Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The "Smoking Gun"... Literally

page: 6
142
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Carried on from the previous post...


Harvey continued to keep in contact with Johnny Roselli. According to Richard D. Mahoney: "On April 8, Rosselli flew to New York to meet with Bill Harvey. A week later, the two men met again in Miami to discuss the plot in greater detail... On April 21 he (Harvey) flew from Washington to deliver four poison pills directly to Rosselli, who got them to Tony Varona and hence to Havana. That same evening, Harvey and Ted Shackley, the chief of the CIA's south Florida base, drove a U-Haul truck filled with the requested arms through the rain to a deserted parking lot in Miami. They got out and handed the keys to Rosselli."

Some researchers such as Gaeton Fonzi, Larry Hancock, Richard D. Mahoney, Noel Twyman, James Richards and John Simkin believe that Harvey was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

William Harvey died as a result of complications from heart surgery in June, 1976.
(Source)

It's all theory of course but I really think that to make the assassination possible, and if there is genuine involvement from the mafia which there appears to be, then the CIA would have to be involved in some way or another as well.

Those involved in the plot started dropping like flies in the years after the assassination also, I tried to outline all of them here: The Forgotten Victims to a Genuine Conspiracy

Anyway, I'm short on time again so I'll replay a little bit later on with more information about this if you'd like?
edit on 2-9-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


I did, thank you. I had just assumed it was another survey. Anyways, I will have to look into the photo more, and hope to find a much higher resolution original. Though it is awfully convenient that the original photo where the level of detail was clear doesn't exist anymore, and the main copy that is circulating around was from years later after the photo had 'significantly degraded'.

I did find some other photos that give me a different perspective on where the fence would in relation to Gordon, and there are a few other things that strike me as odd. I will have to double check to be sure, but I think it would clear this issue up for most people. Not that Gordon couldn't be where he said, just that he is not in this photo. We'll see, it's late and I could be wrong.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
I'll replay a little bit later on with more information about this if you'd like?


Sure.
You said "Those involved in the plot started dropping like flies in the years after the assassination". You're thinking the CIA was involved in taking them out; almost as evidence of involvement in the assassination?
edit on 2-9-2011 by 1ifbyland2ifbydebitcard because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 
Hiya RA, you certainly do write a good OP


I've got doubts that the image is a 'smoking gun' for the reasons other people have pointed out. No firearms discharge that amount of smoke; at least not since the pirates. Also the image has been heavily processed and then colourised which can lead to an enforced pareidola by way of leading the observer's judgement in one direction.

My initial impression was wow! Definitely looks like a police-officer. In conspiracy-land it pays to be cautious with enhanced images. A hundred examples of their flexibility lie in ATS threads about NASA images of moon-bases and alien factories. So I looked again and shifted my focus slightly, looked at different areas of the image and the certainty of a police-officer faded away.

However, we're still left with people in that location and witness descriptions of gun-smoke in that location too. This leads me to wonder if the smoke that's apparent in the images was a signal? Rather than gun-smoke, it could have been cigar smoke. Just an idea...

I accept that there was a conspiracy and LHO was likely the patsy he claimed to be. So we're left with an organised attempt to assassinate JFK in a crowded place. A million things could have gone wrong because people are unpredictable and crowds of them even moreso.

A sight-line being blocked by a moving group of by-standers would be enough to kill the chances of one shooter succeeding.

A well-executed assassination in these conditions would demand several shooters so that one would be assured of a sight-line. They couldn't fire rounds over a space of seconds because it would be obvious that more than one shooter had done it. Likewise radio communication might have posed too much risk of being noticed.

So I wonder if the sudden cloud of smoke was a signal to proceed with the assassination? The face that gun-powder was smelled would be because a gun had been fired nearby, but not from the smoke-signaller. Like a starting-pistol or red flag, the smoke went up and signalled 'fire at will.'

Another alternative is the smoke was used to temporarily conceal activity in the area.

Could any of these ideas be possible or have I skimmed the thread and posted pure fool's talk?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 
I think the 'smoke signal' idea is a good one. I've never thought of that possibility before. That deserves further contemplation.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Has anyone read this book? It is listed as historical fiction.

The Secret of the Century
By Roger Levine

I got it on my Kindle. I found it interesting, it melds into the known story.
I wanted to repost this, as I saw Lucien Sarti's name come up later.... He is an individual that is featured in this book.

Link to Smashwords book review
edit on 2-9-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Sorry for the slow reply from me guys, today's been a busy day. Anyway,...


A well-executed assassination in these conditions would demand several shooters so that one would be assured of a sight-line. They couldn't fire rounds over a space of seconds because it would be obvious that more than one shooter had done it. Likewise radio communication might have posed too much risk of being noticed.


You see I disagree here. I do think there was more shooters, maybe even designated teams, but I don't believe the patsy was decided until they literally had no choice but to make him, Oswald, that. I certainly don't believe the idea of a lone gunman was the plan during the assassination, the shooters certainly didn't behave that way anyway as almost all the witnesses I've come across who have heard the last shot take place claim that It occurred at roughly the same time as another shot.

What I mean is according to the Warren Commission we have the shots nicely spaced out as such: Shot..... Shot..... Shot. But, from what I can gather many of the witnesses report hearing the shot more similar to something like this: Shot........ Shot..Shot.

One of which was Bowers as can be seen in his interview with Mark Lane 3 months before his unfortunate death:



That, to me anyway, suggests they didn't have the lone gunman idea in mind prior to the assassination thus they didn't feel the need to space their shots out. I'd assume the primary goal was to just hit the target, and then make the escape.



So I wonder if the sudden cloud of smoke was a signal to proceed with the assassination? The face that gun-powder was smelled would be because a gun had been fired nearby, but not from the smoke-signaller. Like a starting-pistol or red flag, the smoke went up and signalled 'fire at will.'


That's an interesting point, but unfortunately by the time smoke was seen and the gunpowder could be smelt, all the shots had taken place. It seems, if anything, that these 2 anomalies were caused by the last shooter in fact.

That's not to say a signaller wasn't used, in fact I 100% believe we have a signaller in Dealey Plaza, one who was signalling to potential shooters and IMO, this man can be seen here:



The man I'm talking about is the one sitting on the sidewalk - commonly known as DCM (Dark Complected Man). You see, just prior to the assassination, he seemingly took a couple of steps closer to the presidentials limousine, and then decided to pump his hand, and then I believe his fist, into the air, almost as if signalling to someone. Then seconds later the presidents head was literally blown to pieces. Of course it could be a coincidence, but It's possibly something more sinister still. This man has yet to be identified almost 50 years later as far as I'm aware.



Here's another series of images, ones also showing the possible radio he seemingly had:



Especially, as we can see in this next image, he, and the gentleman with him, commonly referred to as 'The Umbrella man', are calmly sitting down all the while people around then are running around in panic, the people behind them, the Newman Family, ducking for cover of all things.



(See the full image here: files.abovetopsecret.com...[/url]

Here's the zapruder film where this gentleman can be seen:





Another alternative is the smoke was used to temporarily conceal activity in the area.


Ok, I just had a random thought literally this second but I thought I would share it - but, and I stress that word, but what if the man shooting from the knoll was potentially the one who was originally supposed to be arrested for the crime? Perhaps he was given a faulty weapon, one which produces smoke to direct attention to himself and one which also produces much noise, this shot being reported as lounder than all the others I believe. Not forgetting this gentleman, assuming there's one here in the first place, is shooting practically out in the open.

Perhaps he was the original scapegoat and once he seemingly wasn't arrested, instead somehow making his escape, a new one had to be found - Enter Oswald.

Anyway like I said, It's just a random thought I had that I thought I'd share.


As always, thanks for your post Kandinsky.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Akasirus
 




I did find some other photos that give me a different perspective on where the fence would in relation to Gordon


Not sure if this will be helpful to you, but I have at least 2 modern images from behind the grassy knoll picket fence here:



And also this one:



You can just make out the cross on the road from this image, this being where the fatal shot occurred. Anyway, like I said, I'm not sure if these will be helpful but just on the off chance they are, and in case you haven't seen them before, I thought it was worth posting..



(I didn't take these images btw. I just have them saved for research)
edit on 2-9-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Thanks for the heads up butcherguy, I have that bookmarked now.




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



Perhaps he was given a faulty weapon, one which produces smoke to direct attention to himself and one which also produces much noise, this shot being reported as lounder than all the others I believe.


Interesting thought there. What came to my mind when I read the above quoted text is a cap gun (like the ones they use at a track meet). Admittedly I do not know much about them, but they would produce a louder 'bang' than a regular gun as well as produce smoke? I don't know... like you just thinking out loud....... Cheers.
edit on 2-9-2011 by MyMindIsMyOwn because: Add'l thought



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


I was trying to work out how big the dirt mound would have to be for Gordon, and I realized the wall is only 3 1/2 ft tall. This would still seem to make Gordon oddly placed, considering the picket fence was supposedly 5 ft tall.

One thing I also stumbled upon is that the MiT analysis was only done on Badgeman, as the other 2 people hadn't been 'discovered' at that point (I need to find a better source for this though). That would be a very curious thing indeed, as if the outlines are so visible in the original photo, it would slikely me they should have been found at the same time, and not retroactively 'discovered' after Gordon's testimony. I wonder if the photo might be stronger evidence if Gordon was taking out of it completely, as it seems that's where it always breaks down the most.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Akasirus
 


According to the interview of Arnold I previously added, the one where Jack White and Gary Mack are talking, they mention that they knew there was "something" to our left hand side of badgeman but they didn't quite know what it was at the time exactly. 4 years later Arnolds story came out and they was able to determine it was him.

Here's the interview once more:




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 
I don't make a habit of conceding, but I will here*



*with the caveat that I'm not convinced by the policeman image.


edit on 2-9-2011 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Rising Against
 

*with the caveat that I'm not convinced by the policeman image.


Tbh, I really don't blame anyone for that really. It is a tough image to see but I personally do find it plausible and that's primarily because of Arnold's story, which I also find quite plausible as It can seemingly be backed up. It also makes sense that a shooter was in and around this location taking into consideration what I added in the opening post (The smoke for example, the flash of light. Even the reaction of the head of JFK upon impact, something I didn't discuss in the OP)

Let me explain that I do believe the badge man image, at this moment in time, is 100% genuine, but of course that doesn't make it so. I am open to changing my mind on it, but at this moment in time I believe it to be true taking everything into consideration, not just the quality of the image itself.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Holy crap I totally forgot how interested in the JFK assassination I was until I read this. This is one of the best threads I have ever read here at ATS.

For some reason at first I suspected the witness testimony of Gordon Arnold (the guy that seen the shooter dressed up as a cop). But then you provided another witness that put him where he said he was so that helped.

I still would like to know tho, was the photograph inhancements to the Moorman photo done before or after Mr. Gordon Arnold's interview?

Also, were there any photo's taken of the footprints in the mud and on the fence that Mr. Holland said that he had seen? You would think that if several people and even police officers suspected that area surly crime scene photos would have been taken?

I am convinced that there was another shooter behind that fence.

Okay my last question is this: In your opinion, who had Kennedy killed and for what reason?

-Alien



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Okay here I have done my best to put the three figures in the unaltered photo. One thing that stands out as one ATSer mentioned is that gordon seems out of place.

But another important thing to note is the fence line.

In this photo I draw a line to continue the fence line. Notice in the photo I even make the fence line go up a bit so that there is no mistake that what I am trying to show here is true.

What I am showing here is this: We know the fence is 5 feet tall, so if "A" is five feet tall then "B" must be at leas three feet. This would make the shooter at least eight feet tall. Thoughts?











-Alien
edit on 9/2/2011 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
yeah because I've never used a box or a step ladder to see over obstacles that are larger than me.....
2nd



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Codered88
 


Right I almost forgot about the witness Mr. Holland stating that he seen muddy footprints on a box/ladder and not the ground and the fence.

Oh no wait "Badge-man" took the ladder/box with him because i remember Gordon Arnold stating that he had not a big gun in his hand but a box/ladder.

Also, there would have been more then one boxes/ladders because the other guy needed something to stand on too unless they both stood on the same thing which would have made the object much bigger and that much more noticeable.

And let us not forget that it was muddy and the witness Mr. Holland most assuredly would have mentioned a box/ladder with muddy footprints on it.

-Alien



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
reply to post by Codered88
 


Right I almost forgot about the witness Mr. Holland stating that he seen muddy footprints on a box/ladder and not the ground and the fence.

Oh no wait "Badge-man" took the ladder/box with him because i remember Gordon Arnold stating that he had not a big gun in his hand but a box/ladder.

Also, there would have been more then one boxes/ladders because the other guy needed something to stand on too unless they both stood on the same thing which would have made the object much bigger and that much more noticeable.

And let us not forget that it was muddy and the witness Mr. Holland most assuredly would have mentioned a box/ladder with muddy footprints on it.

-Alien


So the 2 people behind the picket fence are standing on boxes/ladders, and Gordon was standing on a mound of dirt 2-3 feet tall. Very convinient... Also, was it boxes or ladders he saw? These seem like 2 very different objects. But doesn't the Holland account a puff of smoke photo contradict Badgeman anyways?

@Rise Against: I tried to watch the video earlier, but it says in not available on my device (which is odd because I watch tons of YouTube videos). I will try to check it out later. Anyways, as far as the image, you can't have it both ways. Everyone keeps saying how obvious it is there are 3 people standing there, but if that were the case it would have been clear when they discovered Badgeman. If they thought 'something' was there but didnt know what is was, that tells me immediatly that there is not a clear depiction of a person in ther original photo. There was nothing recognizably human (he thought it might have been 'something' but you couldn't tell), then they quite literally edited him in after the fact. Instead of finding a story that fits with the photo, they are trying to make the photo fit with the story.

Out of the 3 outlines, Badgeman is the only one that is semi-recognizable in the original (not the pre-colored 'enhanced' one in your OP), and then only if you know what he 'should' look like. The others are just unrecognizable blobs of contrast.

I know this was just a small part of your original post, so I'll try to move on. I just have a few major problems with this photo, and the more i look into it the more ambiguous it become, The first problem is that no one can replicate or inspect Jack's work, we just have to take his word for it. He claims that when they rescanned the Polaroid, it had already degraded to a point where it had lost much of the detail that showed Badgeman. So you won't able to make them out very well in the drum scan photos onlinbutane are just supposed to trust that when he did his enhancements there were details there that we can't see. So we can't compare the enhanced photo to the drum scan, because in his words 'there are no good copies online', but with nothing else to compare it to we have no idea how much of his enhancements are really enhancements, or creative liberties.

The MIT thing had me questioning my judgement of the photo for a moment, until I learned that the MIT analysis was not done on the original Mooreman Print, or the copy of the 8x10 that White worked on. No, what was handed over for analysis was White's 'enhanced' version. So when they say the photo clearly shows a man firing a gun they are not validating anything, because they didn't determine there was a man firing a gun in the original photo, they determined there was a man firing a gun in the photo that was altered to show a man firing a gun.

I am not questioning Jack's credability or skills, I don't think he is making stuff up. But when you have an idea in your head and have invested so much energy into something, it is easy to see things that support your theory, while overlooking or denying the alternative. I think Arnold was there, Though I think he was already on the ground at this point. The witness said he immediately threw himself on the ground, and others in the photo have had time to react so I see no reason he wouldn't have, especially of his reflexes were as keen as the witness states. I would feel a lot more comfortable if there was an unedited photo with enough detail where Jacks work could be replicated. As it is now though, photo is inconclusive at best.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Don't want to burst anyone's bubble here, but I have to.

In the zapruder movie you see a sproud of blood, this blood is pouring from the exit of the bullet. And he tilts his head backward, because the muscles stiffen and then release as the burst out the exit wound. The exit wound creating a kind of explotion on his head, that throws his head backwards.

The entry of the bullit here, is from the back, entry on the left side and out on the right side of his head. The question is bullet trajectory. I don't know about that one, but it doesn't seem to come from above though.

However, before this, he apparently appears to be hit. He puts his hand towards his chin, and appears hurt, as if there is an entry wound on his right side of his chin, prior to the fatal bullet.






top topics



 
142
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join