Discrediting Secret Service complicity in the elimination of JFK…

[Charles Drago]

Paul,

Again you're grasping for a phantasm.

To the contrary, CD, I'm pointing to a flesh-and-blood assassin, as opposed to chasing spectres on the knoll, divining the presence of demons in drains, or, indeed, ghosts in the Daltex.

Really? Based on what (other than wishful misinterpretations of the mother tongue)?

[

Specter is setting up the negative response, and indeed filling the official record with like responses to questions regarding shots from any direction except the rear of the Lincoln.

Clearly, "from the front of the Presidential car" is NOT "from the front seat of the Presidential car."

You're seeing winks and nods that most of us on the side of truth simply do not see.

Again, CD, quite wrong: I'm merely reading what's before me, and doing justice to the context. Here's the lead up to the Specter question at issue:

Mr. Specter: And did you have a reaction or impression as to the source of point of origin of the second shot that you described?

Mr. Hill: It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.

Mr. Specter: Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you heard on the occasion of the second shot?

Mr. Hill: The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.

Mr. Specter: Now, do you now or have you ever had the impression or reaction that there was a shot which originated from the front of the Presidential car?

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/...age144.php

Hill describes the closeness of the sound of the shot and its impact on its target ("the surface of the head," no less). So which one of us does violence to the context, I who invoke a shooting from within the presidential limousine or you who would have us believe Specter was talking about a shot from somewhere much further to the car's front? Which scenario does justice to the close proximity of firing and impact? The question is, of course, rhetorical.

"Closeness" is implied nowhere in Hill's response, but only in your fevered imagination. He just as easily describes two nearly simultaneous shots, or shots from distances significantly different as to confuse his perceptions (there's that pesky speed of sound business again).

Do you seriously contend that what for all intents and purposes would have been a point-blank shot from the front seat would have been distinguishable by the human ear -- let alone the human psyche under stress -- from the sound of its inches-away impact?

Further, you cannot selectively bless Hill's responses and expect to be taken seriously. If he's right about an ultra-close proximity shot/hit, then he's right about the metallic nature of the target -- which he then, in desperation not unlike your own, attempts to ascribe to JFK's skull. Now maybe I've missed something, but nowhere in the medical evidence with which I'm familiar is there mention of a steel presidential calvarium.

And those are the least of the problems with your position.

[And this is both the singularity and sadness of the case for an in-car assassin: It unfailingly brings out the worst in those one likes and otherwise admire.

Steady, Paul. The "worst" in me? Or are you referencing your own unsupported, illogical, significantly counter-productive championing of an absurd-on-its-face hypothesis, the creation of which, intentionally or not, has furthered the conspirators' agenda by sowing confusion and dissension within the ranks of truth-seekers?