Discrediting Secret Service complicity in the elimination of JFK…

[Charles Drago]

Witnesses with no conceivable ulterior motive described, and, in some instances, sought to interest the WC in, shots from within the presidential limo.

Now it's "shots" -- more than one? This begs the issue of the weapon to be utilized in such an attack. Would Greer have drawn his trusty .45? An historic six-shooter? His kid's Mattel Shootin' Shell Fanner .50?

If you're going to continue down this dead and deadly end, why not do your research thoroughly? It would have been a silenced .22 sleeve gun, single round, coup de grace/last resort option.

And if you're going to quantify witness perceptions and absence of WC follow-ups in defense of this nonsense, then guess who wins the Knoll/limo contest?

[Jackie and the Connellys] did [know], Peter[.] Among them were some of the closest eyewitnesses.

Here is a prime example of your innumerable, unjustified, and fatal presentations of supposition as fact. Prove that they knew Greer shot JFK. Right now. No subjective interpretations of text. No leaps of imagination. Prove it. Now.

Particularly after the Secret Service washed the presidential limo out...

They did so because high-ranking SS members were complicit in the plot and were ordered to destroy the crime scene. This tells us nothing about an in-car shot.

The majority view among the Parkland doctors was, for the head wound, a left temple entrance/right rear exit --

Please document this claim as follows: Who among the Parkland physicians noted a left temple wound of entrance, and who did not? Which doctors did not opine on the matter?

-- exactly as one would expect from a hand gun fired from the driver's seat!

Or, absent supporting evidence of a close-range shot, any number of left-of-vehicle positions. Did you attend the Specter/Posner/Bugliosi Institute of Illogic and Obfuscation? Because really, Paul, in too many respects you are beginning to resemble these characters.

Besides, you just don't run a covert op with the main event in plain sight anyway.

The assassination of RFK? MLK? Malcolm X? In fact, Pete, the contrary is true.

Paul, you're missing -- intentionally or not -- Peter's important point. The assassinations you cite were carried out in plain sight -- but in the cases of JFK and MLK, the hitters were hidden. The killer of RFK benefited from relatively sophisticated camouflage: the Sirhan distraction that confused perceptions and facilitated the further disguised point-blank shots. The killers of Malcom X were sacrificial lambs, and surely you're not suggesting that Greer was supposed to be seen doing the deed.

Moreover, the American tradition is close range assassination by hand-gun. There is no precedent within that tradition for assassination by rifle from distance.

So the conspirators were slaves to tradition, were they? This is sheer balderdash masquerading as analysis. Rifles -- or similar firearms -- from a distance is the preferred method of assassination by certain groups, Paul. Can you tell us who works this way? Take all the time you need. Your work surely will benefit as a result.

Also, carefully analyze the "close range assassination[s] by hand gun" you reference. Do they stand as valid comparisons to what happened in Dallas in terms of the identities and motives of the actions' respective prime movers?

And speaking of motive, please tell us why Greer would have done the deed. Just give me a minute while I brace for more suppositions-as-facts.

At the heart of John Fitzgerald Kennedy's murder was a brute simplicity: I urge you to think again!

There is a difference between simplicity -- which can be elegant, efficient, and, yes, at times brutal -- and simple-mindedness, Paul.

I urge you to think.