JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Howard E hunt and Mafia figures have said the grassy knoll shooter was hired by Carlos Marcello. A French hitman from Europe. We have two different sources to pin down who fired the gun. Ruby was Carlos Marcello man in Dallas. It no coincidence Oswald was taken out by Ruby two days later. An informer for the FBI revealed in the 70s that Carlos Marcello revealed to him why Ruby was involved. He was heavily in debt and could not pay it back. Carlos Marcello said he wipe that debt if he took out Oswald for them.

Cuban exiles working with the CIA. The sniper team were Cuban Exiles working with the CIA.

Hoffa connection with the Kennedy, links with the Mafia. He was aware of the plan by the Mafia to take out Kennedy in Chicago.

So the shooter was "a French hitman from Europe" (France is in Europe apparently) and then in the very next paragraph "the sniper team were Cuban exiles". From Cuba, Which isn't in France, or even in Europe.

Im confused.

Who is the "informer"?

Who are the "two different sources"?

Where the evidence that Ruby had debt wiped out or was Marcellos man in Dallas?

Wheres the evidence that Hoffa was aware of the plot?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

We've been through this. You haven't read their statements. I have. You won't because it doesn't support your agenda. More people claim to have heard 2 shots than 4 or more.

The same people you falsely and ignorantly claim heard shots from the knoll also heard 3 shots. So you take the "heard shots from the knoll" as gospel but then also reject what the same people say about the number of shots which is utterly ridiculous.

How can there be only three shots from behind? Most of the eyewitnesses on the day believed the final shots came from the grassy knoll area. So it obvious shots was coming from behind and to the front. I see evidence of three shots fired from behind, and one or two from the front.

The magic bullet theory is a joke a fantasy.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Howard E hunt and Mafia figures have said the grassy knoll shooter was hired by Carlos Marcello. A French hitman from Europe. We have two different sources to pin down who fired the gun. Ruby was Carlos Marcello man in Dallas. It no coincidence Oswald was taken out by Ruby two days later. An informer for the FBI revealed in the 70s that Carlos Marcello revealed to him why Ruby was involved. He was heavily in debt and could not pay it back. Carlos Marcello said he wipe that debt if he took out Oswald for them.

It's impossible to follow this speculation

List the shooters, it's very simple

1. Joe Bloggs1
2. Joe Bloggs2
3. Joe Bloggs3
etc

Then we can add the locations, who shot, who didn't, where the bullets went, etc

Cuban exiles working with the CIA. The sniper team were Cuban Exiles working with the CIA.

Hoffa connection with the Kennedy, links with the Mafia. He was aware of the plan by the Mafia to take out Kennedy in Chicago.

So the conspiracy is now LBJ, FBI, CIA, Cuban Exiles (working with the CIA), Mafia, and Hoffa

Is there anyone else or is that it?

When I asked you this a few pages back it was just LBJ.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

So the shooter was "a French hitman from Europe" (France is in Europe apparently) and then in the very next paragraph "the sniper team were Cuban exiles". From Cuba, Which isn't in France, or even in Europe.

Im confused.

Who is the "informer"?

Who are the "two different sources"?

Where the evidence that Ruby had debt wiped out or was Marcellos man in Dallas?

Wheres the evidence that Hoffa was aware of the plot?

If you knew the history. You know the CIA- Cuban exiles and the Mafia worked with each other to oust Castro from Cuba. The relationship is well known today that they worked together. That operation 40 group that Howard E hunt named turned on Kennedy and took him out, the mafia helped them. Carlos Marcello hired a french hitman to limit the traces back to him and they needed someone who done this work before to carry it out. Kennedy was encircled that day in Dealey Plaza by Mafia and CIA Cuban exile hit teams.


Attorney Frank Ragano says that he relayed a message in 1963 from Teamsters Union leader Jimmy Hoffa to Marcello and Santo Trafficante, the Mafia boss of Florida, urging the two Mafia bosses to kill Kennedy. Ragano later claimed that four days before Trafficante died, the mob boss described to Ragano how he and Marcello organized the murder of President Kennedy.

Jack Van Laningham and there was another informer but I can't remember his name right now while since I read this. Robert Blakey may have this evidence in his book. He done an extensive work on Carlos Marcello involvement with the JFK book. It a book i must get to read. Oswald uncle had connections to Carlos Marcello crime family.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you knew the history. You know the CIA- Cuban exiles and the Mafia worked with each other to oust Castro from Cuba. The relationship is well known today that they worked together.

And water is wet yeah.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That operation 40 group that Howard E hunt named turned on Kennedy and took him out, the mafia helped them. Carlos Marcello hired a french hitman to limit the traces back to him and they needed someone who done this work before to carry it out. Kennedy was encircled that day in Dealey Plaza by Mafia and CIA Cuban exile hit teams.

So not a French assassin then? Why did you say Marcello hired a French assassin? Did he not?

So no evidence then for the rest of the post? OK.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Attorney Frank Ragano says that he relayed a message in 1963 from Teamsters Union leader Jimmy Hoffa to Marcello and Santo Trafficante, the Mafia boss of Florida, urging the two Mafia bosses to kill Kennedy. Ragano later claimed that four days before Trafficante died, the mob boss described to Ragano how he and Marcello organized the murder of President Kennedy.

And since refuted. His head popped up after the JFK movie. Trafficante was dying in hospital the day he apparently asked to meet Ragano. Ragano jumped on the post JFK movie money machine.

For someone who claims to be cynical about such things you're extremely gullible. Believing any old bloke with a tall tale to sell with no evidence.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Jack Van Laningham and there was another informer but I can't remember his name right now while since I read this. Robert Blakey may have this evidence in his book. He done an extensive work on Carlos Marcello involvement with the JFK book. It a book i must get to read. Oswald uncle had connections to Carlos Marcello crime family.

Van Laningham wasn't an informer. He was a cellmate of Marcello.

Ive read both of Blakeys books on the assassination. I like him even if I don't agree with him. He doesn't come to any real conclusions and by his own admission can't prove anything. He thinks its was Marcello though by linking Ruby to the mob but not Oswald to the mob. So that theory doesn't work.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

And water is wet yeah.



So not a French assassin then? Why did you say Marcello hired a French assassin? Did he not?

So no evidence then for the rest of the post? OK.



And since refuted. His head popped up after the JFK movie. Trafficante was dying in hospital the day he apparently asked to meet Ragano. Ragano jumped on the post JFK movie money machine.

For someone who claims to be cynical about such things you're extremely gullible. Believing any old bloke with a tall tale to sell with no evidence.



Van Laningham wasn't an informer. He was a cellmate of Marcello.

Ive read both of Blakeys books on the assassination. I like him even if I don't agree with him. He doesn't come to any real conclusions and by his own admission can't prove anything. He thinks its was Marcello though by linking Ruby to the mob but not Oswald to the mob. So that theory doesn't work.

End of the day we never agree because you believe this bullet was fired by Oswald gun. For me, you have to be deluded to believe that.


For me, that bullet is undeformed and pristine and undamaged. The case against Oswald is flawed

I not buying for one second that bullet went through two layers of belonging clothing to Kennedy. Bullet went through the back of Kennedy, and moves through the chest cavity, and bruises Kennedy right lung. Then moves position and exits out through the throat area. Does a magical side tumble in the air. Then moves through two more layers of clothing belonging to Connelly. Then hits Connellly in the back and reenters near right shoulder. The bullet travels through the chest and then shatters Connelly fifth rib, causing a 10cm wound. The bullet then exits through the chest again near the right nipple breaking more flesh. The bullet then hits Connelly wrist bone and fractures it and then embeds bullet fragments in the thigh.

They find the bullet and there no trace of blood or tissue on it on clean stretcher and there no chain of custody for the bullet above, come on now.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

For me, that bullet is undeformed and pristine and undamaged.

For everyone else, its clearly not. Perfectly consistant with a bullet that has tumbled and hit an object side on, hence the squeeze.

Show me a brand new unfired bullet that looks like this?



Strong old bullets.

So yet again no evidence or answers to the questions you were asked.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

For everyone else, its clearly not.



So yet again no evidence or answers to the questions you were asked.

You looking at the back end of the bullet, with few metal grains missing, of course, single bullet theorists think it came from the tip of the bullet.

When the Warren Commission and HSCA tested their bullets, the bullet that resembled the magic bullet was fired through cotton wool and water you can't make this **** up:D

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You looking at the back end of the bullet, with few metal grains missing, of course, single bullet theorists think it came from the tip of the bullet.

When the Warren Commission and HSCA tested their bullets, the bullet that resembled the magic bullet was fired through cotton wool and water you can't make this **** up:D

But but..... you're the one who claims that their tests prove it couldn't have been the same bullet because they couldn't replicate the shot. Are you now saying thats not the case? You think their tests were bull**** but then you use them to discredit the single bullet theory? Im confused.

So you admit to lying again? As the bullet is clearly not undeformed and pristine and undamaged as you said. How can it be pristine with fragments missing? How many lies is that today?

Video above shows the bullet being fired through 3 feet of wood and coming out pristine, like actually pristine.

You also have yet to address the need for a conspiracy this size and why they didn't just poison his food or plant a bomb?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

But but..... you're the one who claims that their tests prove it couldn't have been the same bullet because they couldn't replicate the shot. Are you now saying thats not the case?

So you admit to lying again? As the bullet is clearly not undeformed and pristine and undamaged as you said. How can it be pristine with fragments missing? Howe many lies is that today?

Video above shows the bullet being fired through 3 feet of wood and coming out pristine, like actually pristine.

They could not replicate a pristine bullet that is exhibit 399 magic bullet. And they tried they wanted to find Oswald guilty.

They have done numerous tests using Carcano bullets. A close match was a Carcano bullet fired through water and cotton wool. So exhibit 399 was obviously planted at the hospital to be discovered.

A few grains missing from the back end of a Carcano bullet What hit the rib bone and wrist bone, the backend of the bullet? Is the tip of the bullet made of titanium explain?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Video above shows the bullet being fired through 3 feet of wood and coming out pristine, like actually pristine.

You also have yet to address the need for a conspiracy this size and why they didn't just poison his food or plant a bomb?

The fake experiment you mean. If they wanted to proof it they should have shown the path of the bullet through the timber to the end. They did not and obvious why.

They did not what to show the movement of the bullet through timber to get from centre left to right corner at the end.

Cheerful Spring

It like the myth busters video. You have to watch this closely to see the fraud.

Everyone can see that bullet went through the chest and out there another side. Did not exit through the throat area. Youtube comments are gold.

There bullet was also deformed, only truthful thing they showed.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It like the myth busters video. You have to watch this closely to see the fraud.

Everyone can see that bullet went through the chest and out there another side. Did not exit through the throat area. Youtube comments are gold.

There bullet was also deformed, only truthful thing they showed.

Thats not the test I posted.

Why not look at the one of the many 3D recreations that are accurate?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Thats not the test I posted.

Why not look at the one of the many 3D recreations that are accurate?

The bullet position is not accurate. Have you opposite image of this gif, to be sure?

The shot that entered Kennedy back was to the right of centre near the right shoulder blade about six down from the neckline. This bullet going through the back centre neckline and out.

We know due to the bruising on Kennedy right lung, the bullet was there at one point.

Researchers traced the back wound with a laser to the 3rd floor of the Dal-Tex building. There video on the web you can find.

That image does not show the state of the bullet or wounds, Connelly and Kennedy, both received.

The only thing we both agree on is the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back came from behind.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The fake experiment you mean. If they wanted to proof it they should have shown the path of the bullet through the timber to the end. They did not and obvious why.

They did not what to show the movement of the bullet through timber to get from centre left to right corner at the end.

Why do you think this happened?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why do you think this happened?

I don't know that my main issue with this experiment. I don't see the path it followed, entry to the end.

They show you a bullet entering the wood, then they skip to the end and show you the bullet sticking out at a different path it travelled from originally

What happened in between? Where did bullet start moving direction? Why did they not show the other wood planks with damage? That wood was solid so be interesting to see.

Every wood plank has to have a hole, so you can plot the trajectory from the entry to the end.

Cheerful Spring

Is Dale K. Myers claiming Connelly and Kennedy were hit by the same bullet in frame 236. Meyer admits on this that Connelly was hit in frame 236. This should very interesting info for Nal, will you call Dale Myers a liar too?

Anyone with a good eye knows Kennedy was hit in the back and in the throat between frame 208 and 224. So how you be hit by the same bullet in frame 236?

Dohnjoe

No interest in supporting the conspiracy theory, reverts back to endlessly attacking the "official theory"

Always a red flag and predicted every time.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No interest in supporting the conspiracy theory, reverts back to endlessly attacking the "official theory"

Always a red flag and predicted every time.

What You funny guy. Dale Meyer is a single bullet theorist and fun watching him ridicule the entire theory and doesn't even realise it.

Cheerful Spring

Remember Nal and others claimed Connelly was hit between frame 224 and 225.. Dave Meyers claims frame 236 big problem guys if you have not noticed yet? I agree with Dave Meyers Connely was hit between 233 and 236., thanks for proving me right.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What You funny guy.

Then start off your own theory by listing the shooters. The names. No waffle.

You keep asserting that your theory is the truth, but you seem to stumble right out of the blocks giving even the most rudimentary details about it. It seems like you'll accept any theory, no matter how ridiculous, anything as long as it's not the "official story"

Also, this happened over 55 years ago, so why do your theories about it seem to change every 5 pages?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Then start off your own theory by listing the shooters. The names. No waffle.

You keep asserting that your theory is the truth, but you seem to stumble right out of the blocks giving even the most rudimentary details about it. It seems like you'll accept any theory, no matter how ridiculous, anything as long as it's not the "official story"

Also, this happened over 55 years ago, so why do your theories about it seem to change every 5 pages?

The only person in this thread who has something to say is Nal even if we disagree. He has taken the time to research the subject.

Already answered this and not doing this again for your benefit.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The only person in this thread who has something to say is Nal even if we disagree. He has taken the time to research the subject.

Already answered this and not doing this again for your benefit.

No you didn't answer this. You used a tactic of being deliberately vague and the names chopped and changed from the .jpg you posted.

Just list the names, no speculation, no "it could be a non American", no "it could be anyone in this .jpg picture"

If you can't be bothered to provide basic information and back it up, why should anyone be bothered answering your neverending demands for highly detailed information and explanations for every tiny aspect

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Is Dale K. Myers claiming Connelly and Kennedy were hit by the same bullet in frame 236. Meyer admits on this that Connelly was hit in frame 236. This should very interesting info for Nal, will you call Dale Myers a liar too?

Anyone with a good eye knows Kennedy was hit in the back and in the throat between frame 208 and 224. So how you be hit by the same bullet in frame 236?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Remember Nal and others claimed Connelly was hit between frame 224 and 225.. Dave Meyers claims frame 236 big problem guys if you have not noticed yet? I agree with Dave Meyers Connely was hit between 233 and 236., thanks for proving me right.

You love living in Walter Mitty land. Hes claiming he wasn't hit at 236.

It even says in the video if you didn't just skim watch about frame 236 that "Myers is certain that Connally and conspiracy theorists are wrong".

Whats hilarious is your lack of knowledge or willingness to learn. I bet you just heard the quote you wanted to hear and then closed the video. That video was to show the trajectory, which it did, and which you ignored.

2 mins here though for the frame Connally was hit. Every single recreation ever done is the same, as are the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No you didn't answer this. You used a tactic of being deliberately vague and the names chopped and changed from the .jpg you posted.

Just list the names, no speculation, no "it could be a non American", no "it could be anyone in this .jpg picture"

If you can't be bothered to provide basic information and back it up, why should anyone be bothered answering your neverending demands for highly detailed information and explanations for every tiny aspect

His "theories" are just nicked from other websites, poorly researched (as that utter embarrassment above shows) and mainly based on the JFK movie, The Men Who Killed Kennedy and Jim Garrison.

Quick bit of info on Jim Garrisons case.

Weekend of the shooting a drunk ex friend of David Ferrie named Jack Martin called everyone he knew telling them Ferrie was involved. Everyone ignored him apart from Garrison who arrested Ferrie and later dismissed him. Martin is investigated and quickly cleared. He then admits to making it up.

Attorney Dean Andrews (a very colourful character) is layed up in hospital and claims he gets a call from "Clay Bertrand" to go represent Oswald. He very quickly admits to making this up.

In 1967, Garrison runs with this, needs to find a "Clay" from New Orleans who is gay so says a bartender told them that Clay Bertrand was Claw Shaw and arrests Clay Shaw. Andrew's "Clay" was 5ft 8, Claw Shaw is 6ft 4. He told Shaw he would arrest him if he didn't take a lie detector test. Shaw was gay so didn't want to do that as he had issues about his private life.

Garrisons star witness Perry Russo is the one who claims (after being drugged and hypnotised) to have seen Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald in the same room but before the trial admits to investigators that he made it up. His 2nd hypno session he speaks of "Clem Bertrand".

Dean Andrews, despite risking perjuring himself, admits in the trial to making up "Clay Bertrand". The same thing he told the Warren Commission.

The jury dismissed the case in less than an hour. The trial barely lasted 3 weeks. Russo is not featured in the JFK movie despite being the star witness which tells you a lot. Even Stone thought he was a joke!

Russo was the first to mention "Crossfire", Roger Craig was involved in the case and so on. A joke of a case. Even Mark Lane dismissed it.

The JFK movie, The Men Who Killed Kennedy are based on Garrisons nonsense and these are the basis of Cheerful Springs "theories" so remember that when you read his posts. They're based on things that have already been proved not only as incorrect 50 years ago but completely fabricated, as admitted by the people who fabricated the story.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

You love living in Walter Mitty land. Hes claiming he wasn't hit at 236.

It even says in the video if you didn't just skim watch about frame 236 that "Myers is certain that Connally and conspiracy theorists are wrong".

Whats hilarious is your lack of knowledge or willingness to learn. I bet you just heard the quote you wanted to hear and then closed the video. That video was to show the trajectory, which it did, and which you ignored.

2 mins here though for the frame Connally was hit. Every single recreation ever done is the same, as are the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films.

His "theories" are just nicked from other websites, poorly researched (as that utter embarrassment above shows) and mainly based on the JFK movie, The Men Who Killed Kennedy and Jim Garrison.

Quick bit of info on Jim Garrisons case.

Weekend of the shooting a drunk ex friend of David Ferrie named Jack Martin called everyone he knew telling them Ferrie was involved. Everyone ignored him apart from Garrison who arrested Ferrie and later dismissed him. Martin is investigated and quickly cleared. He then admits to making it up.

Attorney Dean Andrews (a very colourful character) is layed up in hospital and claims he gets a call from "Clay Bertrand" to go represent Oswald. He very quickly admits to making this up.

In 1967, Garrison runs with this, needs to find a "Clay" from New Orleans who is gay so says a bartender told them that Clay Bertrand was Claw Shaw and arrests Clay Shaw. Andrew's "Clay" was 5ft 8, Claw Shaw is 6ft 4. He told Shaw he would arrest him if he didn't take a lie detector test. Shaw was gay so didn't want to do that as he had issues about his private life.

Garrisons star witness Perry Russo is the one who claims (after being drugged and hypnotised) to have seen Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald in the same room but before the trial admits to investigators that he made it up. His 2nd hypno session he speaks of "Clem Bertrand".

Dean Andrews, despite risking perjuring himself, admits in the trial to making up "Clay Bertrand". The same thing he told the Warren Commission.

The jury dismissed the case in less than an hour. The trial barely lasted 3 weeks. Russo is not featured in the JFK movie despite being the star witness which tells you a lot. Even Stone thought he was a joke!

Russo was the first to mention "Crossfire", Roger Craig was involved in the case and so on. A joke of a case. Even Mark Lane dismissed it.

The JFK movie, The Men Who Killed Kennedy are based on Garrisons nonsense and these are the basis of Cheerful Springs "theories" so remember that when you read his posts. They're based on things that have already been proved not only as incorrect 50 years ago but completely fabricated, as admitted by the people who fabricated the story.

You posted a different video. Are you claiming he changed his clothes? He likely realised his mistake or it was pointed out to him and then changed his mind. He clearly said was frame 236 Connelly made his first erratic movement. He even admitted on that video Connelly said himself it was around frame 236 that he felt a sharp blow. People can watch it and judge this for themselves.

Connelly was not hit in frame 224 or 225 neither was Kennedy, but you can continue to believe this if you like. Gov Connelly and his wife said Kennedy was hit by a bullet before her husband got hit. She saw him in distress when she looked.

What I find interesting there no video or photographs of Kennedy car in clear view behind the street sign. Nix and Muchmore video only shows the final shot to the head, also strange.

Tina Tower video footage puzzles me greatly, she captured Kennedy car going passed her at the TSBD and then the video stops rolling and does not follow the car all the way down to the underpass. Where she was all she had to do is pan the camera and turn it to look down and she would have captured the magic bullet shot. Has anyone asked her why she suddenly stopped recording when the car passed the TSBD?

Garrison aim was to bring David Ferrie to trial, not Clay Shaw, of course, he dies in mysterious circumstances after Garrison approached him. You know it shady when David Ferrie gay partner dies in the same week!

I agree with you though, Garrison witnesses turned out to be unreliable. Then again other witnesses Garrison called to testify went missing and were never found again. I still believe Garrison was correct, David Ferrie, Oswald and Guy Banister knew each other in New Orleans.

Clay Shaw lied on the stand, by the way. In the 90s it was shown that Clay Shaw was an asset of the CIA. He denied this during the trial. He committed perjury.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You posted a different video. Are you claiming he changed his clothes? He likely realised his mistake or it was pointed out to him and then changed his mind. He clearly said was frame 236 Connelly made his first erratic movement. He even admitted on that video Connelly said himself it was around frame 236 that he felt a sharp blow. People can watch it and judge this for themselves.

Yes its a different documentary. And no he said there is no erratic movement from 224 to 240 and "it all starts" at 224. Don't take the clip out of context. Watch the full doc and you'll see. Hes always been consistent about it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Connelly was not hit in frame 224 or 225 neither was Kennedy, but you can continue to believe this if you like. Gov Connelly and his wife said Kennedy was hit by a bullet before her husband got hit. She saw him in distress when she looked.

Explain JFKs hand movement, Connallys jacket and the funky chicken in those two frames then? Connally is already shouting and twisting and contorting at 236.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What I find interesting there no video or photographs of Kennedy car in clear view behind the street sign. Nix and Muchmore video only shows the final shot to the head, also strange.

Tina Tower video footage puzzles me greatly, she captured Kennedy car going passed her at the TSBD and then the video stops rolling and does not follow the car all the way down to the underpass. Where she was all she had to do is pan the camera and turn it to look down and she would have captured the magic bullet shot. Has anyone asked her why she suddenly stopped recording when the car passed the TSBD?

Same reason Zapruder stopped filming when the car went behind the sign. Film was very expensive in 1963.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Garrison aim was to bring David Ferrie to trial, not Clay Shaw, of course, he dies in mysterious circumstances after Garrison approached him. You know it shady when David Ferrie gay partner dies in the same week!

Nothing mysterious about a brain hemorrhage. possibly stress related. He had been sick for years. A coincidence though no doubt.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I agree with you though, Garrison witnesses turned out to be unreliable. Then again other witnesses Garrison called to testify went missing and were never found again. I still believe Garrison was correct, David Ferrie, Oswald and Guy Banister knew each other in New Orleans.

The only evidence for this is from Perry Russo who was lying and Delphine Roberts who said Oswald was upstairs which was impossible as 544 Camp St couldn't be reached by going upstairs from Bannisters office. As pointed out before, she is nuts. A racist right wing lunatic.

Its a great story but theres no evidence. All of the evidence points to the Oswald/Bringuier story.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Clay Shaw lied on the stand, by the way. In the 90s it was shown that Clay Shaw was an asset of the CIA. He denied this during the trial. He committed perjury.

He did lie. Sort of. He was an unofficial contact offering business info. In 1949 he had clearance for an operation that was never involved in and theres no evidence of anything past 1954. "Asset" is a little strong.

It was his own legal team that brought up the CIA in the trial. Garrison never asked him. So technically he did never "work" for the CIA but did have contact with them. Either way, he had absolutely zero to do with the assassination and the Garrison case was a load of cobblers.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Yes its a different documentary. And no he said there is no erratic movement from 224 to 240 and "it all starts" at 224. Don't take the clip out of context. Watch the full doc and you'll see. Hes always been consistent about it.



Explain JFKs hand movement, Connallys jacket and the funky chicken in those two frames then? Connally is already shouting and twisting and contorting at 236.



Same reason Zapruder stopped filming when the car went behind the sign. Film was very expensive in 1963.



Nothing mysterious about a brain hemorrhage. possibly stress related. He had been sick for years. A coincidence though no doubt.



The only evidence for this is from Perry Russo who was lying and Delphine Roberts who said Oswald was upstairs which was impossible as 544 Camp St couldn't be reached by going upstairs from Bannisters office. As pointed out before, she is nuts. A racist right wing lunatic.

Its a great story but theres no evidence. All of the evidence points to the Oswald/Bringuier story.



He did lie. Sort of. He was an unofficial contact offering business info. In 1949 he had clearance for an operation that was never involved in and theres no evidence of anything past 1954. "Asset" is a little strong.

It was his own legal team that brought up the CIA in the trial. Garrison never asked him. So technically he did never "work" for the CIA but did have contact with them. Either way, he had absolutely zero to do with the assassination and the Garrison case was a load of cobblers.

Nal listen to the words coming out of his mouth at 2 minutes. He even stopped the frame at 236 to highlight it. Just admit it he said two different things on two different videos, please? He says on the video Connelly admits himself in 1966 he was hit by a bullet at frame 236. It not out of context.

Gunman are firing at them. If you hear a loud bang would you not be startled or jump in your seat? Connelly is reacting to what happening around him from frame 225 to 236. 233 to 236 was the point Connelly felt a bullet hitting him in the back near the right shoulder.

Zaprauder stop filming when the car went behind the Stemmson street sign? I let this go as a just error by you, we all make mistakes. I just find it odd that she did not record the limo going down the street. All these videos seem to abrupdly end for no apparent reason.

A brain Hemorrage could be induced by drugs it very probable., that he got taken out. His lover just happens to be murdered in the same week is no conincidence. Too many people have died in suspicioius circumstances.

Banister Wife also saw the Oswald leaflets in her Husband belongings, she threw them out in the trash, not knowing the significance. Look Banister Secretary saw Oswald and Ferrie at 544 camp st. Why would she lie? We even have prove Ferrie and Oswald were in same location, you saw that picture. Oswald leaflets had 544 camp st printed address. There no way Oswald could operate on that street as a marxist or Communist and get away with it and not be confronted.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nal listen to the words coming out of his mouth at 2 minutes. He even stopped the frame at 236 to highlight it. Just admit it he said two different things on two different videos, please?

No, because its not true. Thats what conspiracy nuts do. Ignore facts.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He says on the video Connelly admits himself in 1966 he was hit by a bullet at frame 236. It not out of context.

Yes it is. He says Connally himself said (in addition to what conspiracy theorists say) was hit at 236.

At 2 mins 30. He clearly talking about Frame 224/5/6 as theyre the frames hes showing! Also look at 3 mins 50.

Its like having to explain thing to a thick child who just keeps saying "But why?".

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Gunman are firing at them. If you hear a loud bang would you not be startled or jump in your seat? Connelly is reacting to what happening around him from frame 225 to 236. 233 to 236 was the point Connelly felt a bullet hitting him in the back near the right shoulder.

His position at 233 to 236 doesn't line up with his wounds so its impossible. Hes clearly hit at 226. Jacket pops out, anguish on face, shoulder jerks up.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Zaprauder stop filming when the car went behind the Stemmson street sign? I let this go as a just error by you, we all make mistakes. I just find it odd that she did not record the limo going down the street. All these videos seem to abrupdly end for no apparent reason.

OK Lets try again - because film was expensive. Nix stopped filming, as did Muchmore as did Zapruder, yes not at the sign but when the limo didnt come out from behind the wall for a few seconds after he started filming. Standard in 1963 for an average joe.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Banister Wife also saw the Oswald leaflets in her Husband belongings, she threw them out in the trash, not knowing the significance. Look Banister Secretary saw Oswald and Ferrie at 544 camp st. Why would she lie? We even have prove Ferrie and Oswald were in same location, you saw that picture. Oswald leaflets had 544 camp st printed address. There no way Oswald could operate on that street as a marxist or Communist and get away with it and not be confronted.

Which was his plan, as was proven by the confrontation, his arrest and his letters to the Fair Play Committee. Which for some reason you ignore.

You seem top believe any old story told by very unreliable people (why would they lie?) and dont believe others - like 95% of people in the plaza who heard 3 shots. Theyre all liars but a when its a racist right wing nut lying for money on the back of Jim Garrisons corrupt case (he also paid Perry Russo to lie) its gospel.

I cant help you there.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

No, because its not true. Thats what conspiracy nuts do. Ignore facts.



Yes it is. He says Connally himself said (in addition to what conspiracy theorists say) was hit at 236.

At 2 mins 30. He clearly talking about Frame 224/5/6 as theyre the frames hes showing! Also look at 3 mins 50.

Its like having to explain thing to a thick child who just keeps saying "But why?".



His position at 233 to 236 doesn't line up with his wounds so its impossible. Hes clearly hit at 226. Jacket pops out, anguish on face, shoulder jerks up.



OK Lets try again - because film was expensive. Nix stopped filming, as did Muchmore as did Zapruder, yes not at the sign but when the limo didnt come out from behind the wall for a few seconds after he started filming. Standard in 1963 for an average joe.



Which was his plan, as was proven by the confrontation, his arrest and his letters to the Fair Play Committee. Which for some reason you ignore.

You seem top believe any old story told by very unreliable people (why would they lie?) and dont believe others - like 95% of people in the plaza who heard 3 shots. Theyre all liars but a when its a racist right wing nut lying for money on the back of Jim Garrisons corrupt case (he also paid Perry Russo to lie) its gospel.

I cant help you there.

Not true Nal because Dale Meyers highlights- in the image provided- the frame he believed the magic bullet hit Connelly in the back and was frame 236.



You can see Connelly's head and body was only positioned like this to the right exactly 235 and 236 of the Zapruder film.

We know Kennedy was already hit by a bullet before frame 224. His arms starting moving up to his throat at 224. Therefore he was hit before 224 as it takes at least 1-second to 2-seconds to move your arms up to your throat. It can not happen in 18th or 16th a second of a frame.

Kennedy was hit between frame 208 and 224. Then Connelly felt a blow to the back at frame 235 and 236.

Two bullets came in roughly 1 to 2 seconds apart. Two shooters firing from behind.

I don't buy the expensive film excuse. It only a few more seconds of recording. Tina Tower video footage is most curious of them all. Because she panned and followed the car passing the TSBD and then stops recording. I have to look into it more and find out what she did that.

I don't ignore. The confrontation was on a different street, not 544 camp ST. The confrontation was over Oswald claiming he was an anti-Castro supporter. There you see Oswald playing both sides. Oswald was the only member of Fair play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans. Why did he not try to recruit more members?

Cheerful Spring

This a good talk about the JFK conspiracy. Douglas Horne work on this is excellent. One of the better JFK researchers out there. It a long presentation but presents a good case for the conspiracy side.