• Why do I say the shooter was in the back seat?
  1)It has been established that the Mafia was involved in the assassination. The best technology/knowledge they could offer to this operation would be their knowledge of how to do a driveby hit via a back window. This ablity of the mafia has been known about for years.
  2)This photo has been manipulated to obscure the image in the back middle window.
  3) The shot hit the president straight on. Not on either side of the neck as would be a shot from any other angle. The shot hit the spinal cord as can be seen in the decorticate posturing the president displayed.
  One thing I'm not sure of is, where did the bullet go? Did it lodge in his spine? Was there an exit wound on the posterior side of his neck?
  

Peter Lemkin Wrote:I'd agree that her information [or position] on the JFK assassination is ill-informed to way-out-there and not worth the electrons written with, but I don't think a person should be banned unless one can be pretty sure it is not naiveté; but rather knowingly disinformation - otherwise I'd suggest to just ignore [by the way, is the ignore function activated on this forum?].....I haven't followed her posts enough to have made a decision, other than my first statement. Some are just new and having been led down the wrong garden path...others [who are dangerous] are here and elsewhere to cause trouble, distension, internal fights through division, purposely spreading disinformation [as opposed to naively repeating it]. Just would like this Forum not to make some mistakes of other Forums.....hock: My two cents. Usually those of the former category eventually realize they are in the wrong place and remove themselves. The latter group never leave, until pushed out...as they are here to cause friction and worse.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:I'd agree that her information [or position] on the JFK assassination is ill-informed to way-out-there and not worth the electrons written with, but I don't think a person should be banned unless one can be pretty sure it is not naiveté; but rather knowingly disinformation - otherwise I'd suggest to just ignore [by the way, is the ignore function activated on this forum?].....I haven't followed her posts enough to have made a decision, other than my first statement. Some are just new and having been led down the wrong garden path...others [who are dangerous] are here and elsewhere to cause trouble, distension, internal fights through division, purposely spreading disinformation [as opposed to naively repeating it]. Just would like this Forum not to make some mistakes of other Forums.....hock: My two cents. Usually those of the former category eventually realize they are in the wrong place and remove themselves. The latter group never leave, until pushed out...as they are here to cause friction and worse.

Well said.............................what, I'm the prosecutor here Pete!!!!!!!!!!! Sheeesh I'd get murdered if this was the court room lol! I'm not taking the post toooooooo seriously but I've just seen some sly stuff being pulled. I do think it's quite clear that Betty appears to be taking the piss. But hey she might be naive and having fun (at the expense of those reading her stuff) I'll change the title it does appear a bit like I'm spitting the dummy like a certain well known researcher who inhabits these parts!

Peter Lemkin Wrote:

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:I'd agree that her information [or position] on the JFK assassination is ill-informed to way-out-there and not worth the electrons written with, but I don't think a person should be banned unless one can be pretty sure it is not naiveté; but rather knowingly disinformation - otherwise I'd suggest to just ignore [by the way, is the ignore function activated on this forum?].....I haven't followed her posts enough to have made a decision, other than my first statement. Some are just new and having been led down the wrong garden path...others [who are dangerous] are here and elsewhere to cause trouble, distension, internal fights through division, purposely spreading disinformation [as opposed to naively repeating it]. Just would like this Forum not to make some mistakes of other Forums.....hock: My two cents. Usually those of the former category eventually realize they are in the wrong place and remove themselves. The latter group never leave, until pushed out...as they are here to cause friction and worse.

Well said.............................what, I'm the prosecutor here Pete!!!!!!!!!!! Sheeesh I'd get murdered if this was the court room lol! I'm not taking the post toooooooo seriously but I've just seen some sly stuff being pulled. I do think it's quite clear that Betty appears to be taking the piss. But hey she might be naive and having fun (at the expense of those reading her stuff) I'll change the title it does appear a bit like I'm spitting the dummy like a certain well known researcher who inhabits these parts!

I think your post's intentions were noble; I only know I was booted off of the EF [as a Mod] for being too radical, too honest, and believing in too many alternate views that were anathema to Herr Walker SS and even Joseph Stalinesque Simkin - once my friend. So, I'm sensitive to being 'banned' for the wrong reasons.

I do NOT claim to know if Betty is a neophyte, naive, ill-informed; or a false entity of the intelligence and propaganda ministry [or their willing accomplice, but real]. I only ask that such matters be taken slowly and wisely. I have not said so before, but I say so now - a few have been ejected from this forum who deserved it; a few others I felt it was premature to make an intelligent and informed decision about. My guess is she'd be very happy and welcome at the EF!...whoever / whatever she is or knows.

Bernice Moore Wrote:hi gents; i did go to see if the member in question had mentioned how long she has been into the JFK research, i noticed it no where, would it not perhaps be a good question to ask when applying for membership, i think most would answer honestly, that would then tell much about whether a newbie, or into such and knowing better, just a thought, but in this case i know she nor anyone can have it both ways, in their beliefs,that the shot came from the back seat of the lead car, and from Greer in the limo as well,, that can never make sense,if a newbie then she has much to learn so perhaps should be given a break but also, take a second thought to what she responds in spades, until she has done all the studies which takes years, and all are still learning, just my 2 cents..thank you.imo...b

Betty Chruscielski Wrote:[quote=Seamus Coogan]I promise I won't make a habit of being so public with this sort of thing. But I had a mad Kevin Costner urge I couldn't control.

Betty is certainly polite. Much like JVB when she fronts up on a forum.

But this politeness is something of a veneer. In JFK terms I equate it too people smiling warmly and constantly repeating 'Have a nice day' while they kick the living shite out of you, while also taking the piss.
I've always been trained to act professionally no matter what. That is the reason for my politeness. It is also the way my parents raised me.

Here's what Betty said to me the other day.

Note how she has slanted her words to make it appear as if my calling her the 'New Paul Rigby' (or similar I can't recall it all) in a previous post in which I said her theory was worse than the Greer idea, that I was telling her to ditch 'her back seat shooter' idea in favour of the Greer angle in the Rigby thread post 137.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1804-Discrediting-Secret-Service-complicity-in-the-elimination-of-JFK

Thank you Seamus for bringing this thread forward. I spent yesterday reading it and it does seem myself and Mr. Rigby are of the same viewpoint. Some of his points I don't see as being valid, but I do think the head shot was from the driver, Bill Greer.

As if libelling me wasn't bad enough. One may like too note the time in which this was sent. At precisely 12:46 AM. But almost an hour later. She makes no mention of her ditching her previous line of theory IE 'back seat' for Greer and proceeds to expound her banal back seat shooter beliefs in the Grassy Knoll=Diversion thread.
How did I libel you? I have not "ditched" my back seat theory. The first shot was to the throat from the back seat of the lead car. As the doctors at the Parkland hospital said the throat wound was an entrance wound. The Greer shot was to the head.