Remove this ad

#21 [url]

Sep 25 08 3:43 PM

Thanks to you tlr.
"The inquiring mind wants to know..." and those doggone Little Greys have caused so much controversy we may never come out the other side of all the game-playing afoot!

It's all good... I appreciate your posts very much, and thanks again.
smiledevil

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

tlr1138

Silver Monarch

Posts: 1,812

#22 [url]

Sep 26 08 12:01 AM

Can you repost that story about Sherman Adams? I can't find anything about it when I Google it. I've read Richard Dolan's excellent books on UFOs and the National Security state, but personally I'm an agnostic about recovered alien technology and secret deals with aliens.

Our government really shows no sign that they've had any contact with some advanced intelligent alien life form.

@ illogicaldiscourse - Welcome to the forum. I personally think JFK was hit in the head by two bullets, almost at the same moment, one from the rear, and one from the right-front. That would explain the extensive damage witnesses describe (though the autopsy photos don't reflect it; they were probably tapered with).


Quote    Reply   

#23 [url]

Sep 26 08 12:37 AM

Sources "off the record" don't count!
tlr, sorry I even brought up the subject of General Sherman Adams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Adams 
-
Since a great majority are agnostic where extraterrestrial are concerned, I should just stay off the threads, with such information. My sources mean nothing in the established "mainstream". (However, this is a "Tinfoil Palace"...)
In spite of attitudes to the contrary, I contend that a media white-out has turned any and all testimonials by 'Contactees' of extraterrestrials (benevolent and otherwise), into being considered "idiots," or "fools who have been brainwashed." "Hoax" is the most prevalent term for such information. Until that attitude from historians, tech/science, military, and media changes, there is little I can say. IMHO, without going beyond the popular propaganda, we will never get to the truth behind the "Rule by Secrecy" methods now in force.
Heroic people are attempting to break down the curtain of propaganda, at great personal cost to themselves. I have great faith in some of them who've passed the "BS" test, but I will leave that for a different thread, and a different time and place.
Thanks for all your input.
You do a great job of keeping abreast of the up-front, popularly acceptable viewpoints. It helps us all.
wink


Quote    Reply   
avatar

tlr1138

Silver Monarch

Posts: 1,812

#24 [url]

Sep 26 08 1:17 AM

Of course the mainstream media is hopeless. Try to find a mainstream reporter who DOESN'T support the Warren Commission or who DOES believe in UFOs.

I've heard of Sherman Adams (he of the vicuna coat scandal). But he's not mentioned in any of my UFO books. Was this some personal research of yours?

As for these former spooks/military people coming out claiming they saw aliens running underground bases and experimenting with humans - if they could give us some actual evidence it would be great, but instead we just have to take their word for it. Have you read Jacques Vallee's "Revelations"? It really makes you more skeptical about supposed insiders and the motives for their stories.

Quote    Reply   

#25 [url]

Sep 26 08 1:56 AM

I figure if Aliens with Advanced technology, or their cohorts wanted someone dead, It wouldn't be a public death by sniper rifle.

This drifts much from my contribution to the thread, which was the unmuddy version of the Zapruder film clearly shows the limo driver did NOT shot Kennedy. Specific obviously never viewed the clearer version of the film, and is too predjudiced by her own opinion to look at the key piece of evidence in her claim, which was that the film she viewed appeared to show the driver shooting Kennedy. I thought the same thing before I saw a clearer version. Oh well, I must be a Irish Freemason or something. LOL.

Incidentally, I strongly disagree with TLR on who "Ordered the Hit'. I'm trying to rediscover the links I had saved on this, but on the day Kennedy was assassinated, J Edgar Hoover had a meeting with one George Bush from the CIA. Some old FOI request produced the document in the early 80's.

It's a fact that the Bushes were involved with Military Intelligence pre-dating WW2. Lots of big-money stuff during and after that as well. The OSS later became the CIA.

Officially Bush is only affiliated with the CIA in the 70's as it's head. Only man without an official Military Intelligence/ previous CIA connection to head the CIA. To this day.

On the day Reagan was shot,  VP George Bush was supposed to dine with John Hinckley's father. Old family friends, it seems. Later on the Hinckley's were Key players in the S&L scandal, and avoided prosecution. This story was flushed into the memory hole damned quick. It was in many newspapers at that time.

Bush was elected president in the 88' Election, Got sick in Japan, Gulf War 1, yadda, yadda,yadda.


I personally believe throwing in Mafia/Cuba/Soviet/Aliens/Freemason stuff in the mix is a deplorable distraction from what may have actually happened that horrible day. They may be true for all I know.

One thing is certain. A whole lot of energy has been put into "provable" conflicting scenarios regarding this murder, and the only ones who profit from it are the TRUE Perpetrators, whomever they were/are.

A link about the Houston AP wire story abut Hinckley BUsh: Daily Kos: Bush Knew Hinckley

Photo of FOIA Hoover Doc.: File:Bush Sr, JFK - J Edgar Hoover memo 2.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doc states the entire FBI narrative about Miami Connection was told to him by George Bush of CIA and Forsyth of Naval Intelligence. Last paragraph.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

tlr1138

Silver Monarch

Posts: 1,812

#26 [url]

Sep 26 08 3:38 AM

I'd love to blame the Bush family for JFK's killing, but there just isn't enough evidence for it. Reagan/Hinckley is another matter, though. Copying/pasting from my files:

A memorandum of FBI director J Edgar Hoover to the State department, dated 29 November 1963. It describes a meeting, one day after JFK's murder, between FBI and CIA officials talking about the reaction of the Cuban exile community to the Kennedy Assassination. The last paragraph states that the "the substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to us by George Bush of the Central Intelligence agency". Here we have the name of George Bush mentioned as a CIA official in direct connection to the Kennedy assassination. When asked by journalists, he initially stated "It's not me, must be another Bush!"...

first published by Joseph McBride in “The Nation” in July 1988, just before Bush receives the Republican nomination for President. McBride’s source observes: “I know [Bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination. There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA.”






On the morning of 11/22/1963: George Herbert Walker Bush, now president of Zapata Offshore and chairman of the Harris County Republican Organization, which supports Barry Goldwater, calls the FBI to report a threat on JFK’s life. Bush advises the FBI that a man named James Parrott has been talking of killing JFK when he comes to Houston. 



Quote    Reply   

#27 [url]

Sep 26 08 3:43 AM

Thanks, Powerdown and tlr1138 for a great thread. Good investigation, there.
"Who killed JFK," is going to go down in history, as one of the greatest of controversies. To cover every angle of probabilities might be impossible. 

I digressed from the thread, sorry about that.
Implications that JFK poked his nose into Area 51 business one too many times, has come forth as one of the many possible motivations for assassination, (among a bushelfull... take your pick!)  Who, in the Mafia, the CIA, the NSC, the NSA, didn't have a reason to "off" him?  The plot of this story turns into a farce, to try and pin it down.

As for these former spooks/military people coming out claiming they saw aliens running underground bases and experimenting with humans - if they could give us some actual evidence it would be great, but instead we just have to take their word for it. Have you read Jacques Vallee's "Revelations"? It really makes you more skeptical about supposed insiders and the motives for their stories.
- tlr


Thanks, I'd like to check that one out, by Vallee.
My viewpoint is colored by witnesses in the Disclosure field, who have gathered a lot of testimony. Insiders lived under threat, and often suffered for speaking out. Some of new facts are now in writing. Richard Dolan, (in UFO's and the National Security State,) did a great job. However, a more controversial viewpoint, is a mythbuster: Exposing U.S. Government Policies on Extraterrestrial Life, by Michael E. Salla, Ph.D. I consider it groundbreaking, in presenting the evidence that Eisenhower was deeply involved in UFO coverups, in the 1950's. The secrecy haunted him after leaving the presidency, and that was probably why he gave JFK a lot of the inside story. (Testimony exists to that effect.)
---------------
As to your reference above, I have the copy of a document which went to the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Pentagon, edited by a highly-regarded military witness to the "underground mysteries" you describe, tlr. Guess where the witness is? (You guess... either dead, or a political prisoner. That is why there are very few witnesses willing to go "on the record".)
Now -- Back to our regularly scheduled programming!  wink

Quote    Reply   
avatar

tlr1138

Silver Monarch

Posts: 1,812

#28 [url]

Sep 26 08 3:51 AM

The second paragraph in that memo from Hoover is such bullshit; most of the Cuban exile community did not shed one tear for JFK. Many of them were overjoyed at his death. Bush, being an oilman with CIA connections, was also friendly with anti-Castro Cubans.

Notice that the Cubans are eager for a new invasion. They were planting stories (with the help of Frank Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt) in the media about Oswald taking money from Castro agents in Miami, which was totally false. The CIA in Mexico City, along with the US ambassador there, were telling the press that Oswald had met with Castro agents there, and with KGB assassination experts. This was bullshit too. They were sure the American people would blame Castro and demand a new invasion, but LBJ and Hoover refused to go in that direction. To me, those are very significant pointers as to who was behind JFK's death, in my opinion.

Quote    Reply   

#29 [url]

Sep 26 08 6:08 AM

Do you accept the Hoover letter as Genuine, TLR? If no, these questions won't apply.

In the public record, he was not involved with the CIA at that time. Why did Hoover document meeting Bush, a supposed "deep cover" agent? If the CIA has a chain of command, why was Bush there with an Admiral?

Was Bush high up in CIA and not an Agent, as may be rightly assumed? Does that suggest a hidden structure within the CIA? Was he CIA during all his "public service" years? Congressman, Diplomat, Envoy to China?
VP, President? Did the CIA assist him in Gaining money and power, at the expense of us all? Did he fulfill his mission if he did? Is he still working at it?

Was the Bush visit to Hoover an alibi, a lie? I can't find it now, but a Look magazine from the period (similar to old "Life")had a large pictorial of the motorcade and crowds, Pre- assassination. Full spread pics.

In one of the pictures a man who was a dead-ringer for GHWBush, at that age, can be spotted in the crowd.

Supposedly, soon after 9/11, GHWBush was asked where he was during the assassination off-handedly, by an interviewer and he said he didn't remember.

That's the sort of thing that makes me think Bush/CIA.

There's some other stuff like the "three tramps" arrested and photographed that day, but soon released, once the decision was made that "Oswald acted alone".




But none of that matters for those who think the driver did it.      

            





Quote    Reply   

#30 [url]

Sep 26 08 6:30 AM

And you're right about that Mexico City stuff. In the late 70's PBS show Nova did a documentary on the assassination, every person living who saw Kennedy's body described the damage on the record, on film as penetration from the front, with an Exit wound in the back. Medically trained folk, all of them. Identical descriptions of his wounds.

Last year, PBS show Nova, had unmistakably concluded that Oswald was the killer, and Oswald had visited that embassy in Mexico City. What an obvious psy-op. they even recreated Oswald going to and fro, plotting and scheming,  just to make sure you believed the official story. Because if you saw it, it's true.

I don't think self-described Patsy Oswald could have banked that shot and hit his target with a ricochet, do you?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#31 [url]

Sep 26 08 7:24 AM

[image]@ illogicaldiscourse - Welcome to the forum. I personally think JFK was hit in the head by two bullets, almost at the same moment, one from the rear, and one from the right-front. That would explain the extensive damage witnesses describe (though the autopsy photos don't reflect it; they were probably tapered with).

-tlr1138

Thank you.

In the earnest hope of not sounding like a supporter of the "Magic Bullet Theory", in my experience I never look for two bullets when one bullet will do.

A twelve gauge rifle with a slug will do the damage that you see in the film quite easily.  And at close range it is perfectly reasonable to expect to score a head shot with it as well, especially in under 35 yards.  Add a decent power scope and you can hit pretty much anything you want within the range of the weapon.  

Another thing to consider is that all the witnesses remember the large report and the puff of smoke coming from the knoll . . . that to me does not sound like a normal hunting rifle.  That sounds like a shotgun to me.  And finally, if we are to believe the Moorman photograph and assume that the person who did the shooting behind the fence was wearing a police uniform, then it would look much less suspicious for the shooter to be carrying a shotgun than it would for a rifle, I would think,.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

tlr1138

Silver Monarch

Posts: 1,812

#32 [url]

Sep 26 08 2:17 PM


@Powerdown - I'm sure the Hoover memo is genuine, but Hoover often lied even in his own memos. I'm sure Bush was involved in the CIA going way back, to what extent I don't know.

I've seen the picture of "Bush" in Dealey Plaza, and I don't think it looks that much like him. It's too small and blurry to tell for sure, though.

From a 11/23/1963 phone call between Hoover and LBJ:

LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September? 
Hoover: No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there....We do have a copy of a letter which was written by Oswald to the Soviet embassy here in Washington [a November 9, 1963 , letter that Oswald began by referring to 'my meetings with comrade Kostin in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico,' which was interpreted to mean Kostikov]…The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction...Now if we can identify this man who was at the...Soviet embassy in Mexico City...

Quote    Reply   

#34 [url]

Sep 26 08 2:42 PM

@Illogicaldiscourse - Wouldn't a shotgun have likely hit a whole bunch of people, including Jackie? It's not a precision weapon.

-tlr1138

not if it fired a slug and slugs were in production long before 1963

Quote    Reply   

#35 [url]

Sep 26 08 2:54 PM




@Illogicaldiscourse - Wouldn't a shotgun have likely hit a whole bunch of people, including Jackie? It's not a precision weapon.

-tlr1138

Like Chesire said, and as I have said as well, a slug would have been perfectly accurate at that range, and it would have hit a single target easily.  Slugs are huge and they do tremendous damage at short range.  Anything at under 50 yrds with a 20 to 26 inch barrel is well in accurate range for a 12 gauge slug.  

However let me add, that most 00' buck and most tactical shells with 4-6 pellets would have kept a close pattern at that range as well, grouping at no bigger than the fist of your hand.   I am not sure of the manufacturing level of that time frame, but I am willing to bet that shotgun shells haven't changed that much in 50 yrs.  

Oh let me add one last thing.

Using a shot gun has one other advantage than I have mentioned.  It's untraceable.  You cannot match a slug or a pellet to a non-rifled barrel of a shotgun unless you get your hands on the spent shell. Thus is makes it impossible to trace back to the shooter unless he is stupid.  Its the perfect weapon in this situation.    

Quote    Reply   
avatar

tlr1138

Silver Monarch

Posts: 1,812

#36 [url]

Sep 26 08 4:39 PM

Oh, I missed your point about the slug in your original post. Could be. I've also found it interesting that dozens of witnesses recalled hearing a bang-bang sound - the last two shots coming close together. Obviously too close for a bolt-action rifle. They also sounded different than the first shot, which was more like a "pop." That's why I've tended to think that two rifles were firing at his head almost at the same time. But I'm not a gun expert. 

Quote    Reply   

#37 [url]

Sep 26 08 5:02 PM

Since shotguns don't have rifled barrels, shooting a slug is little better accuracy- wise than a musket.

That's why rifling was invented, to increase accuracy beyond short-distances.

At least a musket-ball would have some rotation going on to help maintain accuracy.

A slug, even with modern high-velocity propellants, doesn't have the spin to maintain an accurate path to the target, never mind a moving target.

Illogical discourse is an apt moniker for you.   

Though one could manufacture a Rifled barrel for use on a shotgun, I suppose. With custom loads.

One could also build an arrested short barrel shotgun into the dashboard, and trigger it on command with a remote, too.

Al-Queda could have leased a time machine, from the Greys, so a Kenyan Muslim could destroy the US with BAU defecit spending as well. If there are Greys, it's likely the CIA helps keep them hidden. And we all know how real Al CIAda is.

Anything is possible, I suppose. That's why we're here. I wouldn't be discussing this stuff with most of my family members and friends.

Quote    Reply   

#38 [url]

Sep 26 08 7:44 PM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_barrel#The_first_slug_barrels

A shotgun slug in a rifled barrel is surprisingly accurate out to 150 yards  as for two quick shots an over and under shotgun would do it , or one of the mainstays of big game hunting for decades , the double barrel rifle.

course a pop/ bang sequence is easily achieved with say a savage model 24 over and under  22 LR / 410  or similar type rifle.  

with nothing better to do , a bit of natural talent and a few thousand rounds one can become a rather amazing shot even at moving targets



Quote    Reply   

#39 [url]

Sep 26 08 10:09 PM

Since shotguns don't have rifled barrels, shooting a slug is little better accuracy- wise than a musket.That's why rifling was invented, to increase accuracy beyond short-distances.At least a musket-ball would have some rotation going on to help maintain accuracy.A slug, even with modern high-velocity propellants, doesn't have the spin to maintain an accurate path to the target, never mind a moving target.Illogical discourse is an apt moniker for you.    [image]

-powerdown

Funny . . .

However, most shot guns I have ran into, especially dating before the 80's are usually not rifled.  But here is the trick.   If the shot came from behind the fence of the grassy knoll, the distance was only 30 yrds.  Its easy to check this by the way, as you can pull up google earth and do a measurement from the "x" in the street to the position behind the fence,  

At that distance, and with the driver slowing down the way he did, I probably could have hit him in the head with a rock. No need for rifling there.  Any good deer hunter will tell you 30 yrds with a slug is usually a kill for even the most novice shooter.  

And one other thing.  Considering that Gov. Connelly was hit as well, why would anyone assume that the shooters actually cared if Jackie got hit?  In my opinion, she was damn lucky to be alive.  

Quote    Reply   
avatar

rhisback

Tinsel Tiller

Posts: 35

#40 [url]

Oct 2 08 12:17 AM

The driver shot jfk on 11-22-63...CASE CLOSED
 
The Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films have always proven Jfk's real assassin was the driver, William Greer

The silly goon who shot jfk is on the right, the passenger in the middle.
 
The driver shot JFK clearly and obviously but the nix and muchmore films needed to be examined closer and compared to Zapruder and that someone turned out to be me.
Dailymotion - jfk assassination films-orville nix - a News & Politics video
 
The Nix film close-up shows Greer's left arm crossing his right shoulder in unison with the headshot. The fakery in Zapruder and Greer's arm crossing in both other films are in perfect sync with the headshot.
 
I got this gif from this clip. Start it at 1:09 and see Greer quickly moving his left arm over his shoulder in unison with the headshot. The nix film was not shown close-up but when this sequence is zoomed in on the limo, this whopper is revealed. The goons covered those movements with fakery in the zfilm but didn't bother with the nix film.
 
Greer passes the gun in Z and his left hand goes missing because the film pans upward. There is no evidence in Zapruder that his left hand ever returned to the wheel. At least a few researchers have outright lied about Greer's hands not leaving the wheel when it's crystal clear in the frames.
Zapruder clearly shows the cartoon additions that are Greer's hand, arm, and gun forming and moving toward jfk when he shot Kennedy. The fake reflection recoils like a gun when the gun discharges and it separates from the passenger's head furthing proving it an obvious fake.

The muchmore film was purposely distorted and blurred but the clear copy can be found which shows his left arm extending downward after he shot jfk.
 
Watch his left/arm elbow coming down after the shot. There's an obstructed view running forward but all that has to be done is start from the end and run forward again when it comes down.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help