Discrediting Secret Service complicity in the elimination of JFK…

[Paul Rigby]

Actually, CD, it was me, not Peter, who insisted the assassinations were carried out in plain site - a point with which you clearly agree.

You declare the obvious with an air of discovery.

Hardly - I was right all along. You've simply dug yourself into a hole and no longer feel able to admit it.

[ The deaths occured in plain sight; the instruments of those deaths were not readily visible.

Fiddlesticks - you're in a rut, defending the demonstrably untrue:

RFK's killer was TEC, and he was seen shooting at RFK.

Greer was seen firing by eyewitnesses.

MLK's killer was seen in the bushes.

Malcolm X's assassination team boasted both diversionary and close range shooters: all were observed, some even apprehended post-killing.

Your claim is purest nonsense.

Greer benefited from the fact the assassination site was at the end of the parade, at a relatively unpopulated site. He was further shield by the terrain, and the other vehicles in the motorcade. RFK's killer, by contrast, boasted the "sophisticated camouflage" of the victim's body; and was inevitably, like Greer, also seen shooting.

"Shielded"??? Greer was in full view of any number of bystanders and photographers during the shooting sequence.

"Any number"? Hyperbolic folly, as you betray by your failure to comment on the sentence which concludes "at the end of the parade, at a relatively unpopulated site." Both true, as you know, but again can't bring yourself to acknowledge.

And as Elm Street dips and curves in the run toward the overpass, yes, Greer was "shielded" from many observers: by Kennedy's elevated seat position, the other occupants of the presidential limo, the cars following, their occupants, and the motorcycle outriders. All readily discernible in Altgens' most famous photo of the assassination (see extract below from MFW).

[Are we both talking about the events in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963? I know that I am.

I rather think you've proved otherwise...

[As for RFK's killer: Please identify this person. It was not SBS. It was not Thane Eugene Cesar.

Oh dear. What have we here? TEC not the assassin? Really. Charles Drago, meet Dan Moldea.

[

Now if you were more familiar with the fuller exposition of the Elm St shooting scenario which centers on Greer, you'd know that it, too, posits (a) decoy shot(s), only this time from the rear[.]

I'm quite familiar with the likely shooting scenario -- and now, thanks to you, with another fantasy version to join those of the WC and HSCA.

Of course at least one decoy shot was fired -- a fact which has zero probative value in terms of your hypothesis.

In context, my point was perfectly clear and germane: It wasn't just RFK's murder which involved decoy shot(s), as you implied.

Altgens' photograph, which was taken about three seconds after the decoy shot was fired, when enlarged (Fig. 3-4) shows Secret Service agent Warren W. Taylor, in the rear left seat, of the Vice-President's follow-up car. His arm is outside of the open car door; the configuration of his hand suggests he is holding a gun. Those people in the car immediately behind smelled gunpowder.

Again, zero probative value for your case. And I have no problem whatsoever with the suggestion that Taylor was a co-conspirator.

See Evica's "Terrible Sound" essay for a truly rational and deep political analysis of the "firecracker," its origins and functions.

At last, some sense...but why the difference in standards with regard to proof? Surely Taylor's guilt must be established by the same exacting procees as Greer's?