Jim Marrs & Mike Baker: PROVE THE GRASSY KNOLL SHOT! Travel Channel: America Declassified

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Darrel, you ve got a point when you refer to Salandria, i have refered to his quote a few times myself. But you are wrong that we are wasting our time on this forum. If you have followed the threads here, you would have known that besides the micro-analysis there were, are and will be many threads devoted to the macro-analysis of the case. If you have something to contribute join those threads and tell us your views, instead of complaining. Put your money where your mouth is. Please enlighten us regarding the big picture of the assassination. However i don't remember you posting anything in the past. Maybe i am wrong.

No i don't trust Hemming, he was a disinfo agent. However if there was a shooter behind the fence, he was
probably near the North knoll overpass.

[Albert Doyle]

I agree with Darrell. We should be forcing the government to admit the truth about the assassination.


Both Hoffman and Bowers saw rifles behind the fence. And Julia Mercer saw Ruby carrying an obvious rifle in a case up the Knoll.

[Tracy Riddle]

I agree with Darrell. We should be forcing the government to admit the truth about the assassination.


Both Hoffman and Bowers saw rifles behind the fence. And Julia Mercer saw Ruby carrying an obvious rifle in a case up the Knoll.

Ok, well (puts on devil's advocate hat)...First, I have a lot of problems with Hoffman's story. Second, when did Bowers ever say he saw rifles behind the fence?
And whatever Mercer saw, it seems the height of absurdity to have Jack Ruby parking on Elm Street and take out a rifle case in plain view. Those cars that Bowers saw circling in the parking lot behind the picket fence would be a much safer way of delivering weapons to the area.

[Anthony DeFiore]

Well done dave!

when i joined this discussion years ago i thought - how hard is it to find examples of similar rifles blowing smoke ??

Well, not too hard at all i found....

And the wind was gusting... Not a steady 20mph as gmack/ldunkel would have you believe.
And the shooter is shielded by trees...


[attach=config]5459[/attach]


but we should not discount that the leaves were changing and may have added to the size of what appeared to be the smoke rising...

The point "b" appears the same shape as the leaves to the left side of the willis crop - so i think there was smoke and leaves...

One has to completely disregards holland's testimony and his movements after the shots to disbelieve a shot originated there with a puff of smoke...

[attach=config]5460[/attach]

[Anthony DeFiore]

Mr. Curtis, email me at defiorejfk@gmail.com and I'll send you my 333 + page research paper. Don't confuse debate for infighting. Don't think macro ideas are better than micro analysis. Only the science is going to make conspiracy proven. That takes battling in the minutiae of scientific based facts. Don't sigh. Dig in. The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die!

*SIGH*

This is my first, and likely, my last post to this or any JFK
assassination discussion forum.

While I am NOT a "Lone Nutter", I have serious reservations about
what passes for "JFK assassination research". I've been watching/lurking this
and the other major forums for years. And this thread is typical of what I see.
Bickering and in-fighting. It all proves true a quote from Vince Salandria:
"...and not waste anymore time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly
what they want us to do. They have have kept us busy for so long. And I bet buddy,
that is what will happen to you. They will keep you very, very busy, and eventually
they will wear you down."

Or keep you lost with your head in the sand of evidence, both false and real.
And fighting amongst yourselves. Distracted and ineffective. Who cares about
smoke, or not smoke? What's the point of "badge man", "black dog man" "umbrella
man", "dark complected man" or anything else. There's more than enough evidence
to prove Oswald innocent in a court of law. That should be the focus of efforts of
those who really want to prove the case of conspiracy, and the Government's deception.

Some, very few, are sincere. Most, I feel are more interested in conspiratainment. It's
a hobby and past-time. After having had my nose in every conceivable book, magazine and
website about this for the last thirteen years, I've concluded that it's a waste of time to
bother with the details. We'll never know with 100% who was involved, who wasn't who did what
where when and how. JFK's murder was designed to be confusing, misleading, deceptive and
unsolvable. But the case for Oswald's innocence, and a case for conspiracy *can* be proven.

Sadly that's not what many want. And they'll spend the rest of their lives chasing their tails
trying to prove who was shooting from where, what that blob in a film or photograph is, or
is not, was that smoke or something else. By the time something meaningful could have been
done about this for the public good, it will be far too late. Lincoln's murder is a good example
of that.

I'm sure this will generate a great deal of anger and condemnation. I have no use for that,
so if you want to say something constructive, e-mail or PM me.

Thank you

[Darrell Curtis]

Darrell, I totally agree with you.
Still, it's human nature to try to figure all this stuff out.

Vasilios, I remember Gerry Patrick Hemming (if you find him trustworthy) telling one researcher that there was no shooting team behind the north knoll; only a diversionary team with a firecracker. But he told so many different stories to different people.

I'm pleased to see my post didn't stir up the usual anger that I've seen when someone doesn't follow script,
or toe the party line. In all fairness DPF is a bit better behaved than all of the other JFK sites.

Human nature is what's killing us physically, spiritually as a species. I don't think that's good reason to play
to the base level.

When people start bickering about spelling corrections, that's *not* debate, that's in-fighting. Debate is analysis
and refutation of the internal consistency of an argument, or lack thereof. And I mean argument in the sense of a conclusion that
follows the premise, not simply two people disagreeing.

[Albert Doyle]

Ok, well (puts on devil's advocate hat)...First, I have a lot of problems with Hoffman's story. Second, when did Bowers ever say he saw rifles behind the fence?
And whatever Mercer saw, it seems the height of absurdity to have Jack Ruby parking on Elm Street and take out a rifle case in plain view. Those cars that Bowers saw circling in the parking lot behind the picket fence would be a much safer way of delivering weapons to the area.

All that matters is Bowers privately said he saw a rifle being thrown in to a trunk. That means he didn't tell all he knew, which seriously qualifies his chopped off finger tip. I believe Hoffman because he saw basically what Bowers saw. Bowers saw a CIA operation taking place. He had his finger cut off to stay quiet and was smart enough to know a CIA job when he saw one, so he shut-up. Except in private.

Ruby was part of a CIA operation and was in good with the Dallas Police. You are looking at it backwards. The reason Ruby felt so safe was because he knew he had total backing. They were running Dealey Plaza and still are as we speak.

[Magda Hassan]

Darrell, I totally agree with you.
Still, it's human nature to try to figure all this stuff out.

Vasilios, I remember Gerry Patrick Hemming (if you find him trustworthy) telling one researcher that there was no shooting team behind the north knoll; only a diversionary team with a firecracker. But he told so many different stories to different people.

I'm pleased to see my post didn't stir up the usual anger that I've seen when someone doesn't follow script,
or toe the party line. In all fairness DPF is a bit better behaved than all of the other JFK sites.

Human nature is what's killing us physically, spiritually as a species. I don't think that's good reason to play
to the base level.

When people start bickering about spelling corrections, that's *not* debate, that's in-fighting. Debate is analysis
and refutation of the internal consistency of an argument, or lack thereof. And I mean argument in the sense of a conclusion that
follows the premise, not simply two people disagreeing.

Welcome to the forum Darrell. Your comments and observations are appreciated. One of the reasons we don't have the lone nutters here, apart from them being wrong, is that the endless circular debates, which have been going around for decades now about pointless things degenerate into acrimony and do nothing to further research itself or build productive working relationships between people. Which might well be the intent. We start from the point that conspiracy is well established in the death of JFK, and its cover up, and work from that. Saves time and energy for things that really matter. We also have just established a JFK Wiki and timeline to accumulate data on the events. Apart from its contribution to the public record it is also a place where people can work in a solitary manner with out the potential pitfalls and clashes of discussion forums. Please feel free to make yourself available of it if you wish. Peter Presland can help you with any log in matters with regards to that.

[Tracy Riddle]

Ok, well (puts on devil's advocate hat)...First, I have a lot of problems with Hoffman's story. Second, when did Bowers ever say he saw rifles behind the fence?
And whatever Mercer saw, it seems the height of absurdity to have Jack Ruby parking on Elm Street and take out a rifle case in plain view. Those cars that Bowers saw circling in the parking lot behind the picket fence would be a much safer way of delivering weapons to the area.

All that matters is Bowers privately said he saw a rifle being thrown in to a trunk. That means he didn't tell all he knew, which seriously qualifies his chopped off finger tip. I believe Hoffman because he saw basically what Bowers saw. Bowers saw a CIA operation taking place. He had his finger cut off to stay quiet and was smart enough to know a CIA job when he saw one, so he shut-up. Except in private.

Ruby was part of a CIA operation and was in good with the Dallas Police. You are looking at it backwards. The reason Ruby felt so safe was because he knew he had total backing. They were running Dealey Plaza and still are as we speak.

Could you provide the source for Bowers saying he saw a rifle thrown into a trunk? Maybe I've read it before and just forgot. Anyway, that's not what Hoffman saw: he claims a man threw a rifle to another man who dismantled it near the electrical box (in full view of all the railroad workers) and then put it in a toolbox.

And Mercer's story grew and grew over the years. By 1983, she told Henry Hurt that the younger man carrying the rifle from the truck was Oswald. Funny how she didn't say that during the Garrison investigation (when the driver first became "Jack Ruby"). Her story circa 1968 is completely unbelievable - WHY would FBI agents show her pictures of Jack Ruby before he shot Oswald? Does that even pass the smell test?

We really have to cut out all this crap and stop wasting time with myths and fantasies, and stick to the hard facts that prove conspiracy. Everything else is a time-waster, and fodder for the lone-nutters to discredit.

[Albert Doyle]

Could you provide the source for Bowers saying he saw a rifle thrown into a trunk? Maybe I've read it before and just forgot. Anyway, that's not what Hoffman saw: he claims a man threw a rifle to another man who dismantled it near the electrical box (in full view of all the railroad workers) and then put it in a toolbox.

See Bernice's post in this thread: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...Hypothesis


Maybe Hoffman saw the gun of a second shooter? I'm not sure that was in full view of all the railroad workers either. Maybe Bowers didn't tell of his seeing the man in the railroad workers clothes because that man was obviously associated with the fake Secret Service guys and therefore dangerous? Bowers was obviously holding back. Hoffman wasn't.

And Mercer's story grew and grew over the years. By 1983, she told Henry Hurt that the younger man carrying the rifle from the truck was Oswald. Funny how she didn't say that during the Garrison investigation (when the driver first became "Jack Ruby"). Her story circa 1968 is completely unbelievable - WHY would FBI agents show her pictures of Jack Ruby before he shot Oswald? Does that even pass the smell test?

We really have to cut out all this crap and stop wasting time with myths and fantasies, and stick to the hard facts that prove conspiracy. Everything else is a time-waster, and fodder for the lone-nutters to discredit.

Many people sabotaged their own stories because they didn't want to get killed like the others. Mercer had her story overheard in a restaurant by cops and was taken in. She didn't push it herself. The Warren Commission ignored her and the investigators sought to neutralize her story.