Tuesday, June 27, 2017

The other thing that gives me pause about Dan Rather is: WHY would he remain at KRLD? He didn't work there. The excuse, I mean the reason, he gave is that he was "sub-anchoring" referring to Walter Cronkite being in New York as the anchor and himself as the sub-anchor at KRLD. But, what evidence is there that he did any sub-anchoring from KRLD that day? I do know that the very next day, the 25th, is the day he gave his historic spiel on television in which he lied about the content of the Zapruder- what it showed. He actually said that the reason why Kennedy had a hole in his neck is because he turned all the way around and was shot in the neck from behind, and the film showed it. Here is an image of Dan Rather broadcasting from KRLD on November 25.

But, what did he do there on the 24th? And, he kept saying how hard he was trying to get New York to switch to them because Oswald was about to come out, but what did he expect to happen? It was supposed to be Oswald being walked 20 feet to a car, getting into the car, and then being driven away. Now, why did he think that was so urgent to be covered? He's got all this remorse, all this "if only" but the truth is that for the whole US media to have made such a big deal out of covering Oswald being walked 20 feet to a car is bizarre. In the KRLD footage, you see them wheeling in all this big camera equipment, and I ask myself: they knew it was just going to be a 20 foot walk, didn't they? I have to walk farther than that to pick a tomato from my garden. The thing was pretty twisted. Did they know Jack Ruby was coming? That's impossible because not even Jack Ruby knew he was coming. 

Robert Glenn As far as coincidences, I am certain there were no coincidences that day as the WC and its puppets have so often attempted to imply. That's Dan.
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyJust now
Ralph Cinque I often say I don't believe in JFK coincidences.
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyJust now
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview15 mins
Robert Glenn Dan was the obvious local reporter in the know, of that I am certain. This douchebag has been carrying water for the conspirators since that very day. How is it this incompetent dork who should have never found himself out of Texas ended up taking over for Walter in New York? He is at his core an idiot. Both of them got their payday for aiding in the coverup. And I'll put money on the fact this is him pictured.
LikeShow more reactions
Reply2 mins
Ralph Cinque Robert, the way I look at it is: there are only two possibilities: either that's him, or an absolutely amazing coincidence took place that somebody looking strikingly like him just happened to be there. So, that's it. Take your pick.
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyJust now
Hey, this is funny. I just received this notice from Facebook:

I put it up a couple hours ago, and currently it is has 127 views. But they're climbing fast. And no, I have not spent any money on it. But, it looks like I am going to make Dan Rather famous. 
Here is a good shot of Oswald glancing at Bookhout, a moment before showtime. Again, my thanks goes to The Wizard. 

In this image, we can clearly see that the shooter is still on his feet, and there is no image which shows or suggests that he was ever pushed down to the ground in the garage. 

But, Ruby said that when it happened to him that he was pushed down to the ground. Let's also consider all the talking that Jack Ruby reportedly did, "Hey, I'm Jack Ruby. You know me." Etc. Well, it's very obvious that Garage Shooter NEVER spoke and NEVER tried to speak. 
Specimen left. Specimen right. Different men. Any questions?

Paul Stevens I'd say it's Dan Rather

LikeShow more reactions
14 mins
Oswald Innocence Campaign You are my bro, Paul.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyJust now
Alright, I understand: Dan Rather says he was at the KRLD office and watched the Oswald shooting from there, pleading with New York to come to them, come to them. And of course, he was doing that pleading BEFORE Oswald got shot, for some reason. Why he thought a man being walked to a car and driven away was going to be so exciting, I do not know. But, despite his denial of being in the garage, I have to say that this likeness continues to haunt me. I am not making any definitive claim about it; I'm just saying that it still haunts me. This guy must have heard it all his life that he looks like Dan Rather.  

This is a very good photo. It's one of the sharpest that I've seen. And it shows Oswald's left hand, the one that is supposedly slapped to his chest in the Jackson photo. Look how small his thumb is. He had no big huge thumb.

Now look at the Jackson photo.

That was NOT Oswald's thumb. 
I suppose it's true that this image showing Ruby's scruffy hair growth in back is the most exonerating one, proving that he was not the garage shooter.

And the one I am going to show you to contrast the Garage Shooter is one that The Wizard sent to me. He said that it was shown at the Ruby trial. He also told me that he believes that they enhanced the hair of the man in front blocking the view to cover up the eyes of both Leavelle and Oswald: Leavelle's because he was looking the other way- trying hard NOT to see the shooter; and Oswald's because he was looking directly at him, as if he knew him, and he did. They had a conversation in the hall outside Fritz' office the very evening before. Look at the shooter's neck in back. 

So, with this scuffle going on behind him, and the gunshot having blasted in this enclosed space, did Charles Dhority decide to just sit in the car and hold his foot to the brake? Obviously, he did pull the car out of there before the ambulance arrived since it would have been blocking the ambulance. I found this shot of the car again.

The illumination is definitely gone now at 13:27, but at what point it ceased between 13:12 and 13:27 is anyone's guess. 

And here is the ambulance pulling in. It's headlights don't look as bright to me as the rear light we saw from Dhority's car. 

Between the two lights on the Galaxie, I have installed the brake light from the ambulance. Others have accused me of expecting to see red in a black and white photo. I did not. But, I did expect to see a duller, less luminous light.

That picture was put up to ridicule me, but the joke is on them. That looks like what I expected, and if that's how Dhority's brake lights looked, I would have been fine with it. But, they are way too white and way too bright, and the comparison is quite stark. So, this image works in my favor, not theirs. Then, there is also the fact that even after the car comes to a complete stop, this so-called brake light remains on, as though Dhority just sat in the car with his foot on the brake. Is that what he did?

The car is well-stopped at 13:09. I thought about making it 13:08, but I decided to be on the safe side to make it 13:09.

The reason why that one is so narrow is because the camera was panned right, following the herd of penguins as they moved right. So, the car was about to pass from view, never to return. So, I caught the last glimpse of the light being on. But, there is no reason to think it went out right away after that. We just lost sight of it.  

This shows Jim Leavelle's left wrist, and there is no sign of any handcuff on it. 

There was no advantage to doing it anyway. Oswald could be shot either with or without it, right? So, it wasn't going to make him any safer. And, there was no issue of him trying to run away, was there? Therefore, the whole idea of it was just for show. It was just an exhibition, which the whole thing was.   

Monday, June 26, 2017

Ralph Cinque: 

I told you, Haydon, I mean Sparta, the cops were all in on it. Just today, I listened to Elmer Boyd's interview in which he said he was eating lunch at his mother-in-law's house that Sunday morning, and he watched it on television, and he instantly recognized Jack Ruby. Instantly! THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU NEVER SEE THE MAN'S FACE! All he saw was exactly what we saw, and you know how poor the footage is. So, he's sitting back eating a steak at his mother-in-law's table, and he sees the NBC footage (that's the only live one) and there is no way anyone can claim there is enough exposure of the shooter to identify him as Jack Ruby. Watch it yourself, and you'll realize how preposterous it is to claim that Ruby can be recognized: 


Based on what? And you're wrong about the reporters. Hugh Aynesworth knew Jack Ruby and interacted with him 3x that weekend, yet he didn't recognize him and didn't find out that he was Ruby until the police announced it later. Then the other was Ike Pappas who also interacted with Ruby that weekend and took a business card from him, and he didn't realize he was Ruby until he was told so by Police. And Pappas seemed to have a good vantage point. Just look at the Beers photo. 

So, it was just the lying cops who said they recognized Ruby in the garage; no one else. And Boyd claimed to do it from his mother-in-law's table, no less. 

And they were very careful not to let the face of the shooter be exposed. Why don't you reverse that question and ask yourself why, when there were cameras pointed at him from multiple directions, that none captured his face? Just worked out that way, eh? The reason why the shooter (Bookhout) dove into the waiting arms of the cops is because they were his screen. They were his blanket. They were NEVER fighting. "Ruby", as people mistakenly call him, never did anything aggressive. Show me the frame in which he is punching, kicking, flailing, spitting or doing anything combative. He never resisted. There was NO REASON why that "fight" should not have come to an end in that garage. The idea that it dragged on into the jail office is absolutely preposterous. You hear me, Haydon? I mean Sparta. 

Yes, I have a photo of the back of James Bookhout's neck which compares favorably with that of the Garage Shooter, unlike Jack Ruby. Click on the link at the bottom.

And Shoter is a typo. I was typing fast, and the second o just didn't land. What you did is mistake two completely different words: "brakes" and "breaks". And I had never seen it before. 

Now, you are completely losing it. There is no evidence that Pierce used siren and flashing lights to run any lights to get to the front of the building, and he never claimed that he did that. So, how dare you proffer it?

And the delays you mentioned had the opposite effect. They delayed the transfer, and if Pierce didn't know about them, then he would have expected Oswald to appear even earlier, so he should have left even earlier. You're just making excuses, and they're not even good ones. 

The people on Commerce Street were gathered to watch Oswald being driven away. They knew that he would be coming out there. But the Main Street ramp was incoming. So, who were they waiting to see driving in? Now, if you can't understand that difference, Haydon, I mean Sparta, I can't dumb it down any more. 

Ruby knew that Pierce left the garage 1 minute before HIS EVENT, a separate event. 
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting. 
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting. 
Jack Ruby was not at the televised garage shooting. 
He was sequestered up on the 5th floor already at the time of the televised garage shooting. 

The WU paperwork is bogus, and they made the mistake of time-stamping the receipt before they time-stamped the money transfer. Again, like getting the cart before the horse. 

Jack Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. All he remembered was going down to the ramp, reaching the bottom, and then being pounced upon by police. He said that all the rest was a "blur." And the fact is: it was even so much as a blur. He had no memory of shooting Oswald, period. And why don't you think about what his lawyer plead: that he had psychomotor epilepsy and went through the action of shooting Oswald unconsciously, like he was sleepwalking. It's ridiculous, but why would he claim such a thing? It was because Ruby must have told him that he had absolutely no memory of doing it. 

I have already delineated the things in the Jackson photo that are false, impossibly false, and it's more scientific than anything you have ever done in your life. And nobody has ever addressed these findings with any explanations or excuses whatsoever I'll give you an example: Oswald's left hand slapped to his chest is un-anatomical, meaning that it is not consistent in form with a human hand. It is also much too big to be Oswald's hand. We have images of his hands, and they weren't that big. In the Jackson photo, Oswald's hand is a monstrosity.

Now, let's see you find an Anatomist who disagrees with that. I dare you, and I dare him. 

Please? When have I ever said please to anybody on this forum? You've got some nerve depicting me that way, Haydon.  I mean Sparta.    

This is an interview of Detective Elmer Boyd in March 2015, and it's worth listening to. He was close friends with Tippit. He said their kids played together, that they had family outings to the park together. He also said that he had met Kennedy when JFK came to Dallas to visit Sam Rayburn in the hospital. 


Now remember, we have this picture of Boyd, and his partners Sims and Hall with James Bookhout taken just minutes after the Oswald shooting. It was apparently on the 3rd floor next to the elevator. This is DEFINITELY not Jack Ruby. It is James Bookhout.

Look at the great likeness between that man and the young James Bookhout:

How could Jack Ruby bear such a close resemblance to the young James Bookhout?

So, Elmer Boyd was one who took custody of Bookhout after he was hustled into the jail office. He was probably waiting right there. And I'm sure they swiftly hustled Bookhout out of there, which was followed by Ruby being brought down from the 5th floor. The above photo, and actually it was a film, is errant. It was not supposed to happen. The left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. 

Back to the interview, Elmer said that Oswald was not belligerent or disrespectful, but he stated repeatedly that he didn't shoot anybody, that he was just a patsy. We heard Oswald say that in the hallway, "I'm just a patsy" and I'm not surprised that he also said it to police.  And then in response to Oswald's denial, Elmer went on about how the witnesses at the Tippit scene ID'd Oswald, but there is nothing conclusive about any of that testimony, and there is a mountain of evidence and historical record of eyewitnesses being wrong. And if John Armstrong is right that they got "Lee" to kill Tippit, then no wonder witnesses thought he was Oswald. 

But, here's something interesting: he pointed out that one witness said that upon getting out of his car, Tippit straightened out his hat. Elmer said that that was a habit of Tippit's, that every time he got out of his car, the first thing he would do is adjust his hat. But, in this case, if Tippit stopped the man thinking he was JFK's killer, and then after talking to him through the window decided that the situation warranted him getting out of the car, how could he be concerned about his hat? Doesn't it seem more likely that he'd be reaching for his gun? The fact that the last thing Tippit did was adjust his hat tells you that he had no thought in his head that he was confronting a killer.

Elmer said he asked Oswald about his bruise, and he said, "I struck an officer, and he struck me back, as he should have." He said those were Oswald's words. Interesting.

And then there's something even more interesting. Oh My God. The interviewer asked him where Oswald said he was at the time of the shots. Elmer hemmed and hawed; he couldn't get anything out. Then, the interviewer started helping him, with "he said he was just in the building?" Then, Elmer murmured something to indicate acceptance of that. But, I have pointed out many times that this was a building as big as a city block, and nobody would use the whole building as his alibi. He would definitely narrow it down to a specific spot. Elmer was there at that first interrogation when Oswald said he was out with Bill Shelley in front. That explains all the hemming and hawing.

Here's how he quoted Oswald about the Backyard photo:

"I know all about that trick photography. That's my face, but it's not my body." 

He may have been paraphrasing there, but regardless, it shows that the first photo alterationist in the JFK assassination was Lee Harvey Oswald. 

So then, it gets to the Oswald shooting. Elmer said he was having lunch at his mother-in-law's house and the tv was on, and he was watching it. And he said his first thought was "that looks like ol' Jack Ruby." But, we've all seen the video, and you never see the shooter's face. Never. So, how could Elmer Boyd make that statement? What data points was he going by? What about the shooter, specifically, cinched him as Jack Ruby?

Now, let's be very crystal clear about something: Elmer Boyd's story does not hold up; it cannot possibly be true. How is it possible that he was sitting at the lunch table with his in-laws, wherever they lived, and saw the Oswald shooting on tv, and then got to the police station in time to be captured in this picture with the shooter just a few minutes after the shooting?

That picture was taken very soon after the shooting. They let Bookhout go after that. And he changed his clothes and went down to the jail office. And then he followed Oswald's stretcher back to the garage.

So, Elmer was there. He was waiting in the jail office, and he and his partners were the ones who scurried Bookhout away. 

After telling that story, the questioner quickly changed the subject, so we never hear anything about Elmer's involvement in processing Ruby. But, he was definitely involved. According to the official reports, Ruby was held up on the 5th floor until about 3:00 and then taken down to the 3rd floor to Fritz' office to be interrogated by Fritz, and it was Boyd's team that escorted him. But, this picture was not from that. First, it's not Jack Ruby.  But, the whole situation was very different. The hallway was packed with reporters. I've seen the footage. And they certainly never posed for a picture like this or would even have had room to.

Leavelle and Boyd are the last two still alive among the Dallas detectives, and what a brotherhood they have; a brotherhood of lies.  

I am putting up this scathing attack of the Prayer Man hypothesis by Richard Gilbride on the Deep Politics forum. He repeatedly asks whether Sean Murphy actually believes the nonsense. And it is insane because Prayer Man looks nothing like Oswald and is dressed nothing like Oswald. Doesn't it start there? Note that he put up a link to the Darnell film that is now defunct, so I replaced it with another link that is active. But, I don't know why he put it at all because the Prayer Man clip is not in the Darnell film. It's like with the Lovelady clip, which is supposed to be from the Martin film, but we can't find it in any copy of the Martin film. And keep this in mind, Backes: you stupid shit: I PERSONALLY COMMUNICATED WITH GARY MACK ABOUT THIS, ASKING HIM WHETHER THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM HAS A COPY OF THE MARTIN FILM THAT INCLUDES THE LOVELADY CLIP, AND HE SAID NO. I ASKED HIM WHETHER ONE EXISTS ANYWHERE, AND HE SAID: NOT THAT HE KNOWS OF.  Note also that I am much cynical than Mr. Gilbride. I think the whole purpose of the Prayer Man hypothesis is to distract from the fact of Oswald being the Altgens Doorman. 

Richard Gilbride is offlineMemberOK, sports fans, I have a new diagram "Location in Weigman" posted in the PHOTOS section of my website at https://www.jfkinsidejob.com/pm which proves that PrayerMan was at the front of the TSBD landing.

And I have sent a synopsis of the height argument, with the relevant photos & diagrams, to Megan Bryant, the Director of Collections at the Sixth Floor Museum. Along with a strong recommendation that a digital scan of the Darnell film not be made- not without first presenting a substantive argument that overcomes the Doyle height argument.

When Sean Murphy formulated his hypothesis that PrayerMan was Oswald, he neglected to make a height analysis. And when eliminating other building employees and strangers as possible candidates, he failed to consider that the witnesses could have been mistaken, or forgotten- about where they stood, about whether any strangers were there, about whether any workers from neighboring buildings may have been on the TSBD landing.

And there are two incontrovertible facts in Weigman's film which completely devastate Murphy's hypothesis.

1) The film shows an apparent drinking motion, from a coffee or a Coke. This motion requires about a foot and a half of clearance from the alcove's west wall.

2) The vertical border-strip of the entranceway's glass partition is seen just behind PrayerMan's east shoulder (the viewer's right). Anyone's shoulders are about one foot in width. Weigman filmed at approximately 30 degrees to the TSBD landing (Darnell filmed at almost exactly 20 degrees). And so the natural body proportion sets a constraint as to where PrayerMan can possibly be standing- he absolutely has to be within the shaded area on the Location in Weigman diagram. Even with a much broader angle estimated for Weigman, PrayerMan still has to be situated well forward on the landing.

Situated at the front- and not in the corner- means we get a near one-to-one correspondence between the heights of PrayerMan and Wesley Frazier in the Darnell film. They are nearly equidistant from the camera, and only a 1% or so correction needs to be made for perspective.

Darnell's Camera Car 3 was about "70 feet from the closest point of the building" (Pictures of the Pain, p. 424) and so about 75 feet from Frazier, and 76.5 feet from PrayerMan. I measure their respective heights on my Darnell blowup as 5.2 and 4.4 cm. Since Frazier was 72.25 inches tall, PrayerMan calculates to (72.25)(76.5/75)(4.4/5.2) = 5' 2 1/2", to a reasonable approximation. Nowhere near the height of Oswald, and typical of the height of a woman

There is zero chance that PrayerMan is Oswald. Don't you think Sean Murphy realizes this?

Don't you understand, that if he truly believed he was correct about PrayerMan, Sean would be passionately involved in the effort at getting a Darnell film-scan achieved?

My next 2 posts, immediately following, are scathing critiques of this fantasist, which are long overdue. With the PrayerMan boondoggle he pulls off a trifecta of self-will run riot.

Richard Gilbride is offlineMember
Join Date
Jan 2017


The PrayerMan debacle fooled several dozen researchers, a false scent that filled their hours with nonsensical judgments. In the end it was a waste of their time, and a waste of time for those obliged to debunk this mullarkey.

And this is not the only major-league boneheaded hypothesis put forth by the fantasist Sean Murphy. And the circumstance that he's gained so many devoted followers reflects poorly on the JFK research community- it's full of gullible pseudoscholars, prone to a mob mentality, lacking in critical thinking skills.

And the cult surrounding his boneheaded detective-work has grown so megalomaniac, that it's now become politically incorrect to even dare criticize Sean Murphy's ideas. Such criticism will get you censored by the EdForum moderators, to whom political correctness is more pertinent than truth. Your posts will get deleted and posting privileges suspended. In my case, accentuating the obvious- that Sean Murphy has alcohol-abuse issues- earned me a suspension of 47 days and counting.

I remind the reader that this is a murder investigation. That hard-nosed detective work is called for. That if you are more concerned with potentially offending someone's feelings than with discerning the truth, you belong with the liberal snowflakes who lost the last election.

Sean wasted many man-years of researchers' lives with his erroneous hypotheses. He has successfully splintered the community, doing more damage than a CIA disinformation specialist could have ever hoped to accomplish. My guess is that he knows full well the mess that he's made. It would help if he owned up to it. All it takes is a simple apology and admission that he was wrong. We all get things wrong. But Sean continues to hide in the shadows, unable to face the holy hell he's wrought. Unable to let go of the adulation from his fellow megalomaniacs.

A major portion of his renowned PrayerMan thread- Oswald Leaving the TSBD?- was devoted to the proposition that Truly & Baker ascended via the west freight elevator rather than the corner stairwell. An imaginative proposition that falls apart completely upon inspection. This is fully critiqued in my 1st lunchroom essay- The Lunchroom Incident- A Short Proof and Long Explanation.

Briefly, in order for Murphy's fantasy to be true, 1) Baker has to concoct two lies in his afternoon's affidavit- that the elevator was "hung several floors up" and that he encountered a man on the "3rd or 4th floor" 2) During the 4 o'clock hour Fritz co-opts Baker into this risky double-lie, because he's had an uncharacteristic loss of confidence after just one interrogation session with Oswald and needs a suspect, any suspect 3) Dougherty took the stairs down from the 5th upon reacting to a shot (the elevator method was implied by his affidavits & testimony) and inexplicably missed noticing the assassins fleeing via the east elevator- and subsequently lied in his testimony by claiming to take the west elevator down, so as to cover for Truly 4) a US Attorney's letter discovered 47 years after the assassination has to be interpreted contrary to common sense- "after Miss Adams went downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come up" - via the elevator, according to Murphy, and not via the stairs- that Adams had just used, whose timing on the stairs relative to Oswald's was being discussed.

Murphy's proposition has had few, if any, adherents since this disassembly. And this proposition was a direct outgrowth of an even deeper fantasy- and I refer here to his hypothesis that the lunchroom incident was a hoax.  Richard Gilbride is offline
Join Date
Jan 2017


This lunchroom issue was discussed in great depth a year ago in the EdForum threads Great New Movie Spells Out the Case for Oswald as PrayerMan and One Last Thing Before XMas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunchroom Encounter and the critique remains the same. And Bart Kamp ignored this in his award-winning essay.

1) Every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality.

2) WC 3076, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, shows that 6 months after his testimony Baker was still confused about the TSBD floor layout, giving a strong likelihood that he was confused about it in his 1st-day affidavit.

3) The 1964 filmed interview and 1986 filmed testimony contain no tangible indication that a monstrous lie about the lunchroom incident is being put forth, nor is there any indication that Baker was excessively anxious when being questioned by Bugliosi.

4) The will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no ostensible purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that the dozen other points of correspondence in the Truly/Baker testimonies (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) actually happened.
5) The Kent Biffle story about Oswald being seen in a 1st-floor storage room has not one whit of corroboration, and almost certainly is garbled hearsay.

6) The Stroud document, coupled with a fact-based understanding of their timelines, places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area. And the men had to have been in the lunchroom when the ladies passed.

And so we have an aggregate in the evidentiary record that supports the incident and not the hoax. Were there one issue only (such as interpretations of WC 3076) the hoaxers would have a debate. But there are several issues, and the fruitlesness of this school of thought is revealed by what is required to sustain it, and what it has produced:

The hoax requires a mini-conspiracy involving Truly, Baker, James Bookhout, Jeraldean Reid, James Leavelle, David Belin, and anyone else "in the know" in the DPD, FBI and Warren Commission. All of this to sustain a theory that has produced but one palpable result:

Baker's "4th floor man" vanished into thin air. This is the only tangible lead produced by this school of thought in 10-plus years. The same result as the theory that Space Aliens Abducted the Assassin. The other leads, fragile Murphyisms, are laughable- Tan Jacket Man and Ira Trantham's HSCA statement.

I invite the hoax adherents to look up Baker's children and grandchildren, show them the evidence (pro and con) and explain to them why Baker chose to participate in a hoax- a make-believe story- deeply pertinent to the murder of President Kennedy. And then sit down with a couple of Dallas cops and detectives to really drive your case home. Show the pro and con.

Hoaxers don't get it, that there was funny business going on with the elevators while Truly & Baker were on the ground floor and climbing the stairs. This is why Truly deflected attention onto Oswald in the lunchroom. And he never mentioned the elevators to the press. On top of that, power to the elevators was cut during the early minutes of the police search. And this was not mentioned in the press, nor even the Warren Report.

This hack theory- an attempted reconstruction of President Kennedy's diabolical murder- is perpetuated mainly by the bully drunkards at the ROKC forum- hooligan pseudoscholars to whom sophistry and wishful thinking outweigh any skills in math, science or Aristotelean logic. Managed by a 9th-grade dropout who spent way too many years in the bar-room, under the illusion that ethanol-laced beverages help the mind think more clearly. Ethanol. a gasoline additive, and the active ingredient in beer, wine and hard liquor.

Only an appearance by Sean Murphy himself, an admission that he's dead wrong, can rectify this hopelessly splintered situation, and I'm not holding my breath.