The John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage

Feedback (Closed)

Dear Readers,

This section is closed, no more entries can be submitted. It seems to be impossible to establish a serious and neutral discussion, without any assaults, harrasments, blames etc. Interesting enough, 99 percentages of those disturbances were caused by defenders of the Lone Assassin Theory. I am tired of editing and filtering blames and accusations after 15 years.

Sorry for this. Keep asking questions! One day, they will be heard...


« Previous | Next »

On 08-Mar-2009, Linda wrote:


Since Robert would not address your question about the "magic bullet" aka Warren Commission Exhibit 399, I will.

This is an exerpt from Dr. Robert Shaw's testimony before the Warren Commission and I will include a link with photographs. Dr. Shaw was the chief surgeon for Gov. Connally.

"As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by x-ray and during surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds."

In other words you have a nearly perfect bullet in 399, but you have enough metal fragments in Gov. Connally's body as shown in the x=ray that completely disprove the single bullet theory. The fragments could not have come from 399 because there isn't enough defect in 399 to have produced those fragments.

They actually left a number of fragments in the Governor's body! When he passed away, there was a request for an autopsy so that the rest of the bullet fragments could be removed or re-exrayed. The request was denied.

On 07-Mar-2009, Linda wrote:

So Robert doesn't like what's happening and he's going to take his toys and go home. Fine.

Since you are naming me primarily in your "stuck on stupid" insult I will not stand by and allow myself or other conspiracy researchers on this site to be marginalized and made to feel like our opinions are not worth merit.

This is classic disinformation campaign behavior. You come on here, try to trivialize every thing we say point by point. But you don't stop there, when you cannot engage us tit for tat the name calling begins.

You have called us stupid, delusional, nutcases, etc. That is why no one takes you seriously anymore.

We don't owe you or anyone else explanations for anything. Just because someone doesn't engage you with trivia doesn't mean they don't know the facts of the Kennedy case. And let's face it. Who really does know the facts? We have been led down a 46 year path of lies, murder, terroristic threats, harrassment, phony x-rays and sabotaged and altered evidence.

The American taxpayers have paid for the truth time and time again and we haven't gotten it yet! Our government told us via the House Select Committee on Assassinations that our President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "probable conspiracy". We are not making this stuff up. Our own government believes it was a conspiracy. So we are just supposed to sit back, drink the Warren Commission coolaid, and believe that they told us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Is it any wonder the conspiracy believers are at about 90% now? The Justice Department has not done one thing since to get to the truth of who is behind this "probable conspiracy". That is unacceptable.

So Robert has now "exposed" me. Wow. What a revelation.

Here's a thought, instead of trying to "expose" each other, let's start trying to expose the lies that we have been told about the death of the 35th President of the United States.

To do anything else is a complete waste of time.

And lastly I do not try to insult anyone who is on this forum who has ideas different from mine, even if they believe the Warren Commission was right on all points. I just read their thoughts and give mine.

Simple as pie, right Robert?

On 07-Mar-2009, andrea wrote:

robert s.

i can understand that sometimes (in german we would say) "stepping on the point" is frustrating, when there is no coming forward....but you can`t deie, that eve you don`t have an answer to MY QUESTION about the falsification of teh magic bullet!!!! in this is the key issue the warren commision repaorted is based on to prove that oswald is the sole assassinator....

i think the issue is interessting and still wll be and only those people who ARE thinking about (doesn`t matter if the believe in sole assassination or conspirancy) are bringing new apsects by discussing...

my opiniopn is this: without the sole assassinator-believers it can`t be proofed that it is not a conspirancy and without the conspirancy-believers it can´t be proffed it that it is a conspirancy we are looking at.

my motto here is: "a hypothesis is seen as false when it was disproved!!"

On 07-Mar-2009, Robert S. wrote:

That's it. I'm done with this forum. Trying to talk intelligently with conspiracy believers is absolutely pointless. Last week I posed a few difficult questions that totally refute the claims of conspiracy believers. I welcomed any conspiracy believers to address those troublesome points if they could. Linda, (who seems to be the chief conspiracy advocate here) realized that she had no answers to even a one of my questions so she simply ignored them and began pointing at another rainbow to chase. Then I pointed out flaws in a misleading claim she made about the testimony of a Warren Commission witness. And what was Linda's response? Nothing. I exposed her and she ignored my detection and went on to another topic. I addressed the issues raised by comicguy and he is never heard from again.

I think when someone like me (who REALLY knows the evidence in this case) comes along, I spoil the fantasies and fun of the conspiracy believers. So I will leave you conspiracy believers to continue to delude yourselves. ANY question any conspiracy nut can pose I can answer or refute with evidence. I NEVER ignore a question. On the other hand, conspiracy believers nearly ALWAYS ignore difficult questions that deal with the actual evidence in this case.

I'm done. I feel like I've gotten a little bit more stupid by simply reading some of the conspiracy-minded posts placed on this site.

So long.

On 07-Mar-2009, Linda wrote:


You are exactly right. That is what the CIA and government disinformation campaign goons have been trying to do to us for decades. They want us to stop looking at the forest and start examining the cellular structure of the leaves. Because if we do that then we take the focus off the most important question of all-----why was the President killed?

Anyone wonder why our country is in the shape it is in right now? Why do people feel helpless that they no longer have control over anything in their own lives?

The answer to that is simple. It was done by design. It starts with getting rid of a few key people who are a "threat" to powerful individuals who control the money, the media, and the military in this country.

Do you think you are getting "real" news every day in this country? Think again!

There is a reason our country is in chaos. Just look who has been in power for the last couple of decades. And I don't mean just Republicans when I say that.

Our country is practically bankrupt. We are in dept up to our eyeballs to the Chinese and other foreign interests.

We elected these idiots we call our government leaders.

Elaborate scheme to eliminate Kennedy? There was nothing elaborate about it. A few key people with plenty of money and a few hired guns is all it takes. Our own government was in the business of assassinating foreign leaders right and left back in the day when Kennedy was President. They were quite successful at it. Why would it be such a difficult task to turn their guns on their own leader?

On 07-Mar-2009, Linda wrote:

The Secret Service brings on suspicion themselves by their own actions. Read the book by Abraham Bolden, the first black Secret Serviceman in the history of the Secret Service. He tried to warn his superiors about the plot in Chicago. How did they react? By setting him up on trumped up charges and throwing him in jail. So protecting Kennedy will get you jail time. THAT is why we are suspicious of the Secret Service!

They were out to get Kennedy in Chicago, they were out to get him in Tampa, they were out to get him in Miami, they finally succeeded in getting him in Dallas.

Have you seen the film of the limo leaving Love Field before the motorcade?? The Secret Service head of detail CALLS OFF the guy who is on the running board by Kennedy. The Secret Service man shrugs his shoulders in utter disbelief. C'mon, its on youtube for all the world to see. This isn't rocket science. And Kennedy did not ask them to be called off.

Did you listen to the FBI audio surveillance tape of Joseph Milteer right wing extremist taking about how "they can get him from an office building with a high powered rifle"???!! That tape recording was just days before the assassination.


Get real.

On 06-Mar-2009, andrea wrote:

for me it`s hard to undestand why people are still believing, that there was only one person shooting at president kennedy......there are so many witnesses claiming that there where frontal shoots, eventhough there are people including mrs kennedy and mrs connally claiming that there where frontal shoots. and also the people working at parkland hospital where claiming that there was an enter wound on the front of the presindents head....

i think, that is not a quite easy case, because (and that can`t denied by anyone) there was no good there where testimonies which were never recorded or officially taken serious.

but we can`t also deny, that als this trouble of "who shoot the presindet, how many people... and all the other circumstances are taking our focus of that what is really important. namely the effects which were caused by kennedys death and the eliction new president lbj...

it`s all about the money and we have to think about the fact, that the vietnam war was a good source to get lots of money for lots of people who couldn`t get the money with the politics made by jfk!!just think about this...seriously

but te point which makes me really really perplex is...that they still hold on the story of the magic bull.

everyone who has normal common sense can reason that this is absolutely nonsense.....before arguing any longer about all the stuff(and allege oswald was the only shooter), this main issue should have been shown...if someone is able to do the same than the "magic bullet i will completely overtake my opinion....

On 05-Mar-2009, Robert S. wrote:


Your points are such a tangent issue they hardly bear serious comment but I will address them.

You wrote: The President's limo. Whether it did stop or didn't stop is moot. Why did Greer slow down, and where was the President's protection? Review all the different footage and there is literally no protection within 10 feet of the limo.

1. Why did Greer slow down? Easy. He turned around after hearing the rifle shots coming from behind him and as a result he lifted his foot off the accelerator. Simple as that. Keep in mind no president had been assassinated in America since 1901 and NO ONE was anticipating an assassination atht moment Oswald began firing. EVERYONE except Oswald was caught by total surprise. From the first shot to the third shot only about 8.5 seconds passed. That was NOT a lot of time to hear the shots, recognize what kind of sounds they were, determine that they were pointed at the vehicle or the President, and then react by gunning the engine to leave the scene. Incidentally, what are you implying? Are you seriously implying that the Secret Service was in on the assassination? What is your supporting evidence for that claim. Obviously you must believe they were in on it for Greer to "deliberately slow down" as you claim. How did the Secret Service know of Oswald. Is it your contention that Oswald and the Secret Service worked in unison to carry out the assassination? I will anxiously await your evidence to support this claim.

You wrote: "The limo accelerated away from Dealy Plaza AFTER the "head shot" and went to Parkland hospital. Why didn't Greer accelerate out of Dealy Plaza when the first "shots" were fired?"

This was addressed in my previous post. The time needed to hear the noise, identify it as rifle shots, determine they were pointed the President and had in fact hit their target, and then to depress the accelerator all takes seconds of time. It is ridiculous to assume that within two seconds a person caught by total surprise would instantly know all that we know now and react accordingly. You certainly wouldn't have reacted that fast and neither would I. No one would.

Simple as pie.

On 05-Mar-2009, Linda wrote:

You got it Robert. That is EXACTLY what I am claiming. Inner clock?

She had just relieved the switchboard operator for lunch. More importantly, why were they asking to prepare for a craniotomy?? That is an examination of the brain POST MORTEM! The President had not yet arrived. They had no idea what condition he would be in even if your inner clock theory is true.

The testimony was that a Secret Serviceman was asking about when the President would be arriving at Parkland.

There were NO Secret Servicemen anywhere in Dallas except in the motorcade, period! That is an established fact.

On 04-Mar-2009, comicguy wrote:

Considering all the "theories" and evidence or lack thereof, we continue to overlook some very important questions.

1. The President's limo. Whether it did stop or didn't stop is moot. Why did Greer slow down, and where was the President's protection? Review all the different footage and there is literally no protection within 10 feet of the limo.

2. The limo accelerated away from Dealy Plaza AFTER the "head shot" and went to Parkland hospital. Why didn't Greer accelerate out of Dealy Plaza when the first "shots" were fired?

On 04-Mar-2009, Robert S wrote:

C'mon Linda. THIS is your smoking gun. This testimony reveals nothing more than the fact that people don't have an inner clock. Let's look at what Carolyn Wester REALLY said in her testimony shall we? Here is the word-for-word transcript of her testimony:

"At noon, around noon---noontime---I'm not sure as to the exact time it was."

She, like virtually every other normal person on the planet doesn't keep track of their day minute by minute.

But let's look for a minute at your claim and see how sensible it is. According to you, Linda, the government plotted the most elaborate murder in world history, they hired a team of assassins, positioned them in Dallas at various locations, arranged for doctors to falsity their autopsy findings, arranged for the gunmen to be whisked out of Texas without getting seen or caught, and at the same time were too dumb to keep track of the time of the assassination and called a half-hour too early thus revealing their plot?

Is THAT what you are claiming?

I on the other hand choose to believe that the witness simply didn't know the exact time of the phone call and she stated that clearly in her testimony, "I'm not sure as to the exact time it was."

Incidentally, no one has tackled the questions I posted the other day. They should be pretty easy.

On 04-Mar-2009, Linda wrote:

The Warren Commission Testimony of Jane Carolyn Wester on March 10,1964 is one of the main smoking guns for me in the assassination. Sworn testimony by a registered nurse that at noon on November 22, 1963, she was relieving another person for lunch on an operating room switchboard at Parkland Hospital. She received a call stating that a Secret Service agent was at Parkland and inquiring as to when the President had been brought in, and that there was a need to set up for a craniotomy. Only thing was, the President had not yet even been shot. This is sworn testimony and the members of the commission do not even investigate this fact further nor find it suspect. The motorcade was running a half hour behind.

The testimony is on this site under the Warren Commission tab.

Guess the folks in Washington figured we would never get around to actually reading the Warren Report.

On 03-Mar-2009, Robert S wrote:


I might be able to offer some insight into Gary Mack's "about face." I have spoken with Gary numerous times and the reason(s) for his "about face" are simple. He simply had to admit as more and more technical science has been applied to the case the theories of conspiracy just don't hold up under careful scrutiny. He was forced to admit that there is NO medical evidence of any frontal shot--therefore the alleged "badgeman" theory had to be dropped. Photographic analysis of the Moorman photograph, and over forty years of investigation, has yet to produce anything in that photograph that could be a construed as a person. The Discovery Channel's recreations of the Moorman photograph revealed that IF there actually WAS a person behind the stockade fence he would have looked much different than the tiny blob that appears in the Moorman photograph.

Now, don't be too hard on Gary Mack, he is only one of many former conspiracy advocates who have finally abandoned their conspiracy hobbie horses and joined ranks with the evidence-side of the debate. In addition to Mack, there is former Robert Groden lackey Steve Barber--who is now a confirmed lone-assassin supporter, there is also Gus Russo, who previously supported the conspiracty arguments but now maintains stoically that the evidence points to one and only gunman--Lee Harvey Oswald. More and more investigators are being forced by the evidence to give up arguing for a conspiracy and admit that the evidence just isn't there. I too am in this category. From 1974 until 1982 I was a die-hard conspiracy advocate until I had to finally admit that the evidence simply doesn't support a conspiracy in this case. All of the evidence, and I do mean ALL of the forensic evidence points to one and only person--Lee Harvey Oswald.

Until someone brings up some evidence that points to someone else I will be forced to remain intellectually honest and hold to that position.

On 03-Mar-2009, andrea wrote:

to marks post from 26-Jan-2009

hi there,

like i told before, we`ve been to the site of crime last summer and meet a man called "mike brownlow". he himself was a witness when he was standing in the crowd near the texas school book deposite....

we meet him outside the sixth floor musuem and like a told before we bought this dvd from him....

anyway..he told us a story when we stood at the fence kennedy was allegedly shoot. he showed us the exact positions and told us also, that nearby in a small house behind the fence (like a train conductor house-don`t know what it is in english) there was a men working at teh time president kennedy was shoot and this men reported, that he has seen two men running away...two day after the kennedy assasination this men was shoot....

i don´t have any further information and this is only information we were told by mr. brownlow...

mr brownlow also told us, that this "fact" was never realy mentioned even though it was known....

On 03-Mar-2009, Robert S. wrote:

Well Linda, at least you are confining your views to just your own opinion. That is different than if you were presenting them as views that you hoped others would take seriously or views that were based on facts.

Concerning Robert Groden. I hope you have someone much more qualified than Robert Groden as the basis for your opinion of the Bronson film and what it reveals. I assume you are aware of the public de-pantsing he underwent during the O.J. Simpson civil trial when he was forced to admit that he actually has no recognized photographic training whatsoever. He not only has never attended a single college-level course in photographic analysis, he is not even a high school graduate. Nor is he a member of ANY recognized or respected photographic analysis organization. And to further embarrass him, he was asked if he even KNEW the names of any recognized photographic organizations in the United States and he did not. Of course your opion is your own but I would suggest you find someone with more credibility than Robert Groden. He is in the same category of "self-proclaimed authority" that Jack White is in.

But enough beating up on Robert Groden. I DO have some questions about the assassination that possibly someone could answer for me:

1. If shots came from the front of Governor Connally (as we often hear) then why were all of the fibers on Kennedy's clothing pushed inward on the back and outward on the front? How did a frontal entry do that?

2. If Kennedy was shot in the head from the front (as we often hear) then why were ALL of the bullet fragments from the killing shot found in FRONT of the President and Governor?

3. Also, if a frontal shot killed the President, why was ALL of the brain matter found to the front of the President and none found to the left rear?

4. Also, if a frontal shot killed Kennedy why does even Dr. Cyril Wecht admit that there were NO metallic fragments found in the left side of the President's brain when the x-rays were taken later that night?

and one final question...

5. Why do those who believe that Oswald was innocent of the murder always maintain that he was in the second-floor breakroom at the time of the assassination (where Officer Baker saw him 90 seconds after the assassination) when Oswald himself never ever made such a claim. Remember that Oswald himself always maintained that he was in the first-floor break room at the time of the assassination. Why the Oswald defenders not believe that words of their hero?

I would appreciate anyone with a good background in this case to offer their thoughts. I'm sure there are logical explanations for these points, I just have never heard anyone articulate them clearly for me.

Thank you.

On 03-Mar-2009, Linda wrote:


I haven't heard of the man you are speaking of or the DVD, but if you are interested in the JFK assassination, it is good to join one of the sites like, or There are forums that you can ask questions on and get lots of information. Did you buy the DVD in the museum or from the man himself? I know this much, you will find very little in the museum store that challenges the Warren Commission finding. Ask many authors who have tried to have their books and DVDs sold in the museum shop. They seem to try to keep all conspiracy theories out. Which is sad because all people want is the truth, and nearly 90 percent of the American people now believe that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy.

Interesting note, the director of the museum once was an avid conspiracy theorist who was one of the first ones to bring forward the Mary Moorman "badgeman" photo, and was interviewed for the Nigel Turner series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

Since being named director of the 6th floor museum, he now says there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy, a complete about face. Why?

On 02-Mar-2009, andrea wrote:

hi there,

i`m very interessted into the kennedy assasination. so we took the chance to go to the site of crime. last summer we´ve been in dallas at the sixth floor museum and meet a guy named mike brownlow. he told us he is one of the few eyewitnesses. he was a young boy at the day of the assasination and was standing near the school book deposite.

he told us quite few things that channged our minds... and he seemed to have some good evidences. we bought a DVD called "shattered friday" where he was filming the interviews of eyewitnesses from the kennedy assasination and j.d tippet killing.

my question: does someone know this men, even meet him too?? does someone else knows the DVD and would give a opinion of the validity of thruth?


On 26-Feb-2009, David Purcell wrote:

Does anyone have any information about Joachim Joesten, including an obituary? I believe the information in his books still holds up very well, particularly since he was one of the first researchers. I've read of his earlier career so I'm interested in anything after 1967.

On 24-Feb-2009, Linda wrote:

Robert S,

The Bronson film was analyzed by Robert

Groden on the DVD Assassination Films. He has been a JFK assassination researcher for over 40 years.

I've consulted many different sources over nearly 20 years. My take on the assassination has changed and evolved through the years because of new evidence that has come out. I don't expect anyone who reads my take on something to take it as hard fact.

We are all spectators here to a crime that no one has as yet solved, with missing evidence, missing photos and xrays, and lying government officials.

The blog clearly says, "tell your own opinion." It does not say you must provide detailed evidence with supporting documentation.

On 23-Feb-2009, Robert S. wrote:

Linda, most of your previous post is historically inaccurate and does not jibe with the known evidence. I assume you know that. Sadly most people that read your posts don't know much about the assassination evidence, however I do.

1. The Bronson film shows no such thing. There is not one credible photographic expert in the country that agrees with your bizarre view that the Bronson film reveals three individuals in sixth-floor windows. I've watched the Bronson film numerous times and such a conclusion is innane. There simply isn't enough detail nor enough time focused on the TSBD to make any such conclusion. That is why NO( photographic experts agree with you. Not one. If there are any such experts, please provide their names so that I can read of their analysis. The only person on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination (which the evidence supports) was Lee Harvey Oswald. No one else. If you don't provide the names of any experts I will assume you have just made up that analysis yourself.

2. Why is Oswald's presence in the 2nd floor lunchroom so puzzling? This feat has been duplicated time and time and time again and proven that someone of Oswald's size and weight could have EASILY traveled from the SE corner window of the TSBD to the 2nd floor lunchroom in 90 seconds. This hasn't been an issue since 1964. And what is your source for the bottle of Coke being half empty. I've never read that before. Please provide your source. If you don't provde a source I will correctly assume you made it up. Additionalloy, what is your point of Oswald being in the second floor lunchroom? Oswald never said he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the time of the assassination did he? He said he was in the 1st floor lunchroom at the time of the assassination and those other employees who we KNOW were actually there cannot corroboreate his claim can they? Therefore this point of yours leads nowhere.

3. Where did you get three shots in less than 6 seconds? The evidence doesn't support this ridiculous claim. The evidence reveals that the first shot missed the vehicle around Z-frame 160 and the fatal head shot struck Kennedy at Z-frame 313 giving Oswald 8.4 seconds to fire NOT six seconds. Your six-second time frame is of your own fabrication and not in accordance with the testimony of John Connally or Virginie Rachley who saw a bullet strike the pavement when the limousine was directly in front of the TSBD. Again, you are making up phony evidence to support your unprovable theory.

4. What do you mean he had to scatter the shells? Are you the only person on the planet that doesn't know that the rifle expelled the shells automatically when the bolt action was worked? Why would Oswald have to scatter shells? You imply that Oswald didn't fire any of the shells. If he didn't, then why did all of the shots line up with the SE corner window of the TSBD and no where else?

« Previous | Next »

Found a Typo?

Click here
Copyright by www.jfk-assassination.comLast Update: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:17:26 CET