Jack, this video, which has been referenced on this topic already, proves pretty conclusively that the driver did not kill JFK, both his hands are more or less on the wheel then the head shot occurs.
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DguBcLpWBS0
So please, give it a rest on the driver angle.
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DguBcLpWBS0
So please, give it a rest on the driver angle.
jack curry
The Force is Strong With This One
The Smell of Gunsmoke at Street Level http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19251&st=0
In addition to the eyewitnesses and ear witnesses, there were also nose witnesses to the murder.
Those who smelled gunpowder at the scene of the shooting helped to pinpoint the source of the shots. Placed on a map (Fig. 3-7), they were within the path of the motorcade or near Elm St. The motorcade headed west down Elm St. into a modest breeze.
Motorcycle escort officer Billy J. Martin, riding one half car length from the left rear fender of the Presidential limousine, recalled, "You could smell the gunpowder…you knew he wasn't far away. When you're that close you can smell the powder burning, why you - you've got to be pretty close to them…you could smell the gunpowder…right there in the street."
“Nose” witnesses
Senator Ralph W. Yarborough rode in the second car behind the limousine. He smelled gunpowder in the street and said it clung to the car throughout the race to Parkland Hospital.
Two cars behind Yarborough was the Cabell car. Mrs. Cabell said that she "…was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder." She added that Congressman Ray Roberts, seated next to her, had mentioned it also.
According to Tom C. Dillard, two cars behind the Cabell car, he "…very definitely smelled gunpowder when the cars moved up at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets."
Vergie Rackley stood in front of the depository building. "She recalled that after the second shot she smelled gunsmoke…"
At the time of the shots, patrolman Joe M. Smith moved from the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets toward the triple underpass. When interviewed at that time, he stated that he smelled gunpowder near the underpass.
Patrolman Earle V. Brown, stationed 100 yards west of the underpass, stated that he heard the shots and then smelled gunpowder as the car sped beneath him.
A police officer who was on the sixth floor of the depository shortly after the shooting failed to smell any gunpowder there.
One newspaper summed it up: "…seconds later the cavalcade was gone. The area still reeked with the smell of gunpowder." Shots from the sixth floor of the depository building would have caused no gunpowder smell in the street. Murder from Within: Lyndon Johnson's Plot Against President Kennedy: Fred T. Newcomb: 9781463422424: Amazon.com: Books
In addition to the eyewitnesses and ear witnesses, there were also nose witnesses to the murder.
Those who smelled gunpowder at the scene of the shooting helped to pinpoint the source of the shots. Placed on a map (Fig. 3-7), they were within the path of the motorcade or near Elm St. The motorcade headed west down Elm St. into a modest breeze.
Motorcycle escort officer Billy J. Martin, riding one half car length from the left rear fender of the Presidential limousine, recalled, "You could smell the gunpowder…you knew he wasn't far away. When you're that close you can smell the powder burning, why you - you've got to be pretty close to them…you could smell the gunpowder…right there in the street."
“Nose” witnesses
Senator Ralph W. Yarborough rode in the second car behind the limousine. He smelled gunpowder in the street and said it clung to the car throughout the race to Parkland Hospital.
Two cars behind Yarborough was the Cabell car. Mrs. Cabell said that she "…was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder." She added that Congressman Ray Roberts, seated next to her, had mentioned it also.
According to Tom C. Dillard, two cars behind the Cabell car, he "…very definitely smelled gunpowder when the cars moved up at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets."
Vergie Rackley stood in front of the depository building. "She recalled that after the second shot she smelled gunsmoke…"
At the time of the shots, patrolman Joe M. Smith moved from the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets toward the triple underpass. When interviewed at that time, he stated that he smelled gunpowder near the underpass.
Patrolman Earle V. Brown, stationed 100 yards west of the underpass, stated that he heard the shots and then smelled gunpowder as the car sped beneath him.
A police officer who was on the sixth floor of the depository shortly after the shooting failed to smell any gunpowder there.
One newspaper summed it up: "…seconds later the cavalcade was gone. The area still reeked with the smell of gunpowder." Shots from the sixth floor of the depository building would have caused no gunpowder smell in the street. Murder from Within: Lyndon Johnson's Plot Against President Kennedy: Fred T. Newcomb: 9781463422424: Amazon.com: Books
plutronus
The Force is Strong With This One
jack curry said:How did a bullet enter the rear and blow out the rear? Boswell confirmed this fiction in 1996.
Apparently has not expended any time talking to wounded Vietnam soldiers who were hit by one bullet that bounced off interior bones inside body, exiting in logically unexpected strange places.
Thats the problem with guessing about things, nature exhibits lots of surprises.
Hi Jack Curry
I've had a brief look at all your posts to date and it would appear you are showing signs of serious obsessive tendencies amongst others. Further, the only post so far that relates in any way to you personally is a one line introduction in which you state you found this site via Google, have read none of Laura's books and look for a recommendation for what to read. Good question. But first may I suggest that before you post again on the subject of the driver shooter, you take a moment to consider what this forum is about and why you are even here. If it is to simply bombard fellow members with your agenda then maybe setting up your own website would be the thing to do. Here we exchange and discuss not promote and dictate. Fundamentally it is a research forum which at its core explores the shared learning and wisdom passed on to us via Laura and others who have been in direct contact with a source calling itself Cassiopaea. Have you read any of the links yet regarding the transcripts, which are available here with hugely valuable additional comments from Laura etc?
It looks to me as if you have found somewhere you could learn greatly from but are unwilling to join in with the common language we all share. May I suggest therefore that you do some background reading - in answer to your question, a good place to start would be Laura's seminal work The Secret History of the World And How to get Out Alive (available from Amazon etc) and then move onto the Wave series either in book format or via the free online versions that are available here. After you have started that process would you be so good as to then tell us something about yourself? A key element here is self sharing so that we can each receive feedback that enables us to see ourselves more clearly. Many of us started this journey with the JFK story and the horror of realisation that came with the knowledge of the scale of the lie and the reasons why he was so brutally murdered. Laura has written extensively on the subject and you should read her freely available series of articles here. So many get caught up in the trap of which shooter did what from where as a way of avoiding the real issue; why he was killed and what his murder has led to. What it means in other words rather than how it was done. Chasing the tail you are will simply lead you round and round in declining circles for there are a thousand competing theorists all with ‘evidence’ that proves their case. It’s a trap; the truth lies beyond that shallow debate. That is what you should be focussing on, the truth beyond, not the angle of this bullet or that. Have you ever read this book for example?
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
I would strongly recommend you do as it might shake you out of a cul-de-sac which it would appear you have parked yourself in.
So go ahead, take a step in another direction. Join the forum for real; who is the person behind all these one trick posts?
Best wishes to you.
:D
I've had a brief look at all your posts to date and it would appear you are showing signs of serious obsessive tendencies amongst others. Further, the only post so far that relates in any way to you personally is a one line introduction in which you state you found this site via Google, have read none of Laura's books and look for a recommendation for what to read. Good question. But first may I suggest that before you post again on the subject of the driver shooter, you take a moment to consider what this forum is about and why you are even here. If it is to simply bombard fellow members with your agenda then maybe setting up your own website would be the thing to do. Here we exchange and discuss not promote and dictate. Fundamentally it is a research forum which at its core explores the shared learning and wisdom passed on to us via Laura and others who have been in direct contact with a source calling itself Cassiopaea. Have you read any of the links yet regarding the transcripts, which are available here with hugely valuable additional comments from Laura etc?
It looks to me as if you have found somewhere you could learn greatly from but are unwilling to join in with the common language we all share. May I suggest therefore that you do some background reading - in answer to your question, a good place to start would be Laura's seminal work The Secret History of the World And How to get Out Alive (available from Amazon etc) and then move onto the Wave series either in book format or via the free online versions that are available here. After you have started that process would you be so good as to then tell us something about yourself? A key element here is self sharing so that we can each receive feedback that enables us to see ourselves more clearly. Many of us started this journey with the JFK story and the horror of realisation that came with the knowledge of the scale of the lie and the reasons why he was so brutally murdered. Laura has written extensively on the subject and you should read her freely available series of articles here. So many get caught up in the trap of which shooter did what from where as a way of avoiding the real issue; why he was killed and what his murder has led to. What it means in other words rather than how it was done. Chasing the tail you are will simply lead you round and round in declining circles for there are a thousand competing theorists all with ‘evidence’ that proves their case. It’s a trap; the truth lies beyond that shallow debate. That is what you should be focussing on, the truth beyond, not the angle of this bullet or that. Have you ever read this book for example?
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
I would strongly recommend you do as it might shake you out of a cul-de-sac which it would appear you have parked yourself in.
So go ahead, take a step in another direction. Join the forum for real; who is the person behind all these one trick posts?
Best wishes to you.
:D
jack curry
The Force is Strong With This One
PressTV - New studies: ?Conspiracy theorists? sane; government dupes crazy, hostile
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
Quote:
Jul 12, 2013
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.
DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.
In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.
The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
Quote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones.
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
Quote:
Jul 12, 2013
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.
DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.
In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.
The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
Quote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones.
ramaj
Jedi
No offense Mr.Curry but where are you going with this thread and what's the point? Did you take into account what Perceval said? We all know the JFK hit was an classic ambush. And cover-up I have so far have seen no "scoop" you have presented to far. How about his middle-eastern policy have you looked into that? I'm sorry I'm just trying to make sense on "why" your posting posts. Do you have any others interests in this forum, as in their is so much more information presented here. Just my thoughts but what do I know.
jack curry
The Force is Strong With This One
ramaj said:
My work focused on the fatal shot. I guess there were many reasons why the government killed him.
My observations...
1. Jack Curry posted items many days apart from one another, establishing a long period of presence, successfully publishing a lot of material here which slipped under the radar, so to speak.
2. The items were all soaked with what one might call a certain 'crazy' vibe; repugnant and confusing to casual searchers interested in the JFK subject. (Example: I recall an animated .gif of Jack Nicholson taken from one of his more disturbing films laughing at the viewer. It was later removed.)
3. His focus returned numerous times to the Zapruder Film, (contending that it was altered somehow).
The whole posting trend just looked like another typical path of madness one comes across from time to time on 'conspiracy' websites. It was still curious, though.
Then something clicked:
Newsweek in November of 2014 published a major article re-examining the JFK assassination with specific focus on the Zapruder Film, contending that the original investigations had mis-interpreted it due to timing issues resulting from when the camera had been turned on or off during the event.
_http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/28/truth-behind-jfks-assassination-285653.html
My guess is that Jack Curry's efforts, whether he realized it or not, were a preparation for this news story, seeding the web with an established body of material designed to confuse, muddy and repel anybody in the public who might have been stirred to investigating the story further. "Faked Zapruder Film" or similar associations as search terms would pop up in quantity during such an investigation and if anybody were led to this site, would be affronted by the offensive flavor and posting style prepared by Jack Curry's efforts here.
The net result can be imagined to be a shutting down and a turning off of any casual on-looker from thinking down alternative pathways, sending them back to the relative calm of the official narrative as presented by the likes of Newsweek, (regardless of its accuracy or any other problems it might have).
"Tone" and "Feel" are often how the media wins and keeps hearts and minds. Facts are often secondary.
1. Jack Curry posted items many days apart from one another, establishing a long period of presence, successfully publishing a lot of material here which slipped under the radar, so to speak.
2. The items were all soaked with what one might call a certain 'crazy' vibe; repugnant and confusing to casual searchers interested in the JFK subject. (Example: I recall an animated .gif of Jack Nicholson taken from one of his more disturbing films laughing at the viewer. It was later removed.)
3. His focus returned numerous times to the Zapruder Film, (contending that it was altered somehow).
The whole posting trend just looked like another typical path of madness one comes across from time to time on 'conspiracy' websites. It was still curious, though.
Then something clicked:
Newsweek in November of 2014 published a major article re-examining the JFK assassination with specific focus on the Zapruder Film, contending that the original investigations had mis-interpreted it due to timing issues resulting from when the camera had been turned on or off during the event.
_http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/28/truth-behind-jfks-assassination-285653.html
My guess is that Jack Curry's efforts, whether he realized it or not, were a preparation for this news story, seeding the web with an established body of material designed to confuse, muddy and repel anybody in the public who might have been stirred to investigating the story further. "Faked Zapruder Film" or similar associations as search terms would pop up in quantity during such an investigation and if anybody were led to this site, would be affronted by the offensive flavor and posting style prepared by Jack Curry's efforts here.
The net result can be imagined to be a shutting down and a turning off of any casual on-looker from thinking down alternative pathways, sending them back to the relative calm of the official narrative as presented by the likes of Newsweek, (regardless of its accuracy or any other problems it might have).
"Tone" and "Feel" are often how the media wins and keeps hearts and minds. Facts are often secondary.
jack curry
The Force is Strong With This One
Occam's razor. The back of his head was blown off. Jfk was shot from the front. There is nothing simple about a bullet entering and exiting the rear. The driver shooting jfk in the forehead with a resulting rear blow-out is perfectly simple.
The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .
"Keep things simple!" http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
Sam Kinney said basically the same thing, but didn't write a book. Someone called him and asked a few questions. He answered them like he'd been waiting years for that call. The truth is just he truth. It doesn't mean that anything will be done about it, but at least it's been discovered in a brutally honest fashion.
Kinney, the driver with the sunglasses in the follow-up car had a perfect view of jfk's head exploding. It's verified and proven. Clint Hill, the agent who got Jackie back in the limo stood next to Kinney.
https://www.causes.com/causes/308048/updates/647605
In regard to JFK's head wound, Kinney was explicit: "He
had no brain left- it was blown out...there was nothing left...it was)
the back of the head. I saw it (the shot) hit and I saw his hair come
out...I had brain matter all over my windshield and left arm, that's how
close we were to it...it was the right rear part of his head...because
that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair come out, the piece blow out,
then the skin went back in- an explosion in and out". Elaborating
further, Sam said, after telling him that that's where the Parkland
doctors saw the wound, "I would say that, too...it involved half his
head". Asked to explain the 1500 gram brain at the autopsy, Sam seemed
perplexed, saying that "there was brain matter all over the place".
...Amazingly, when I told Kinney that there was a book- "High Treason"-
that alleged that "[SS agent] Emory Roberts ordered the men not to move", Sam said, "Exactly right"! ... I also attempted to get Kinney to go on the record in
writing, but I was too late: his widow Hazel informed me that Sam passed
away 7/21/97 while they were travelling through Iowa [letter to author
dated 11/20/97].
The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .
"Keep things simple!" http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
Sam Kinney said basically the same thing, but didn't write a book. Someone called him and asked a few questions. He answered them like he'd been waiting years for that call. The truth is just he truth. It doesn't mean that anything will be done about it, but at least it's been discovered in a brutally honest fashion.
Kinney, the driver with the sunglasses in the follow-up car had a perfect view of jfk's head exploding. It's verified and proven. Clint Hill, the agent who got Jackie back in the limo stood next to Kinney.
https://www.causes.com/causes/308048/updates/647605
In regard to JFK's head wound, Kinney was explicit: "He
had no brain left- it was blown out...there was nothing left...it was)
the back of the head. I saw it (the shot) hit and I saw his hair come
out...I had brain matter all over my windshield and left arm, that's how
close we were to it...it was the right rear part of his head...because
that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair come out, the piece blow out,
then the skin went back in- an explosion in and out". Elaborating
further, Sam said, after telling him that that's where the Parkland
doctors saw the wound, "I would say that, too...it involved half his
head". Asked to explain the 1500 gram brain at the autopsy, Sam seemed
perplexed, saying that "there was brain matter all over the place".
...Amazingly, when I told Kinney that there was a book- "High Treason"-
that alleged that "[SS agent] Emory Roberts ordered the men not to move", Sam said, "Exactly right"! ... I also attempted to get Kinney to go on the record in
writing, but I was too late: his widow Hazel informed me that Sam passed
away 7/21/97 while they were travelling through Iowa [letter to author
dated 11/20/97].
jack curry said:
No, it isn't perfectly simple, mainly because not only is there no evidence for it, the available evidence argues against it.
jack curry said:
Not in this case. The better theory here is the one that is backed by evidence. Not only is there no evidence for a SS guy shooting JFK, the available evidence disproves that theory.
DonnieG
Padawan Learner
I am like a few others on this thread, it's not important as to who, buy Why was JFK shot. With so much disinformation on the subject to whom did it. The Why is as plain as the nose on one's face. I believe personally that JFK was smart enough to know that they, "those in control" would murder him, in fact, I believed he counted on it, in hopes to expose that very same people, he knew that wanted him gone. However that wasn't the case, but at least he tried.
As to who did it? I believe it was the 4th Reich, or the extension of a plot that existed quite some time, that has people in ever government on the globe, which accounts for the ease in which multiple perpetrators operated in concert with one another. The fact there was a coup attempt in 1933, I believe against FDR that Former Marine Corps General Smedly Butler exposed after the conspirators wanted him as a front man for the coup. Wealthy names like DuPont and Rockefeller were involved, That was brought out with a congressional investigation which lasted two weeks, yet none of those named ever received any punishment over the fiasco. After that FDR towed the line I'm guessing. It's important to note that this coup was fascist in nature. This going on at the same time the Nazis were coming to power in Germany.
We all know about the Bavarian Illuminati after being throw out of Germany opening an office in New York city May the 1st 1776 Which gives credence to my estimation on the the length of time this plot has been around. In the late 1700's, I believe it was 1793 a schism developed in The Freemasons over the Illuminati's plan for a one world government. Since them that schism has remained, I believe, for reasons of my own. In a meeting of the Illuminati in 1893 I think it was, Czar Nicholas was reported to have stormed out of the meeting in his refusal of the one world government plan. Also reportedly the leader of the Illuminati at the time, said he was have The Czar and his Family killed for that. Which took place when the Bolsheviks gained control of Russia.
Back to the main throw of my point is, there are and have been people placed in key position in very organisation and government in the majority of the nations of the world, with one main purpose to bring about this one world government, and that the main reason JFK was killed. Who shot him, a better question is Who had him shot.
As to who did it? I believe it was the 4th Reich, or the extension of a plot that existed quite some time, that has people in ever government on the globe, which accounts for the ease in which multiple perpetrators operated in concert with one another. The fact there was a coup attempt in 1933, I believe against FDR that Former Marine Corps General Smedly Butler exposed after the conspirators wanted him as a front man for the coup. Wealthy names like DuPont and Rockefeller were involved, That was brought out with a congressional investigation which lasted two weeks, yet none of those named ever received any punishment over the fiasco. After that FDR towed the line I'm guessing. It's important to note that this coup was fascist in nature. This going on at the same time the Nazis were coming to power in Germany.
We all know about the Bavarian Illuminati after being throw out of Germany opening an office in New York city May the 1st 1776 Which gives credence to my estimation on the the length of time this plot has been around. In the late 1700's, I believe it was 1793 a schism developed in The Freemasons over the Illuminati's plan for a one world government. Since them that schism has remained, I believe, for reasons of my own. In a meeting of the Illuminati in 1893 I think it was, Czar Nicholas was reported to have stormed out of the meeting in his refusal of the one world government plan. Also reportedly the leader of the Illuminati at the time, said he was have The Czar and his Family killed for that. Which took place when the Bolsheviks gained control of Russia.
Back to the main throw of my point is, there are and have been people placed in key position in very organisation and government in the majority of the nations of the world, with one main purpose to bring about this one world government, and that the main reason JFK was killed. Who shot him, a better question is Who had him shot.
redwraith33
The Force is Strong With This One
Has anyone read the "Hidden Kings" pdf by Miles Mathis, where he speculates that the whole JFK assassination was a staged show, where video editing techniques were not as refined as they are now and errors in video and photography were more easily detected?
_http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf
Some of the pictures he points out really make you wonder. These photographs that he presents are all supposed to be from the same day, but when you look at some of the "official" pictures taken that day, for example, you'll see that there are two different presidential cars (mirrors and window designs are different) and certain key people are wearing different types of clothing across different photos.... yet these were all supposed to be from the same day. It's kinda fascinating and apologies if it has already been posted, I didn't read the whole thread.
_http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf
Some of the pictures he points out really make you wonder. These photographs that he presents are all supposed to be from the same day, but when you look at some of the "official" pictures taken that day, for example, you'll see that there are two different presidential cars (mirrors and window designs are different) and certain key people are wearing different types of clothing across different photos.... yet these were all supposed to be from the same day. It's kinda fascinating and apologies if it has already been posted, I didn't read the whole thread.
