All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. John, forget no explanation of camera lens and distortions is needed... it's all about perspective. Here's a simple experiment in perspective... Hold up one finger of one of your hands and hold up one finger of the other and place them directly in front of your face so they line up... then, without moving either of your fingers, move your head to the left and then the right... what do you see?
  3. A CIA file that mentions me can be found in the Congressional Record of April 3, 1962, of remarks by the Hon. Katherine St. George, Representative from New York, titled “Maverick Conservatives.” Scroll way down to find it. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01676R002800250019-7.pdf
  4. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80R01731R003100020015-4.pdf https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/home https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/jan/17/cias-declassified-database-now-online/
  5. Just to say, the above was quoted directly from his WC testimony... One thing I have noticed when delving through a lot of the WC testimony is people aren't always that clear with what they are meaning, and indeed some of the questioning doesn't seem to be as good or concise as we would like it to be - a lot of times it can take a bit of deducing on our parts to really get what they are trying to say. lol Regards. P.S. I am currently trying to see if I can work out who the shadows on the right hand side (as we look at it) of the Altgens 6 belongs to.
  6. Today
  7. Alastair, Thanks for the clarification. I was basing what I said on William's FBI statements and his Warren Commission testimony.
  8. John, I think I kind of see what point you are trying to make about Bonnie Ray Williams - reading parts of his testimony seems a bit 'jumpy' in terms of what streets the limo was on at what time... however, from reading it through, it should be quite clear as to where Bonnie Ray Williams is placing the limo when he heard the first shot... Mr. BALL. Now, what do you remember happened when the President's parade went by? Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, to the best of my ability, what I remember was first coming off of--I believe it was Main Street--well, two motorcycle policemen came around. I think it was two or maybe three. They came around first. And then I think the President's car followed. And I believe a car was behind it carrying the Vice President, as I remember. I am not sure about it. President Kennedy was sitting in the back seat. I believe his wife was in the back seat. I believe Governor Connally was sitting in the front seat of the car as it was going down the street--I believe Mr. McCLOY. What street are you talking about there? Are you talking about Main Street, Houston Street, or Elm Street? Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, as I say, they was coming off of Main Street. Then as it turned the corner, the corner which I am speaking of, most people refer to it as Elm Street. But it is not really Elm Street. I believe it is the start of the turnpike, because Elm Street runs parallel with the building, but comes to a dead end. Mr. BALL. Did you see the parade come up Houston, north on Houston? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I did. Mr. BALL. And then you saw it turn to the left in front of your building? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Now tell us what happened after the President's car had passed your window. Mr. WILLIAMS. After the Presidents car had passed my window, the last thing I remember seeing him do was, you know--it seemed to me he had a habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing I saw him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot--first I thought they were saluting the President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember. He is saying that he heard the first shot after the Presidents car had passed his window. Put yourself in his position, looking out at everything that is going on, the only time it can be said that the Presidents car had passed his window was after it had turned the corner and had travelled in front of the TSBD and passed the window he was looking from. Regards P.S. just about to look at the photos you have just posted.
  9. I can see no one wants to talk about painted shadows. So, let's move on. The R L Thornton Freeway sign comes before the Stemmons Freeway sign. If we use the Zapruder film as a yardstick of sorts, we have the Stemmons Freeway sign at about Z frame 210. The black men are at Z frames 217 to 255. Charles Brehm and the Lady in Blue are at Z frames 275 to 299. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill show up at Z frames 287 to 317. Ike Altgens first appears in Zapruder starting at about Z frame 338. The last two shadows in Altgens 6 ( down in the corner) are said to be Mary Moorman and Jean Hill’s shadows. The problem comes from Jean Hill being taller than Mary Moorman and in the Zapruder film she comes first in the duo and her shadow is shorter than Mary Moormans in this photo. There are plenty of plausible answers to explain this. I contend that you cannot prove these are the shadows of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill. Even if these shadows are real (which I think is false) I don’t know whose they would be. I put up Altgens 6 again just to show the wider picture for discussion purposes. I do not see the R L Thornton Freeway sign or the Stemmons Freeway sign. If these were the shadows of Moorman and Hill they should be 77 frames past the signs. I would think that is about 75 feet. Ike Altgens is in the street 128 frames or feet pass the Stemmons Free Way sign. The signs are in front of the presidential vehicle not behind it. The TSBD is 100 feet long. We only see a portion of it. I would think less than one third. If the R L Thornton Freeway sign and the Stemmons Freeway sign are just to the right in this photo out of the picture then the shadows of the alleged Hill and Moorman would appear to be across from the signs. Charles Brehm’s shadow is there and you might say his boy’s is there but, I see little evidence to prove it. What I see is just shadow marks. And, where is the shadow of the Woman in Blue standing directly behind him? Their shadows also appear to be at or before the free way signs. The Zapruder yardstick on the left is different from the Zapruder yardstick on the right. They are mismatched by almost a 100 frames. Before I get jumped on with an explanation about camera lens and distortions, I simply do not believe it. If Altgens is in the middle of the road (not shown in Zapruder) about 130 feet away then there shouldn’t be that much distortion. The people down at the Elm Street crosswalk are not blurred or distorted such as the Vice-President’s security details car is. Whoever composed Altgens 6 seriously screwed up the perspective in their composition. Altgens did not have a magic camera lens. Where is the correct position of the presidential limousine? This Betzner photo might help. You will need to back up the motorcade until the presidential limousine is before the R L Thornton Freeway sign. This will just about put the vehicle off the SW corner of the TSBD. That might be across Elm St. from you know who.
  10. In furtherance of Hugo's comment, What keeps crossing my mind is how complicated things must have been because there were two crimes that day - Kennedy assasination, murder of Tippit. Oswald was 'arrested' in regards to the latter, but linked to the former. Two distinctly different crimes - one suspect. How rare an occurence would that have been generally. How prepared would they have been to deal with such a thing to start with... complicated further by the 'evidence' accumulating against Oswald in regards to Kennedy's assasination was 'building' throughout (finger-prints on rifle! Backyard Photos! etc etc) whilst he was already in 'custody' for the Tippit killing... the shooting of a police officer is deemed one of the most serious crimes by Police Departments... the asassination of the President Kennedy was 'unique' circumstances (compared to the assasinations of Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley - all 'up close and personal')... the nature of the crime brought 'everyone to the table'; FBI, CIA, Secret Service, DPD... 'too many cooks spoiling the broth'... all in it was very much a (pardon my French) 'clusterxxxx' (meaning: A chaotic situation where everything seems to go wrong. It is often caused by incompetence, communication failure, or a complex environment.) Also, no one at that time would have thought that Oswald was going to be killed himself... Perhaps there was the thought, or even just the presumption, that once things had 'calmed down' they would have the chance to 'formally' interrogate Oswald - a formal interrogation that would be recorded, or at least hand written short hand notes would be taken, or even the use of a stenographer. Oswald being killed not only put a stop to a trial against him, but it also put paid to any further interrogations of him... and we are left with a feeling of 'damn', if only they had done in the first place what we think would be common sense... if only! As Hugo said, It may be unbelievable because there is no real parralels to draw upon! Yes, many mistakes, problems and flaws, but it was a very chaotic situation. Does being such a chaotic situation justify the many mistakes, problems and flaws? Looking at it with hindsight, probably not! But hindsight was not something the people at the time had the benefit of... Regards
  11. Alastair, ouch! i'll have to rephrase.
  12. Luis says: David Lifton's forthcoming book, Final Charade will also clarify his new position on the DPD Police and Sheriff's Deputies on 11/22/1963. In a recent interview he said that he deeply suspects conspiratorial roles for DPD Chief Jesse Curry, Assistant Chief Charles Batchelor and his four Deputy Chiefs. This is where the correct solution for the JFK assassination and cover-up will eventually arise. Luis, what Dave, I believe is alluding to while then turning around and providing Curry's earliest statements the day of the assassination which I think we've all seen many times is Curry's statement made upon reflection years later when he wasn't under the gun, that he suspects a second gunman.This would seem to contradict Lifton's assertions about his complicity in the assassination, or if not, is at least helpful for you to see..
  13. What keeps crossing my mind when I read all the discussions is the way the case was handled by police and other investigators at that time. In my option there is a lot that seems to be a cover up, or a conspiracy. But also when you would put all those ideas aside you still have to say that they made so many mistakes. In my opinion it would be far more problematic when they didn't do all those things on purpose. Let's for the argument say that all the people involved in the interrogation did all to the best of their ability. Then there can only be one conclusion : they all made some terrible and unforgivable mistakes. No notes - either with shorthand or longhand - of the interrogation of the person who supposedly killed the president and a police man, no tape recorder (although not common at that time, but still, this was a killing of the president. Reporters all over the place. Ordinary citizens in the police station and at the press briefings. It is unbelievable how many mistakes , problems, flaws there are when you would assume there was no cover up and all the people just did the best they could.
  14. In other words, per some (or many) of the conspiracy promoters, it was The World vs. The Patsy in November 1963. Incredible. And I wonder how David Lifton explains the sudden about-face done by Chief Curry in circa 1969 when Curry's book came out that said things the CTers just love to quote 24/7? I guess Curry must have decided to abandon the cover-up and start telling the whole truth in '69. But here's what Jesse Curry was saying on 11/23/63: "I think this is the man [Oswald] that killed the President." https://app.box.com/s/u8hlumq4mya5lylmgqn5
  15. Objection: Badgering Judge: Sustained.
  16. Bill, This is an EXCELLENT point. Lee Harvey Oswald was ordinarily a tight-lipped person. Yet the WC testimony of Fritz-Hosty-Bookhout-Sorrels-Holmes portrays Oswald as a blabber-mouth. According to Harry Holmes, he told them every detail about his trip to Mexico City -- why he went there, what consul he visited first, why he visited the second consul, and so on. That just doesn't sound like Oswald to me. Oswald was very intelligent, for a high-school dropout. He taught himself Russian (by using Berlitz guides and Russian newspapers in 1959 at his Marine base in California). Oswald was interested in science and technology. He was somewhat of a snob in reading. My point is that Oswald knew his RIGHTS. He would not have demanded to see a specific attorney, and then, waiting for the attorney, blabbed his head off. That is a serious contradiction in the WC testimony of Will Fritz and his whole team. They not only failed to tape record the Oswald interrogations, they failed to take written notes, and then they coordinated their "recollections" with each other WEEKS LATER, and the Warren Commission accepted their make-believe scenario. The worst part is that for a half-century, most CTers have also accepted their make-believe scenario. It's finally time to put Fritz-Hosty-Bookhout-Sorrels-Holmes under a microscope. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  17. Hi: It is time for another cautionary tale. I could tell a few like this, such as that old girlfriend who gave me a preview of what was in store for me, and one more should get the idea across in no uncertain terms. Everybody in the free energy field, who has played at the high levels, has stories like what I am about to tell. One reason why humanity has been successful has been its ability to learn vicariously. Monkeys have calls for various hazards, with one for snakes, one for birds of prey, etc., to alert their societies of imminent dangers. With their mastery of language, humans can provide more detailed information on hazards, so that others can learn vicariously and not walk into a den of lions unaware to take a nap, play with a python, and the like. Try as I might to dissuade it, almost all of my pupils have gone out to proselytize to their social circles, and I always hear back on relationships and even careers that were wrecked by doing that. I hope that more people can learn vicariously. One of the greatest hazards of the free energy pursuit is what the magnitude of its impact does to people’s minds. Free energy will be the biggest event in the human journey, by far, and it does not take much intelligence to begin to understand. If it came through the capitalist model, it would dwarf everything that came before it, making Bill Gates appear a pauper to all who lived in a world powered by free energy. People going off the deep and end and declaring themselves to be the Second Coming or Messiah are just part of the absurd scenery. The coming of free energy will end the world as we know it, so few people have a lukewarm reaction to the idea of free energy, and I have seen it all over the past 30 years (I became Dennis’s partner 30 years ago yesterday). When people are around those who actually pursue free energy, the reactions escalate by orders of magnitude. I have watched many people turn into orcs before my eyes, lusting after The One Ring, watched them go insane, and have many other dysfunctional reactions. Some around me would try to help, but as I learned, it was not really with the goal in mind, which is bringing free energy to the world, but to somehow cash in by being close to it, serving their egos and not the cause. That is one reason behind my “give it away” strategy. Also, I have to own some of this. After getting clobbered like I did, I spent years trying to understand why the world worked so starkly differently from what I was taught. The vast majority of humanity does not have the personal integrity to question their conditioning, and usually those who awoke past it did it the hard way. Trying to wake up those around you is extremely hazardous. Those closest to you will often try to take you out, when you threaten the self-serving delusions of their in-group. This is just a hazard of being a social animal. I did not really understand when I left Ventura that the same lack of integrity that I witnessed during my free energy quest was the very same lack of integrity for why people eagerly defend the lies of their in-groups, and will even embrace certain death rather than question their indoctrination. It took me many years to realize that all of the reactions of fear and denial to the idea of free energy, to embracing certain death, to eagerly believing and defending the lies, were all facets of the same phenomenon, which was just my journey’s primary lesson generalized to all areas of our lives. I had a delusion that they could handle the truth, heck, were even interested in knowing the truth. Almost nobody on Earth is, so I have to own my part in what happened, of exposing people to information that challenged their self-serving beliefs, and that begins my final anecdote on this issue. Even before Junípero Serra elementary school opened, I caught the bus to school in front of a boy’s house, across the street from our future school that was under construction. We were always friendly but never close pals in those early years. He was every bit as intelligent as I was, and at nearly a year younger than me, they skipped him a grade when he began school. He is an Ashkenazi Jew, so his genius-level IQ was not unusual, and his father wanted to become a doctor but was unable to, so his father’s hopes of “my son the doctor” were heaped on that boy. He became a doctor of pharmacy instead, I am sure to his father’s everlasting disappointment. In high school, as we registered for classes, we suddenly decided to enroll in the same classes, and we did so through high school graduation, and both had the same 3.9 GPA. In our first month of high school, he “burned” me by “volunteering” me for a trip to Europe. I did not want to go, and had the summer of my life (I am mentioned by my tour leader in this book). He was scheduled to go on the same tour the next summer (seeing how I had been “burned” ), but his parents were faced with the decision of funding his college or a trip to Europe, not both, and he never went. After high school, he went off to the big city of LA, attended UCLA, immersed himself in fraternity life, and the like, while I attended the local community college, where I eventually met Mr. Professor after that voice spoke up. We slowly grew apart after high school, but he had a younger brother. Born only little more than a year apart, while the older brother was skipped a grade, the other was held back a grade, making them three years apart in school, so I never went to school with his younger brother. The younger brother did not get his brother’s brains, let us say. But we became close, just as his brother and I grew apart. He followed me to the same university, again, after I graduated, just as he followed me at all schools from fourth grade through his college diploma. My relationship with him will be the focus of my cautionary tale, which will take a little telling. Best, Wade
  18. Paul B., I've noticed that. Your writings suggest some Marxist ideology, in which everybody who isn't Marxist is Right-wing and neo-Fascist. There's no nuance there. There are really more colors in politics than Marxist and Rightwing. Such color-blindness makes it difficult to analyze US History, which is so colorful. Such color-blindness makes it impossible to analyze the JFK assassination -- which requires political and historical subtlety. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo
  19. Paul B, The flaw in your question is your presumption of the "Deep Politics" scenario which has infected JFK research since 1993. "Deep Politics" is a left-wing reading of US History which attempts to make JFK into a Left-Wing Saint, crucified by a Right-Wing US Government. In other words, biased, left wing, liberal nonsense. By trying to make a linkage of the JFK assassination with the current Trump election controversy, the "Deep Politics" wing is really showing they don't care about the JFK assassination anymore, except as it feeds their left-wing political bias. Actually -- the JFK assassination should be studied as objective US History. David Lifton (1981) started out in this direction, and his early work is heroic. In his greatest work, Best Evidence (1981) David Lifton did allow that there might be a "benign" explanation for the JFK cover-up. That also remains my position. J. Edgar Hoover admitted, even to the WC, that Lee Harvey Oswald was never a Communist and never an FPCC officer. That's important. Also, Allen Dulles told his CIA Aide, Jacques Zwart, that "the full answer to the JFK assassination is right there in the Warren Commission volumes -- but the reader must become an expert at 'hairsplitting.'" It's really all right there in the WC -- but the CIA-did-it CT has obscured the truth for 50 years. David Lifton's forthcoming book, Final Charade will also clarify his new position on the DPD Police and Sheriff's Deputies on 11/22/1963. In a recent interview he said that he deeply suspects conspiratorial roles for DPD Chief Jesse Curry, Assistant Chief Charles Batchelor and his four Deputy Chiefs. This is where the correct solution for the JFK assassination and cover-up will eventually arise. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo
  20. Good try on the shadows. Just remove what you find offensive.
  21. There are suspicious things about the Main and Houston intersection at the time of the motorcade. The Patsy Paschall film shows the presidential vehicle until it nears the intersection then jumps over to Elm Street. The same thing happens as the presidential limousine approaches the Court Record building. 8 films skip over that area. In Elsie Dorman the figures in the limousine are blacked out or darkened to incomprehension at the beginning of the film when the vehicle moves onto Houston Street. I suspect Altgens 5 and others are attempts to show nothing happening here, move on. I mentioned Bonnie Ray Williams earlier. Here's a fantasy. Imagine you are a lawyer and you have Bonnie Ray Williams on the witness stand. It could happen like this. Lawyer: Now, Bonnie we are only interested in the truth. Bonnie: Yes, Sir Lawyer: What is it, Bonnie? Did you hear two shots when the president's vehicle turned onto Houston from Main or, did you hear gunfire when the limousine turned into Elm Street from Houston Street or, did you hear 3 shots sometime after the president's vehicle passed your position? Bonnie: Uh, Uh.... It's hard for me to believe Bonnie Ray Williams but, the Warren Commission did. Bonnie and Harold Norman were their star witnesses. Junior Jarmen, who was with Williams and Norman, blew up in their faces.
  22. Chris, Thanks for the tire images. What still doesn't look right to me is the tread on the back of the tire. It doesn't look circular enough, it looks like the tread meets the pavement at too downward an angle. But I'll let it go as I'm now tired of this subject.
  23. Considering that Zapruder kept in his possession the first generation copy made within hours of the shooting - it took altering the film off the table right out of the gate. As in the case of Altgen's 6 - Ike kept his film with him until handing it off to be processed and within the hour it was seen on the AP wire if I remember correctly. In 1963, they didn't have computers like we do today where manipulations can be done in short order. The alterations would have called for lab time and working with film the old fashion way. 8MM and 35MM have different film grain patterns, so any two mixing of the patterns would be detected by an expert. And because Kodachrome II color film was created for outdoor exposure and my research has told me that exposure with real sunlight vs artificial gives tow different distinct appearances. I shared the Life original image to the MPI version to demonstrate the difference.
  24. Paul, I understand what you are saying and agree. I also get the DPD didn't have a tape recorder for reasons they had given, but the killing of JFK was a special circumstance and with the importance of making a solid case and the claim of being concerned of Oswald's rights ... I am troubled that they didn't bother to obtain one. I am equally puzzled as to why if Oswald really wanted a particular person to represent him or not - Lee seemed to be a smart enough of an individual to know he could refuse to answer questions before his attorney could be obtained. In fact, any attorney could have seen that Lee's rights were not violated until Attorney Apt could be located and obtained. And maybe Lee did refuse to wait and freely wanted to talk to the police which some of his claimed responses does support this scenario - this is all the more reason the questioning should have been audio recorded. I find the excuse of the DPD not obtaining a tape recorder so to have an audio record of Lee's interviews to be quite mind-boggling.
  25. In the comparison above I have removed the shadow below the tire(On the left) and used an inverted image from Alrgens6(On the right to compare it with. That is followed by a gif of the original image contrasted against the 'shadow removed' image. It looks like the shadow is creating the cut out notch effect. The line of the tire after the photoshop looks a bit too straight but overall it looks pretty convincing, the shadow is the cause of the notch. Here is a single photo to compare tire tread size. The image on the right is again from Altgens 6 inverted.
  26. Yeah, that must be why I was arguing with him about his theory in 2015: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1051.html I agree with Paul about Ruth Paine (as all reasonable people do); but I disagree strongly with him on his Walker theory. So, are we still a match made in heaven, Jimmy?
  27. In that regard, I should pass something on to you. It will be in my review of Tye's book. I don't know if I knew this, or if I forgot it. I probably forgot it since I read Schlesinger's bio of RFK so long ago. But near the end of that book, he writes that it was RFK who suggested to King that he put together a Poor People's March. Is that something or what? A millionaire suggesting a poor people's demonstration to a civil rights leade back in 1967. One other point. In early 1968, before LBJ dropped out of the primary race, King was discussing who the SCLC should support for the Democratic nomination. King said there is no question who they will support, it will be Robert Kennedy.
  1. Load more activity