The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

Rick,

I was just hypothesising that SOME people might be encouraged to 'go along' with a 'cover up' for reasons that had nothing to do with the conspirators. Lots of people, in lots of jobs, will attempt to 'cover up' a screw up, for instance.
It does occur to me, in reading the discussion of whether it was a 'close-range' high caliber pistol or .45 ammo, or a high poweed rifle from more distance; one would have to research the experience of any Dr. commenting on the bullet wounds; ER docs and trauma surgeons in urban centers see lots of gunshot wounds; but %90+ are from pistols, and even when from a rifle are usually at close range. If they had military experience, as a Dr. or even medic, they would be moe likely to have experience seeing gunshot wounds from a greater distance, using 'high powered' rifles.

After all, any D. is only going to know what he's had previous experience with.

I also wonder exactly what WOULD be the difference in the wound, between say,..a .45 cal at close range, and a 'high powered' sniper type wound, at a distance. Either one would pretty much 'tash' the melon, but would the wound be distincly different? I sure don't have that expertise.

Anyway, Rick, you seem to feel you have it 'solved', as for me, not sure I'll ever 'know', but don't believe the official version. And, personally believe getting shot was the best thing for his legacy; otherwise he rather than johnson would have taken 'blame' for Viet Nam, and i don't think he would have handled it substantively differently, but thats just my opinion.

Much moe concerned about current events, like O'bummercare and gun rights, cause thats effecting me now. Jim

[gene gene]

Rick,
Could you post a link to the NYC police sent notices article? I've looked but can't find it. I don't think google likes the TEA party

Thanks, Gene

[rickoff]

Rick,
Could you post a link to the NYC police sent notices article? I've looked but can't find it. I don't think Google likes the TEA party

Thanks, Gene

I used to like Google and used it for several years, but then stopped because of two reasons:
1. As you have mentioned, searches related to anything which confronts the NWO agenda with factual information appear to be obscured or otherwise hindered by Google.
2. It is well known that Google passes on information about search keywords and activities to the "government," which various "government" agencies can then use to target patriotic individuals and groups which oppose their tyrannical agenda.

Nowadays I prefer to use anonymous search engines such as www.duckduckgo.com and here is a link to search results for NYC gun confiscation articles.

Here's a scanned image of a confiscation order said to have been sent to a NYC gun owner:


The TEA Party.net quote which I posted had come to me via TEA Party e-mail, so I'm not sure if that is also posted in an article on a TEA Party website, but as you can see from clicking the link above there are quite a number of stories about this that can be found on the Internet. The TEA Party news item was probably incorrect in stating that owners of five-round clip guns were the ones targeted for confiscation, as most of the other stories agree that notices were sent to anyone registered as owning a firearm having more than a five round capacity. Of course that doesn't negate the seriousness of this unconstitutional confiscation scheme, and it should be cause for alarm to anyone who has obeyed unconstitutional gun registration schemes which never had any real purpose other than to inform a Constitution bashing "government" and police state as to who owns what weapons and where they can be found when these authorities decide it is time to disarm the People.

Rick

[dutchdivco]

Rick

On the search engines, I thought i had noticed a change in the 'main' popular search engines such as google; it seems like i get a LOT of commercial sites, and there are things that i can't find, regardless of search terms. I will try this one you posted, and see if i like it any better.

On the copy of the 'notice', I see it starts out "It appears you have,..." Seems to me thats unusual wording for a Gov't notification. It would be interesting to find out if this is a hoax or not. I'm sure you'll let us know if you are able to confirm it.

I'm a little confused. I THOUGHT awhile back, SCOTUS issued a ruling which clearly said individuals have the right to keep and bear, and overruling some municipal rulings, such as Chicago and Washington D.C., which were outright prohibitions against handguns. So now what, they are going after anything that holds more than 5 rounds?

If this isn't a hoax, I'm sure someone will be filing at the courthouse, to contest this, soon.

Everyone connected with the Federal Gov't 'registry' try's to say its constructed so as to eliminate the possibility of it being used this way, but its obvious if you have contact info on all purchasers, than 'if' you decide to confiscate, you have a way to do so.

I suspect the 'gun show loophole' closing efforts are really about this, as well. Firstly, we know this 'nutjob' shootings, in most cases involved legally obtained guns which WERE purchased from a dealer, not a private individual. And, if they do try to confiscate them, they don't want people to be saying "Oh, that gun? I sold it to a guy". By requiring a paper trail, for EVERY ownership transfer, (not just those from a dealer), they eliminate that 'out'.

Anyway, hoping you can 'pin down' whether this is 'for reals' or not. It would be interesting to know. Jim

[aljhoa]

JFK Mythology

Al, please don't tell me that you are one of those people who still believe that Secret Service agent William Greer, the driver of JFK's limousine, was the person who fired the fatal head shot. To be sure, there is a frame within the Zapruder film which lends some credence to that theory,

As to the quoted statements that you posted, what they actually agree upon is the fact that the fatal head shot was a high velocity bullet fired from fairly close range, and that the sound of that shot was very loud. You will note that these observations are all characteristic of the actual kill shot weapon, a Remington Fireball, which was fired by hit man James Files.

2. Dr. Charles Wilbur: “Interpretation of the fatal head wound by several attending surgeons suggested a high velocity handgun bullet fired at close range,”

5. "Dr. McClelland judged that the wound in the President's skull could be expected …with a heavy calibre bullet, such as a .45 pistol fired at close range…"

6. A.J. Millican: “It sounded like a .45 automatic, ” <19WCH486>

7. S.M. Holland: “It would be like you’re firing a .38 pistol right beside a shotgun, or a .45 right beside a shotgun.”

What we can clearly see from this higher resolution sequence is that the theorized 'handgun' is nothing more than sunlight reflecting off the top of the head of SS agent Kellerman, who is seated beside Greer. Thus, the "obvious fact" stated by frisco kid has no semblance of fact whatsoever.

7. James Altgens: (photographer, south curb of Elm):“The last shot sounded like it came from the left side of the car, if it was close range because, if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy," 7WCH518.

8. Hugh Betzner, Jr. (south curb of Elm, nr junction with Houston): “I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following: I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air,” I also remember seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in the President's car or somewhere immediately around his car 19WCH467

Al

[rickoff]

The Treasury Department announced on Monday that the "government" has sold its remaining shares of General Motors (aka GM, or Government Motors) and that losses from the 2009 auto industry bailout total about $15 billion. That's hardly what we could call a success story, especially when taxpayers are left holding the bag for $15 billion in losses from this unwise and unjust government "investment" which was forced upon taxpayers without their consent. The actual losses are even greater if one realizes that there is also an opportunity cost, and that the opportunity of investing the more than $50 billion that went into GM elsewhere, in a wise investment, could have produced a substantial gain. That unrealized gain, which could easily have amounted to a gain of $10 billion over four years, is a missed opportunity which now becomes an added loss and pushes our actual losses to around $25 billion, or roughly half the amount of the government "investment."


Sweet, huh?

[rickoff]

JFK Mythology






Al

So Al, what is your purpose of showing the frame 310 through 313 sequence that we see above? Do you suggest that a gun is seen, and that the driver is holding that gun? I have to admit that there is something seen at the left interior side of the car, between Jackie and Mrs Connally, which could be mistaken as being a handgun, but that is not what it is. If it were then it would be Mrs Connaly holding it rather than the driver, but it is not a gun. It is definitely the door mounted armrest, and door opening mechanism handle that we see gleaming at the front underside of the armrest.

As to the frisco kid quote at the bottom of your post, his quote of James Altgens carries no weight. Altgens was a photographer, not a gun expert. His statement, that "if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy." is pure malarkey. I'll have to assume that you missed reading my post #4920, in which a real gun expert says this of the Remington Fireball: "I found the .222 version to be quite manageable with one hand, having no more recoil than my .44 magnum, and in a 2 handed combat stance [and certainly when supported by the top of a picket fence- Rickoff] it can thread a needle at 150 yards. Up to those ranges, the Fireball would be a perfect choice for an assassination weapon if portability and concealability were at issue." - John Ritchson (SSGT. 499th TC USATC HG US Army Class of 69) (GunSmith/Ballistician,Black Eagle Gun Works) (Survivor, SE Asian Games, 11BRAVO7,Tet 1970)

As to Hugh Betzner's statement that, he "saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car," he also says this assumption was based on the fact that he saw fragments going up in the air. Well of course he saw fragments going up in the air, but these were blood and bone fragments - not firecracker fragments. Likewise, Betzner's statement that, "I also remember seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in the President's car or somewhere immediately around his car," carries no weight because it can not be substantiated from any photo, filmstrip, or other witness statement that I know of. Furthermore, Betzner was nowhere near the car when the fatal head shot was fired. He had been up on Houston Street when the limo had passed by, then ran down to the corner of Houston and Elm. Betzner said that, "I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car." So Betzner was not close enough to make out a handgun even if there had been one. Betzner's "flash of pink" was surely Jackie Kennedy, who was wearing a pink outfit, so why not say he saw Jackie doing something, rather than describing it as a "flash of pink?" It would appear that he wasn't close enough to understand what he saw. Betzner goes on to say that, "Then I ran around so I could look over the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when I was sitting back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following:" So Betzner admits that he isn't even sure where he was when the fatal head shots were fired, and says he may have been at the corner of Elm (the corner of Elm and Houston). Betzer continues, "I heard at least two shots fired [Betzner had already heard two other shots fired before this - Rickoff] and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. I also saw a man in either the President's car or the car behind his and someone down in one of those cars pull out what looked like a rifle. I also remember seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in the President's car or somewhere immediately around his car." With Secret Service agents having left the running boards of their follow-up car and rushing towards the Presidential limo, it is altogether possible that one of the agents did have a shiny handgun in his hand. Probably all of the agents had brandished their weapons quickly. Betzer is too far away to determine if what he sees actually is a handgun, and cannot determine if the gun is inside the car or somewhere near it. I think we can safely assume that agent Kellerman, who was riding in the front passenger seat of the limo, was armed and may have pulled out his weapon, but keep in mind that this is Betzer's final recollection before seeing the limo speed off. The two mortal head shots had already been fired, and Clint Hill had made it into the limo.

So you see, Al, the only things Betzer said which really have much significance was his statement that, to him, it "looked like the cars were stopped," as well as his recounting of hearing a total of at least 4 shots. This is significant because it does add weight to what people have said after viewing the original, untainted Zapruder film, that two shots were fired before the limo came to a full stop, and then two rapid succession head shots were fired - the first from behind, and the second from the front, exactly how hit man James Files described the kill sequence. There's really no point in us chasing after theories about the limo driver that have no basis in factual evidence and which dissolve upon closer examination, and none of the quoted statements which you posted lend any credence to such theories. Instead, let's go with what does add up and make sense, and what has been supported by many eyewitnesses, as well as what we can clearly see with our own eyes without having to imagine something. There's plenty of real and indisputable evidence as to what actually happened on November 22, 1963, and it all points to the official story of a single shooter being a hoaxed cover-up.

Rick

[gene gene]

Hi Rick,
Thanks for the link. I'm now using DuckDuckGo and it seems to be working fine.
Regards, Gene

[dutchdivco]

For me,

you don't even have to 'go there', with the 'opportunity lost' extra 10 billion. After l, the idea as i understand it is the Fed. Gov. isn't supposed to be investing, and making a 'return on investment'.
15 Bilion 'lost', to 'save' GM. How much went to (crap, I can't remember the name of it!) that Insurance company, that in effect insured banks etc. that invested in dirivatives and lost? it was over a 100 billion 'we' (Fed) poured into it, and whats the final tally on that,...venture? Was it 'AIG'?

How 'bout this sign interpreter in South Africa? Standing 2' from O'bummer, and either he 'conned' his way into the job, and is a fake, or (as he says) he was 'suffering from a schitzophrenic episode', while standing right next to O'bummer. Either way, seems like he would be considered a 'security risk', and his being so close to the president a security lapse of major proportions.
Looks like yet another Secret Service scandal; the SS basically 'trusted' the South Africans to do 'proper' screening, and someone dropped the ball. Oops!

And, Congress (largely) let itself off the hook, with this budget deal, avoiding dealing with any of the tough issues, and giving itself 2 years before it needs to avoid dealing with them, again. No entitlement reform, no tax policy reform, etc. What a bunch of gutless worms.Jim

[aljhoa]

So Al, what is your purpose of showing the frame 310 through 313 sequence that we see above?

Don't you see "firecracker going off in the president's car,"?

His statement, that "if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy." is pure malarkey.

MELON SHOT 3 TIMES WITH .45 CALIBER ACP - YouTube

Likewise, Betzner's statement that, "I also remember seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in the President's car or somewhere immediately around his car," carries no weight because it can not be substantiated from any photo, filmstrip, or other witness statement that I know of.

Did the C.I.A. and Secret Service confiscate movies, movie cameras, cameras and Polaroid snap shots?

There's plenty of real and indisputable evidence as to what actually happened on November 22, 1963, and it all points to the official story of a single shooter being a hoaxed cover-up.

Conclusions regarding the Kennedy assassination

On the Kennedy assassination, the HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:

2.Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

3.The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:
four shots were fired
United States House Select Committee on Assassinations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Al

[rickoff]

Don't you see "firecracker going off in the president's car,"?Al

No, do you? If so, where?

[dutchdivco]

There is one other possibility,

that I haven'theard anyone voice, but I suppose it may be 'out there, somewhere'. Granted, it MAY seem 'far-fetched', but what the heck.

Suppose its just possible, that 2 DIFFERENT individuals or groups of people, totally indepenndent of each other, decided they wanted to kill kennedy, and BOTH focused on his ride thru Dealy plaza as being the best place to do it.

And so there WERE 2 different shooters, neither having any knowledge of the other. Bizarre, but just barely within the realm of possibility, particularly given how all the speculation points to many possible groups who had both motive, means, and the opportunity what with him riding in that open Limo thru Dealy plaza.

It may be you 2 are just going to have to 'agree to disagree'. After all, this 'debate' has been going on for 50 years, and will continue. Feeling confident YOU know the truth of what happened is ONE thing, being able to convince anyone else that YOUR theory is the 'right' one is something else, entirely.

It gts down to human nature. A great many 'Debates' in our society, religious vs. athiest, liberal vs. conservative, etc. come down to this; we, as humans, have a tendency to confuse beliefs with facts. There are a LOT of things which I BELIEVE, and, in my mind, because I BELIEVE them strongly, I think of them as FACTS. But, they aren't. They are simply things I believe.

And, there is a LOT of scientific research on how we go about establishing beliefs, and logic has little to do with it. Basically, we decide what to believe, and then find logical reasons to justify/rationalise AFTER. We each develop our own 'world view', of how the world works, and then we see everything that happens THRU that world view. And, we fight anything that contradicts that world view; its the nature of humans. We engage in 'denial', that 'river in egypt', a LOT. We ALL do it, all the time. And, when our 'world view' is challenged, we fight vigorously to be able to hold on to our view. Jim

[rickoff]

And, there is a LOT of scientific research on how we go about establishing beliefs, and logic has little to do with it. Basically, we decide what to believe, and then find logical reasons to justify/rationalise AFTER.

Jim, that may be how you and many others reach conclusions, but it is not my method. When I want to understand something I do extensive research into it and look at all the theories, as well as all the evidence which is either fully supported or at least has "the ring of truth" to it, rather than being just a theory or supposition. And even then, after I reach a conclusion, I will always be willing to hear someone out who has reached a differing conclusion. I will keep an open mind to whatever evidence that person presents, and will take steps to fairly evaluate that evidence. However, if that evidence is not reasonably supported by verifiable analysis, I will of course refute that evidence and explain why. Doing so has no semblance to an argument. Rather, it is a learning experience. If the person presenting the theory is shown that the theory is unsupported then that person, and others, will have learned something. If the theory was one that I had previously been unaware of then I too would have learned something from examining it. And if the theory turns out to be supported and verifiable then I will reach the obvious conclusion that it does have substance and merit, and will readily state that.

As you suggest, Jim, it certainly is possible that two or more groups had separate plans to assassinate Kennedy while he was in Texas. The idea that all would have chosen Dealey Plaza in Dallas as the ideal location for the killing, or that the close timing of the shooting sequence was purely coincidental, are ideas which are not rooted in common sense. What does make sense is that this was a carefully planned and coordinated attack carried out by multiple professional hit-men assassins. And when James Files, a known Chicago hit-man, has not only admitted his part in the assassination conspiracy, but has also implicated the other shooters (who had been known to work on other assassination plots hatched by the CIA, and who all were violently killed shortly before they were to testify), don't you think that the Files story should be considered highly credible, as well as the best possible explanation at this time as to who the actual killers were? If anyone can show me credible evidence that additional shooters were involved then I will gladly examine that evidence. One thing is quite certain, and that is that there were enough shooters stationed at differing locations to ensure that at least one of the assassins would have the opportunity to pull the trigger on a fatal head shot. They were taking no chances that Kennedy would leave Dallas that day in anything other than a casket.

[Mad Scientist]

And speaking of conspiracies and cover up the Sandy hook anniversary coming up. Like JFK the official story has more holes then Swiss cheese. Does anyone believe this is just another case of a “lone gunman”?

[dutchdivco]

Rick

I fully understand what you are saying,...but. Everyone thinks they make 'logical' decisions, after looking at all the evidence. Or, put it this way, very FEW people will admit or recognise what science says is the way we make decisions.And again, 50+ years of research on how our brains and minds work tells us it just ain't so.
The vast majority of people believe they are better drivers than 'average', more intelligent than 'average', and that they are 'open minded', and more willing to consider other points of view, than they really are, and the list goes on. And, of coarse, they are wrong, as the vast majority can't possibly be better or smarter than average, or that would skew the 'average'.
You ARE human, not a Vulcan. And I don't want to personalise this; you have shown, on this thread and others that you are intelligent, and dig deep into these topics that interest you. Just saying, we ALL do these things, to SOME degree.

On the 2 or more different shooters who are unaware of each other, in a book I read the author did present the idea that Oswald was recruited to shoot, but not hit anyone. The idea is he was told it was cause Kennedy wasn't taking his security seriously enough, and so having Oswald shoot and not hit anyone would cause him to be more security conscious. And then the 'real' shooter shot right after, killing Kennedy. It sai something about how Oswald DID do something similar, several months before; shooting at some general, although not hitting anyone; they gave Oswald some reason for this, as well, but it was really kind of a 'dry run', for them to test Oswald. You know anything about Oswald having taken a shot at but not hitting some U.S. General, months before Dallas, or was this just malarchy?

Anyway, you BELIEVE you have figured it out, and know both who the people were who pulled the trigger, and who was behind it. And you, on some level has chosen to assign some of the things you believe the status of facts.

Others are just as convinced of their 'facts'. And this is just the situation that I was trying to describe. YOUR 'facts' (actually, your interpretation of information which you made a decision to believe) are at variance with the 'facts' (actually, the interpretation of information which Al has on some level made a decision to believe) and so you each dispute the others view. Which is fine, you and Al have both shown yourselves capable of debating civilly, and I usually enjoy a good debate.

By the way, on the whole issue of firecrackers; sometimes we try to describe something to someone who wasn't there, and didn't experience it, by sayoing it was 'like' something else; something the oer person can relate to. One would have to go back and look at the exact wording of the statements, and see; was the person or people talking about firecrackers saying it 'sounded like a firecracker', or did they say it in such a way as to say they were saying it WAS a firecracker?

And, it also occurs to me, IF you were conspiring such a shooting as this, with perhaps several gunmen in different positions, having one or more people staged to set off firecrackers at different locations WOULD be a good way to confuse things even more. Anyway, its your thread, and you can present your 'case'; for me, I find it intellectually stimulating, but am not thinking its going tolead to anything, and am more concerned with current efforts to force me to accept ACA, give up my gun, etc. But thats me, of coarse. Jim