All Activity

The real, actual "fake news" media outlets continue to circle the toilet bowl... https://www.barrons.com/news/us-conspiracy-website-gateway-pundit-declares-bankruptcy-72141b2b

Just cut back on your Starbuck lattes!

It's bizarro only in your mind, Pat. If Horne told the story, it would make perfect sense.

DO THE RESEARCH. Here, I've done it for you... From chapter 19d: One of the first books to report on the ARRB interviews orchestrated by Horne was Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). This anthology presented competing and overlapping takes on the medical evidence by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Mantik. Now, to focus on but one deception of many included in this book, we shall note that in his chapter Dr. Mantik claimed "Tom Robinson, the funeral home employee who restored JFK's head (nope, that was Ed Stroble)...described a wound...above the right eye, near the hairline." And that Mantik then cited White House photographer Joe O'Donnell's recollection he saw a photo showing such a wound as support for what he, Mantik, was now claiming Robinson had claimed. But this conspiracy gold was poop. The reality was that Robinson described a small wound which he insisted was not a bullet wound. And that he specified, on different occasions, that this tiny wound was by the temple, or even on the right cheek, but never above the right eye. And the reality is that O'Donnell's claim he saw a wound above the right eye in a photo was also suspect. Basically, O'Donnell told Horne, in the same interview in which he described being shown an autopsy photo, that he and Jackie Kennedy had spent a day together editing the Zapruder film. Well this is absolute rubbish, invisible rabbit kind of stuff. And that's not the only red flag suggesting O'Donnell was less than credible. O'Donnell similarly claimed he'd been shown this photo (for which there is no record) by White House photographer Robert Knudsen, whose family claimed he'd told them he'd been the only photographer at the autopsy--an assertion which Mantik would have to have known was false after studying Gunn's and Horne's interviews where witness after witness failed to recall Knudsen's even being present at the autopsy. Now, the since-deceased Knudsen had been interviewed for the HSCA, and had told them he'd developed photos taken at the autopsy. But he never said anything under oath about his taking the photos himself or his seeing an entrance wound on the forehead in the photos he'd developed, and his family, who told Horne and the ARRB he'd told them all sorts of wild stuff--well, even they failed to recall his describing such a wound. But it's worse than that. When Knudsen was interviewed by the HSCA on 8-11-78 he gave no signs of holding back. He said a lot of stuff which many would find incredible, including that after looking through the autopsy photos supplied him by his interviewer he thought photos were missing in which probes had been placed in the body. But he said nothing about a missing photo showing a hole in the forehead. In fact, he recalled but one photo of the head wounds (and that was one showing a wound in the right rear) and snapped "Here, this is it." when shown photo 37h, a photo showing the top of the head from above which failed to show the supposed entrance hole on the forehead and the supposed exit hole in the middle of the back of the head. Now, there was one curious exchange, where Knudsen was asked if the photos just shown him were "not inconsistent"with the ones he saw in 1963, and responded "No. Not at all." But that was just confusing human speak. I mean, if someone were to ask you if their recollection is not inconsistent with your recollection of an event, it is as likely that you would answer "no" to mean they are not consistent as it is for you to answer "no" to mean they are consistent. I mean, I get confused just writing about this. As Knudsen was asked this question after being shown a series of photos with which he expressed no disagreement, moreover, and as Purdy failed to follow up by asking how they were inconsistent, we can and should assume Knudsen meant that the photos were not inconsistent with his recollections...and that his only real complaint was that some photos (the ones he recalled with the probes) appeared to be missing. So... to sum up, the only one to claim Knudsen saw a small wound on the forehead, or even shared a photo showing such a wound, was O'Donnell, who Knudsen's family had never even heard of, and whose connection to Knudsen was nebulous, if not non-existent. O'Donnell was a dubious source with a dubious claim. Now observe how Mantik's, well, stuff...rubs off on Horne. In Volume 2 of his magnum opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (2009) Horne discusses Tom Robinson's description of a small wound by the temple, and takes Mantik's lead and pretends Robinson was actually describing a bullet wound above the right eye. When summarising the HSCA's 1977 interview of Robinson, Horne writes: "Robinson also spoke of a small hole in the temple near the hairlline, which was so small it could be hidden by the hair." Horne then reads the mind of Andy Purdy, the man interviewing Robinson, and claims: "Purdy asked Robinson to clarify which side of the forehead it was on, which tells me that Robinson said 'temple' but had actually pointed to his own forehead rather than to his temple. Robinson responded to the question by saying 'the right side,' thus confirming that it was indeed in the right forehead near the hairline." What the??? Horne makes a ridiculous assumption and then claims his assumption (Robinson meant forehead and not temple) is confirmed by Robinson's saying it was on the right side. Well, hello, there is a temple on the right side of the head! One can not simply declare that someone saying there was a mark on the right side of the head by the temple actually said it was a bullet hole high on the forehead. That's insulting to, well, everyone... But it gets worse. On page 599 of Inside the ARRB, Horne claims Robinson's 1-12-77 recollection of a wound by the temple "is consistent with Dennis David's account of seeing Pitzer's photos of a small round wound high in the right forehead, and of Joe O'Donnell's account of Robert Knudsen showing him a photo depicting an entry wound high in the right forehead." Now, we'll get to David and Pitzer in a minute, but what's important here is that we realize that, according to his widely-disseminated notes, researcher Joe West asked Robinson about the wounds on 5-26-92 and was told instead of "(approx 2) small wounds in face packed with wax", and that when Horne himself spoke to Robinson on 6-18-96, Robinson once again failed to mention a small wound by the temple, and instead claimed he saw "two or three small perforations or holes in the right cheek." And that all this led Horne to assert, on page 612 of Inside the ARRB, that Robinson's 1996 recollection of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with his 1977 recollection of a small wound by the temple. So, you can follow the bouncing ball, right? In Fetzer/Mantik/Horne Bizarro world, Robinson's description of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with Joe O'Donnell's claim there was a bullet hole high on the forehead.

Unlike Horne, Pat Speer routinely kicks inconvenient facts under the rug. In contrast, Doug Horne studies all the facts he can find and comes up with a cogent hypothesis that explains it all. What Pat scoffs at here is too much for his thought process to handle. But for most intelligent people it makes perfect sense given what evidence we have. JFK's body was indeed delivered to Bethesda Hospital well before it's official arrival time. Most likely it was flown in by helicopter from the airport. It arrived in a plain shipping casket, not the ornate bronze one that it was put in at Parkland.

I did complain at the supermarket. Soon enough, we’ll have to eat only twice a day because food is now so expensive.

it was Joe O'Donnell. 13 years ago or so, I was reading the New York Times and came across an article about a former U.S. Information Agency photographer who had recently passed, whose passing had ignited a scandal. Because his obituary had listed a number of famous photos he'd taken, when he had in fact not taken these photos. It turned out that, although he had taken some famous photos in the aftermath of the A bomb in Japan, he had been signing and selling photographic prints for decades of photos that he had not taken==all of which were Kennedy-related. An investigation followed and led to his family admitting he'd been suffering from dementia and had developed an unhealthy obsession with the Kennedys. This was, of course Joe O'Donnell, one of the few people in history whose obituary led to a retraction. In any event, I read a number of articles on this situation, and saw that Cecil Stoughton, the White House photographer who'd accompanied Kennedy to Dallas, and had taken the Johnson swearing-in photos, had said he'd never heard of O'Donnell, and that, if I recall, U.S. Information Agency photographers did not interact much with White House photographers or the first family. Well, hell, I thought, and went back and read the notes of the interviews of the Knudsen family, and found they said they'd never heard of O'Donnell. And then re-read the notes on Horne's interview with O'Donnell, in which he reported that O'Donnell had claimed he'd performed a private showing of the Zapruder film for Jacqueline Kennedy, and that the two of them had edited the film together. Well, that was it, I thought, the man was obviously suffering from dementia when he claimed Knudsen had shown him some photos. But, wait, how would he have known Knudsen had claimed he'd taken some photos? I then remembered that Knudsen had written an article in which he claimed he'd taken photos...and that the HSCA had then called him in to testify and that he'd told them he'd developed photos taken by others. In any event, I shared this info with the research community in the hopes people would stop citing O'Donnell as an important witness. And have instead witnessed men like Mantik and Horne continue to cite O'Donnell as credible, when they know full well he is not. Now, recently, after re-reading all of this stuff, I feel a little more charitable towards O'Donnell. We Know Knudsen developed photos. So the possibility exists Knudsen DID show O'Donnell some photos, and that O'Donnell had simply mis-remembered the nature of these photos

This is a perfect example of Pat Speer slandering a researcher. First he misrepresents the researcher's evidence. Then he states the researcher's conclusion based on that evidence... which of course makes no sense due to Pat's misrepresentation. And so, he concludes, there is something wrong with the researcher's thinking.

Yeah, but that wasn't till 1966. When Roselli claimed that Castro had sent some hitmen to the U.S. to kill Kennedy in retaliation for him trying to kill Castro. Which, BTW, I don't believe given that I believe the assassination plotters were CIA. And the CIA certainly wouldn't have acquired their hitmen from Castro. That's interesting. I'd like to see that report. I think it is likely that LBJ trusted what Hoover had to say about there being a real possibility of a communist plot. Hoover said publicly very early on (Nov. 25?) that Oswald was the lone gunman. But on Nov. 29 he said the following to LBJ by phone: "This angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble because the story there is of this man Oswald getting $6,500 from the Cuban embassy and then coming back to this country with it. We're not able to prove that fact, but the information was that he was there on the 18th of September in Mexico City and we are able to prove conclusively he was in New Orleans that day. Now then they've changed the dates. The story came in changing the dates to the 28th of September and he was in Mexico City on the 28th. Now the Mexican police have again arrested this woman Duran, who is a member of the Cuban embassy... and we're going to confront her with the original informant, who saw the money pass, so he says, and we're also going to put the lie detector test on him."

A serious researcher would offer to pay Denis for his great find, otherwise he might end up complaining about the expensive food at his grocery store.

I know that you seen the series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" now who was that guy that seen the bullet hole in the temple? Was it O'Donnell or someone that knew a name close to O'Donnell?He was an older gentleman. One picture it was there & one picture it wasn't there. You have to know who I'm taking about? Was it a Joe? Pictures came from a Knudsen set?

The medical evidence is overwhelming.They probably starting cutting & searching there for a bullet.

You are not a Kent, but that's pretty close.

Yes, his prior HSCA testimony is likely the clue to his untimely demise. Some young guys fishing in the bay. They found an oil drum floating in the water. They said they could see through the holes in the drum what they thought were human remains. We had the maritime patrol boat pull it up to the shore. We got a tow tuck to take it out. It was opened at the scene. The tow truck driver helped us open it. What did you see inside? It was a big blob. A blob? Gray and white blob. With a powerful smell. It was bloated as it could get inside of this drum. Here's a short video that show's the drum on the tow truck on the way to the medical examiners office. What a dreadful job that would have been. Bing Videos Pardon my proclivity for related (usually) music videos.

That is a very good point! Maybe LBJ called on Sunday morning instead. Notice Oswald is taking a bullet within 2 hours of the start of his interview by Fritz, Postal Inspector Holmes, SAIC Sorrels, Inspector Kelley and four members of the homicide squad. Then immediately after Oswald takes a bullet in the belly from Ruby, Lyndon Johnson was calling Parkland Hospital wanting to get a "confession" from Oswald. Lyndon Johnson to Dr. Charles Crenshaw on 11/24/63 “I want a death-bed confession from the accused assassin. There’s a man in the operating room who will take a statement. I will expect full cooperation in this matter.” Paul Kuntzler letter: QUOTE After Oswald was shot by Mafia member Jack Ruby, President Johnson called Parkland Hospital. Phyllis Bartlett, Chief Telephone Operator for Parkland Hospital, remembers the call: "The call came in and said, 'Hold the line for the President." Bartlett continued when she said, "It was just a second or two when he came on in a loud voice and said, 'This is Lyndon Johnson, Connect me to the accused assassin's doctor.' " Ms. Bartlett put the President through to an office adjoining the operating room where Dr. Charles Crenshaw was urgently called to answer the phone. He recalls: "I picked up the phone and it was there I heard this voice like thunder that stated: 'This is President Lyndon B. Johnson.' " And he asked, "How is the accused assassin doing?" I was so startled that the only thing that I could say was: "He is holding his own. He has lost a lot of blood. He said: "Would you take a message to the chief operating surgeon?" It was more of an order than a question. "There is a man in the room, I would like for him to take a deathbed confession." UNQUOTE

Lyndon Johnson, who orchestrated the JFK assassination, knew darn well there was no "communist international conspiracy" to murder JFK, that is why he was taking time out of his life in a national emergency to sell his "goddamn Halliburton stock." Halliburton in 1962 had merged with Brown & Root, the major construction firm that Lyndon Johnson had made RICH for decades by steering them government contracts. LBJ's sugar daddy George Brown was an executive at Halliburton and George Brown and his brother had made LBJ super rich by giving him large amounts of "under the table" money over the decades. LBJ also got drunk on the way back from Dallas as he drank "about half a fifth" of Cutty Sark according to flight steward Doyle Whitehead. That is because LBJ was nervous about what the Kennedy reaction would be to his murdering JFK. Lyndon Johnson called his tax lawyer Waddy Bullion to sell his “goddamn Halliburton stock” on the day of JFK’s assassination LBJ makes call from Parkland Hospital; JFK’s corpse was still warm at this point [Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, p. 132] QUOTE Pat Holloway, former attorney to both Poppy Bush and Jack Crichton, recounted to me an incident involving LBJ that had greatly disturbed him. This was around 1PM on November 22, 1963, just as Kennedy was being pronounced dead. Holloway was heading home from the office and was passing through the reception area. The switchboard operator excitedly noted that she was patching the vice president through from Parkland Hospital to Holloway’s boss, firm senior partner Waddy Bullion, who was LBJ’s personal tax lawyer. The operator invited Holloway to listen in. LBJ was talking “not about a conspiracy or a tragedy,” Holloway recalled. “I heard him say: ‘Oh I gotta get rid of my goddamn Halliburton stock.’ Lyndon Johnson was talking about the consequences of his political problems with his Halliburton stock at a time when the president had been officially declared dead. And that pissed me off… It really made me furious.” There are many other examples of LBJ’s apparent unconcern after the assassination, though none so immediate. For instance, on the evening of November 25, LBJ and Martin Luther King talked, and LBJ said, “It’s just an impossible period – we’ve got a budget coming up.” That morning he told Joseph Alsop that “the President must not inject himself into, uh, local killings,” to which Alsop immediately replied, “I agree with that, but in this case it does happen to be the killing of the President.” Also, on the same day LBJ told Hoover, “We can’t be checking up on every shooting scrape in the country.” UNQUOTE [Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, p. 132] Brown and Root, as a subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded a bevy of lucrative contracts for the Vietnam War by Lyndon Johnson https://www.npr.org/2003/12/24/1569483/halliburton-deals-recall-vietnam-era-controversy [“Halliburton Deals Recall Vietnam-Era Controversy,” John Burnett, All Things Considered, 12-24-2003] QUOTE After Johnson took over the Oval Office, Brown & Root won contracts for huge construction projects for the federal government. By the mid-1960s, newspaper columnists and the Republican minority in Congress began to suggest that the company's good luck was tied to its sizable contributions to Johnson's political campaign. More questions were raised when a consortium of which Brown & Root was a part won a $380 million contract to build airports, bases, hospitals and other facilities for the U.S. Navy in South Vietnam. By 1967, the General Accounting Office had faulted the "Vietnam builders" -- as they were known -- for massive accounting lapses and allowing thefts of materials. Brown & Root also became a target for anti-war protesters: they called the firm the embodiment of the "military-industrial complex" and denounced it for building detention cells to hold Viet Cong prisoners in South Vietnam. UNQUOTE

The number one goal of the murderers (LBJ) of JFK had was to kill John Kennedy as soon as possible because Johnson's destruction at the hands of the Kennedys was imminent and multiple shooters from front and behind JFK were used. Everything else was secondary. The killers of JFK (LBJ) knew that Lyndon Johnson would immediately become president and have the power to warp any investigation into the murder of JFK. If some of the shooters of JFK were anti-Castro operatives they would not have had to be paid; they would more than gladly put a bullet into JFK's head for free, no questions asked, no demands made - that is how much some in the anti-Castro Cuban community "hated" JFK. I talked to anti-Castro Cubans in Miami - the inner circle - in 2013, 62 years after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and they STILL hated the guts of that "traitor" JFK. Lee Harvey Oswald was playing his public and deceptive role of a "pro Castro Marxist" when he asked for New York's well known left wing lawyer Joe Abt to represent him. I think Oswald actually thought his handlers in intelligence would protect him and not orchestrate his death while he was in custody.

If that is true, Captain Fritz ignored LBJ's order. Excerpted from the report of the Oswald interrogation that took place in Fritz's office on 11/24/1963 at 9:30 AM: This interview started at approximately 9:30 a.m. on Sunday, November 24, 1963. The interview was conducted in the office of Captain WIll Fritz of the Homicide Bureau, Dallas Police. Present at the interview in addition to Oswald were Captain Fritz, Postal Inspector Holmes, SAIC Sorrels, Inspector Kelley and four members of the Homicide Squad. The interview had just begun when I arrived and Captain Fritz was again requesting Oswald to identify the place where the photograph of him holding the gun was taken. Captain Fritz indicated that it would save the Police a great deal of time if he would tell them where the place was located. Oswald refused to discuss the matter. Captain Fritz asked, "Are you a Communist?" Oswald answered, "No, I am a Marxist but I am not a Marxist Leninist." Captain Fritz asked him what the difference was and Oswald said it would take too long to explain it to him. Oswald said that he became interested in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee while he was in New Orleans; that he wrote to the Committee's Headquarters in New York and received some Committee literature and a letter signed by Alex Hidell. He stated that he began to distribute that literature in New Orleans and it was at that time that he got into an altercation with a group and he was arrested. He said his opinions concerning Fair Play for Cuba are well known; that he appeared on Bill Stukey's television program in New Orleans on a number of occasions and was interviewed by the local press often. He denies knowing or ever seeing Hidell in New Orleans, said he believed in all of the tents of the Fair Play for Cuba and the things which the Fair Play for Cuba Committee stood for, which was free intercourse with Cuba and freedom for tourists of both countries to travel within each other's borders. Among other things, Oswald said that Cuba should have full diplomatic relationship with the United States. I asked him if he thought that the President's assassination would have any effect on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He said there would be no change in the attitude of the American people toward Cuba with President Johnson becoming President because they both belonged to the same political party and the one would follow pretty generally the policies of the other . He stated that he is an avid reader of Russian literature whether it is communistic or not; that he subscribes to "The Militant," which, he says, is the weekly of the Socialist party in the United States (it is a copy of "the Militant" that Oswald is shown holding in the photograph taken form this effects at Irving Street). At that time he asked me whether I was an FBI Agent and I said that I was not that I was a member of the Secret Service. He said when he was standing in front of the Textbook Building and about to leave it, a young crew-cut man rushed up to him and said he was from the Secret Service, showed a book of identification, and asked him where the phone was. Oswald said he pointed toward the pay phone in the building and that he saw the man actually go to the phone before he left. I asked Oswald whether as a Marxist he believed that religion was an opiate of the people and he said very definitely so that all organized religions tend to become monopolistic and are the causes of a great deal of class warfare. I asked him whether he considered the Catholic Church to be an enemy of the Communist philosophy and he said well, there was no Catholicism in Russia; that the closest to it is the Orthodox Churches but he said he would not further attempt to have him say something which could be construed as being anti-religious or anti-Catholic. Capt. Fritz displayed an Enco street map of Dallas which had been found among Oswald's effects at the rooming house. Oswald was asked whether the map was his and wheter he had put some marks on it. He said it was his and remarked "My God don't tell me there's a mark near where this thing happened." The mark was pointed out to him and he said "What about the other marks on the map?I put a number of marks on it. I was looking for work and marked the places where I went for jobs or where I heard there were jobs." Since it was obvious to Captain Fritz that Oswald was not going to be cooperative, he terminated the interview at that time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/world/middleeast/israel-us-aid.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nE0.5rLt.BZbxrYJTcvXx&smid=url-share

If the intention was to frame a single assassin, why would a triangulation scheme be used that requires hijacking and altering the body, modifying photographic and other evidence and apparently a clean up squad to eliminate troublesome witnesses when a single assassin with a proper rifle or working with another shooter in the DalTex building could easily do the job just as effectively, make it look like a single shooter and with far less risk? If the assassins were anti-Castro Cubans and LBJ had no invasion of Cuba as a precondition for cooperating, why didn’t the Cubans get pissed and take out LBJ when they realized no invasion of Cuba was going to take place after taking such a big risk themselves? Why did Oswald insist on getting a lawyer from across the country who, as far as I know, never tried a murder case?

Thank you Denis Morissette for your work on this! The last line of image #437 reads: “Jean Hill said I though [sic] I saw someone in the motorcade in street DRAIN shoot back at the person running up the hill”. From my memory of reading her later book, I recall her saying she thought she saw Secret Service shooting back at a Grassy Knoll shooter, but I recall no reference of Jean Hill speaking of a storm drain. Then image #441 seems oddly to repeat the same news story of Jean Hill with slight rewrite of wording, and the parallel there reads: ”I thought I saw someone in the motorcade in street {•re•t} (?) shoot back at a person moving up the hill.” What does the word after “street” in #441 read? The word is NOT “drain”. Is the word “crack” or “break”? Can anyone decipher that word? Why does it read “drain” in one iteration (reading Jean Hill saw someone in “street drain” shooting “back” at someone on the GKnoll), whereas in the parallel, the “drain” is gone and replaced with some other word (which I cannot make out)? What was going on with that? Why two versions of the same Jean Hill news story? Is this a heretofore-unknown first-day witness claim to have seen a shooter firing out of a storm drain? Was that Jean Hill news story published? Thanks to anyone who can explain this little mystery!

Christian, Very interesting photos and interpretation. These are all visible, but some of your previous photos on this page were not. I wonder if this might partly be a browser issue. I use Safari in Apple iOS.

I imagine that LBJ didn't want to make a rush decision on retaliating against a foreign nation, particularly against a nuclear power like the Soviet Union. At the same time, Katzenbach and others were advising against blaming any conspiracy whatsoever, and placing the blame squarely on LHO. That probably seemed like an easy way out to LBJ. If it later turned out there was indeed a communist conspiracy, he could always retaliate in some fashion at that time.

I’m like Richard. When I go to the supermarket, I yell at the staff because I can’t get any free food from them. Really annoying. I’m a Kent.

There are very few things I enjoy more in life than watching people that try to hurt the United States face justice. Today, this worm, Jacob Hoffman, was indicted. A great day for America. From 2022: