Phantom Shot

[Bob Prudhomme]

Jack is still here for the moment.

Sorry that I did not read the rules (not really) but does this mean that when I publish my book I can't broadcast it to the Forum or I can broadcast my book if it is favorable to the assassination being the result of a conspiracy?

Don't get me wrong, I get tired of Lone Nuter's never ending drum beat, it is the same old song on every issue, so some separation from their resistance to reason provides uninterrupted space for exploration.

Just as long as you aint workin' for the See-Eye-Eh, Bob!

[Tracy Riddle]

Bob, lots of authors talk about their books here, as long as they don't support the official story. Again, I have mixed feelings about this rule, but it's probably necessary. Nearly all LNs are troll-like in their behavior. Bill Brown over at Bob Harris' forum was polite, but even then we were having the same damn arguments over and over again, and he'd always squirm away right when you had him cornered.

[Jack Nessan]

Before you jump to conclusions about his beliefs, let's let him answer.

Drew and Bob; I have managed to cause quite a stir, and for that I apologize. I will just answer your questions and then stop posting. Mike and myself believed for a very long time that there was a conspiracy and now we don't. It wasn't until we delved into the eyewitness information that we realized that the first impression and initial statements of a large group of eyewitnesses closest to the car and snipers nest was they only heard two shots. They don't mention three shots until subsequent statements and after you read enough of them you start to see how the extra added shot doesn't really fit into the narrative but appears to just be added to the statement. Virtually 100% of the eyewitnesses referenced hearing the first shot and seeing JFK react and then slump to the left or in the case of James Chaney look left. The initial eyewitness statements explain and estimate distances from where they were standing as to when the first shot happened. The Willis and Betzner photos show that JFK is okay and still waving to the crowd at Z202, possibly to Mary Woodward and friends.

I never tabulated the number of shots or the supposed pattern of them. I feel the answer is in what they said in the statement. Initially they were just trying to tell what happened and later trying to conform to the press reporting and general consensus. Once we realized that the eyewitnesses were stating two shots initially and subsequently started changing their statements to three shots like the earwitnesses we focused on the eyewitnesses.As far as the earwitnesses there are only so many ways to say "I heard three shots." There are a few different ones like Garland Slack and James Powell. The 19 deputies statements mentioned looked to me like a form letter that they each signed. The press simply had the information wrong and perpetuated it by reporting it as fact. Merriman Smith an earwitness was the newsman that Walter Cronkite quoted when he said "three shots in Dealey Plaza. " Out of 70 newsmen in Dealey Plaza, James Altgens was the only eyewitness all the others were earwitnesses. Altgens was standing alongside Elm street within feet of JFK's car taking photos. If anybody knew how many shots he did and Altgens reported only seeing and hearing two shots with the last one being the head shot.

To answer your question about additional information as to the shooting I will just refer you to Howard Brennan's statement. He explains that he observed the shooter and he was in no hurry at all let alone struggling to get off 3 shots in 5+ seconds. For whatever reason people want to talk about Amos Euins who was standing next to Howard on the sidewalk facing the TSBD. Howard was a 45 year old pipefitter while Amos was a 14 year old student. I always thought the reason that most people questioned the lone gunman finding was the seemingly impossibilty of firing the rifle in 5+ seconds with a rifle that takes 2.3 seconds to cycle. Theoretically it is possible but was very hard to achieve in reality. It defied common sense especially in view of the other available information like the Zapruder Film and the witness testimony. This doubt led to the thinking that there had to be another shooter or a shot at Z160 or earlier in an attempt to lengthen out the time it took to fire the three shots. If you study the eyewitness statements you come to the conclusion the first shot struck JFK.

　
　
Finally, what I believe is LHO was a psychopath who became increasingly more homicidal. He fired just two shots not three and his sole intent was so that he would be remembered in history by linking his name to JFK's. Given his anti social nature I don't think he was capable of being in a conspiracy. There are a large number of coincidences and happenstance that must take place in order to put JFK in front of the TSBD at noon. I think everytime we mention LHO's name he wins. I also think ultimately everybody needs to decide for themselves whether they think it is a conspiracy or not. The best way to do that is with as much research as possible. The internet has made it possible to have easy access to a lot of information vs the painful information gathering efforts of the past. Also, it is important when reading these eyewitness statements to read the whole statement and not excerpts and come to your own conclusion. There are a number of different sites where the complete statements are posted.

Again I apologize for not reading the rules.

[Bob Mady]

Before you jump to conclusions about his beliefs, let's let him answer.

Drew and Bob; I have managed to cause quite a stir, and for that I apologize. I will just answer your questions and then stop posting. Mike and myself believed for a very long time that there was a conspiracy and now we don't. It wasn't until we delved into the eyewitness information that we realized that the first impression and initial statements of a large group of eyewitnesses closest to the car and snipers nest was they only heard two shots. They don't mention three shots until subsequent statements and after you read enough of them you start to see how the extra added shot doesn't really fit into the narrative but appears to just be added to the statement. Virtually 100% of the eyewitnesses referenced hearing the first shot and seeing JFK react and then slump to the left or in the case of James Chaney look left. The initial eyewitness statements explain and estimate distances from where they were standing as to when the first shot happened. The Willis and Betzner photos show that JFK is okay and still waving to the crowd at Z202, possibly to Mary Woodward and friends.

I never tabulated the number of shots or the supposed pattern of them. I feel the answer is in what they said in the statement. Initially they were just trying to tell what happened and later trying to conform to the press reporting and general consensus. Once we realized that the eyewitnesses were stating two shots initially and subsequently started changing their statements to three shots like the earwitnesses we focused on the eyewitnesses.As far as the earwitnesses there are only so many ways to say "I heard three shots." There are a few different ones like Garland Slack and James Powell. The 19 deputies statements mentioned looked to me like a form letter that they each signed. The press simply had the information wrong and perpetuated it by reporting it as fact. Merriman Smith an earwitness was the newsman that Walter Cronkite quoted when he said "three shots in Dealey Plaza. " Out of 70 newsmen in Dealey Plaza, James Altgens was the only eyewitness all the others were earwitnesses. Altgens was standing alongside Elm street within feet of JFK's car taking photos. If anybody knew how many shots he did and Altgens reported only seeing and hearing two shots with the last one being the head shot.

To answer your question about additional information as to the shooting I will just refer you to Howard Brennan's statement. He explains that he observed the shooter and he was in no hurry at all let alone struggling to get off 3 shots in 5+ seconds. For whatever reason people want to talk about Amos Euins who was standing next to Howard on the sidewalk facing the TSBD. Howard was a 45 year old pipefitter while Amos was a 14 year old student. I always thought the reason that most people questioned the lone gunman finding was the seemingly impossibilty of firing the rifle in 5+ seconds with a rifle that takes 2.3 seconds to cycle. Theoretically it is possible but was very hard to achieve in reality. It defied common sense especially in view of the other available information like the Zapruder Film and the witness testimony. This doubt led to the thinking that there had to be another shooter or a shot at Z160 or earlier in an attempt to lengthen out the time it took to fire the three shots. If you study the eyewitness statements you come to the conclusion the first shot struck JFK.

　
　
Finally, what I believe is LHO was a psychopath who became increasingly more homicidal. He fired just two shots not three and his sole intent was so that he would be remembered in history by linking his name to JFK's. Given his anti social nature I don't think he was capable of being in a conspiracy. There are a large number of coincidences and happenstance that must take place in order to put JFK in front of the TSBD at noon. I think everytime we mention LHO's name he wins. I also think ultimately everybody needs to decide for themselves whether they think it is a conspiracy or not. The best way to do that is with as much research as possible. The internet has made it possible to have easy access to a lot of information vs the painful information gathering efforts of the past. Also, it is important when reading these eyewitness statements to read the whole statement and not excerpts and come to your own conclusion. There are a number of different sites where the complete statements are posted.

Again I apologize for not reading the rules.

Sorry that I wasted my time with the statistics, obviously you live in another world populated by fiction that is unfounded in evidence.

Good luck to you, I hope the lone nuters enjoy your stories, they seem to thieve on non-sense.

[Drew Phipps]

Personally, I have never liked the "homicidal psychopath" label, it always seems to me like a convenient way to close the case. Even psychopaths have reasons. That said, Oswald's motives, or lack thereof, have never been entirely explained satisfactorily even after 51 years. ( Even Connally is a better target for Oswald's rage, Connally denied Oswald a change of military discharge; what if JFK was just in the way?) Why target Kennedy specifically?

For my money, the only plausible explanation I've seen published is that Oswald was jealous that Marina expressed admiration of JFK, the same evening that she refused to sleep with Oswald. This explanation is what Marina came up with, so of course, it features her. And it still seems pretty thin. There is also the plausible possibility of a "suicide via Secret Service" motive (my own theory of a plausible motive, I don't know if it's been published). However neither of those plausible motives adequately explain other puzzling actions Oswald took, like the trip to Mexico, or leaving the pistol at home.

I am currently reading "Ultimate Sacrifice," which is very long winded, repetitive, and features the worst kind of "cousin's-sister in law's-best friend's-uncle" sort of examination of "connections." However, it occurs to me that the authors may have inadvertently hit upon an entirely plausible motive for Oswald (which is not at all what their book describes - their idea is "Mafia hit") to either act alone or join a group. If it still seems plausible after I finish the book, (more than 1000 pages iirc) I'll post it.

[Albert Doyle]

　
Finally, what I believe is LHO was a psychopath who became increasingly more homicidal. He fired just two shots not three and his sole intent was so that he would be remembered in history by linking his name to JFK's. Given his anti social nature I don't think he was capable of being in a conspiracy. There are a large number of coincidences and happenstance that must take place in order to put JFK in front of the TSBD at noon. I think everytime we mention LHO's name he wins. I also think ultimately everybody needs to decide for themselves whether they think it is a conspiracy or not. The best way to do that is with as much research as possible. The internet has made it possible to have easy access to a lot of information vs the painful information gathering efforts of the past. Also, it is important when reading these eyewitness statements to read the whole statement and not excerpts and come to your own conclusion. There are a number of different sites where the complete statements are posted.

Again I apologize for not reading the rules.

I suggest you read further into credible assassination research. There's absolutely no doubt Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA operative tied up in anti-communist agent provocateur work. It is very likely he was involved in a CIA body double program according to the Harvey & Lee theory advanced by Armstrong and deftly exposed by Douglass.

The irony here is Oswald was probably a loyal patriot who thought he was serving his country against the communist threat after being drafted into CIA during the Marines and possibly much earlier than that. He was then viciously betrayed and used as a patsy by his accusers. As his negative paraffin test showed, he almost certainly never fired a rifle that day and was most likely in the 2nd floor lunchroom during the shooting.

If find it somewhat incredulous that you would suggest further research when the best examples of that further research, like Horne, DiEugenio and all the major credible names all point squarely in the direction of a major government conspiracy to conceal a coup d'etat. I'm sorry but I think you are offering government gruel at a conspiracy banquet.

[Drew Phipps]

Just as soon as I've said I don't like the homicidal maniac theory, up pops one in my hometown (really it's probably "suicide by cop"):

"11/28/14:

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A gunman attempted to set the Mexican Consulate ablaze and fired more than 100 rounds at downtown buildings early Friday before he died, Austin authorities said."

He apparently didn't hit anyone, just shot at buildings till someone killed him. The Mexican Consulate is across the street from my old office.

[Bob Mady]

Just as soon as I've said I don't like the homicidal maniac theory, up pops one in my hometown (really it's probably "suicide by cop"):

"11/28/14:

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A gunman attempted to set the Mexican Consulate ablaze and fired more than 100 rounds at downtown buildings early Friday before he died, Austin authorities said."

He apparently didn't hit anyone, just shot at buildings till someone killed him. The Mexican Consulate is across the street from my old office.

There is always the possibility that he was a really bad shot.

Why is it do you think that it seems as though whenever the police respond to these cases the perpetrator is murdered, too bad we don't have a police force dedicated to maintaining peace and try to wound or incapacitate them before riddling them with bullets?

Then again if you found out about it from the news media it is most likely a lie any way. Remember the motto of the media, be afraid be very very afraid. Maybe they just make some things up.

[Tracy Riddle]

"Mike and myself believed for a very long time that there was a conspiracy and now we don't." - Wow, don't we hear that from every lone nutter? Either they never really studied the subject very well, or they're not very bright, or they chose to sell out. Those are the only ways to explain such a miraculous conversion.

[Albert Doyle]

"Mike and myself believed for a very long time that there was a conspiracy and now we don't." - Wow, don't we hear that from every lone nutter? Either they never really studied the subject very well, or they're not very bright, or they chose to sell out. Those are the only ways to explain such a miraculous conversion.

Don't forget Sunstein op offering a prescripted line.