those just starting out looking at this case .of course people will get both CT and LN sides of the story .

the up close and or clearer versions of the Zapruder film do let us see things a bit more clearer . for example over the years ive had many people say the words JFK grabbed / clutched his throat , the media uses this wording also . i guess the mentality is if a bullet exited his throat as in via the SBT that that would cause him to grab his throat . but he never did that . both arms / hands did raise up to about chin height , with both fists balled . then Jackie sees there is a problem as he is leaned towards her . and she has a look . but at no point do we see a throat grab .

but you mentioned Connally and he is important also as you know . his position , his actions , where his right hand is etc . so i agree with you people , certainly people new to this case should study these copies of the Zapruder film .but even those of us that have looked at this case a long time can still learn a lot or learn something new . Helmer reenberg has a wealth of videos , film from that day and beyond , practically covering every thing jfk wise . but i will certainly do as you say and check out the JFK theorist .

[Royell Storing]

hi Royell , by the way merry christmas to you and yours .

youtube really does have a wealth of very useful jfk assassination related content . there are several versions of the Zapruder film . i mean that you can see close up etc . the more we can see , the better we can see it the better our understanding gets . so youtube can be an invaluable tool for anyone researching or those just starting out looking at this case .of course people will get both CT and LN sides of the story .

the up close and or clearer versions of the Zapruder film do let us see things a bit more clearer . for example over the years ive had many people say the words JFK grabbed / clutched his throat , the media uses this wording also . i guess the mentality is if a bullet exited his throat as in via the SBT that that would cause him to grab his throat . but he never did that . both arms / hands did raise up to about chin height , with both fists balled . then Jackie sees there is a problem as he is leaned towards her . and she has a look . but at no point do we see a throat grab .

but you mentioned Connally and he is important also as you know . his position , his actions , where his right hand is etc . so i agree with you people , certainly people new to this case should study these copies of the Zapruder film .but even those of us that have looked at this case a long time can still learn a lot or learn something new . Helmer reenberg has a wealth of videos , film from that day and beyond , practically covering every thing jfk wise . but i will certainly do as you say and check out the JFK theorist .

    The thing that really bugs me about Now being able to view the Z Film, Darnell, NIX, Wiegman, etc at a much higher degree of detail/definition is that JFK Assassination "researchers" have been sitting on much of this "detail" for several decades. And this includes the Sixth Floor. These people/institutions have purposely been keeping the "cat in the bag" so as to maximize their "knowledge" advantage/leverage. As we know, "Knowledge is power" = control and $$$. 

[Paul May]

    Another guy on Tilt? You used to be far better than this. That's the 1 major issue that Gunn and Horne agreed on. You need to brush up on the ARRB. Especially the "autopsy".

When asked about Horne’s writings Gunn responded “I don’t read anything written by Doug Horne”.

[Royell Storing]

When asked about Horne’s writings Gunn responded “I don’t read anything written by Doug Horne”.

      It's not unusual for CT's at some point come to a "fork in the road" regarding the best path leading to The Truth.  Josiah Thompson detailed this happening to him and the guy, (forget his name), that initially turned him on to the JFK Assassination. These Alpha Dogs are Independent Thinkers that at some point have the desire to blaze a trail on their own. Kinda like a lead singer leaving a band to go solo. On the other hand, those supporting the 60 yr old status quo have now suddenly had the ground cut out from underneath them by SCIENCE determining that the, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". These poor souls are currently meandering around in the hope that someone like Posner, Holland, etc will take them by the hand and instruct them what to do, what to say, and most importantly what to think. This is the difference between being a Ralph Nader vs being a Ralph Kramden.