All Activity

My sarcasm was directed at some of the above posters who have never been able to acknowledge that a single point made about Ruth's deep involvement in this case is worthy of suspicion. Those people are saying that two plus two does not equal 4, as far as I'm concerned. I'm no more of an expert on Ruth than many other researchers. Ruth seems to have been very adamant that she had no idea Oswald could be a suspect until the police showed up. That's why the wrong address is necessary. I think the police report, where two officers recounted that she said, "We've been expecting you." when they arrived, is more important than many of us realized. Ruth, of course, completely denies that she ever said that to them. The "we both know who is responsible" phone call also points to the Paines being aware of Oswald as a suspect/culprit before the police showed up or it was announced in the media. Hosty did interview Ruth (and Marina) at her house on 11/1/63.

Taylor also was the "open mic" on channel one. He was not in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting. He was on the Stemmons Highway during the assassination.

Bottom line: Joe Biden knows how to get sh*t done, even when dealing with a bunch of crazy MAGAs. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/biden-johnson-ukraine-aid-00153237

I agree with that Nathaniel. What Kennedy was doing in the fifties, leading up to the great Algeria Speech, was really kind of revolutionary. And the Establishment wants us to forget about that. But its really important. I will never understand why they recruited Jon Meacham as their historian. Of course I really do not understand why he reached out to Soledad O'Brien either. If you recall, when she worked for CNN she did an MLK cover up show.

Both vent windows were open, that may have been how Tippit liked to drive, nothing to do with having opened it to talk. You don't know that he opened the vent to listen to the man, or that the man talked through the vent. You might as well ask yourself where's your witness to the man talking through the vent and why you are making up that scenario when no witness said they saw that. In my experience, when strangers approach the passenger side of a car wanting to speak, the most common response as a driver (if one does not ignore them altogether) is roll the window down a crack. Not open the vent. Roll the window down a crack. Not roll down a lot (at least in urban America today) for safety reasons. Enough to enable hearing but not enough to allow an arm to come in. I don't know if a police officer in 1963 Oak Cliff would instinctively be as cautious as such habits today, but this has been my experience. I can imagine police officers being instinctively cautious in 1963 Dallas. Never know what any given person is going to be like, from an officer's point of view, I imagine. But I don't need a witness on rolling the window back up a crack if the witness (Jimmy Burt) saw Tippit reach over to roll down the window a crack or two. If the witness was correct on that, then the window WAS rolled back up, evidence being it was found rolled up, therefore it was rolled back up. This is not making stuff up. This is evidence-based if the witness statement is correct that the window was rolled down a crack or two or three. If so, it was rolled back up because it was found up, therefore it had been rolled back up. I don't drive around with my passenger window down, whether or not my driver's side window is down which can vary. I think of how I react when people occasionally flag me down or tap seeking to speak through the passenger window. Sometimes its panhandlers. Other times it might be someone asking a question of a location, or being helpful offering some information or advice, whatever. And if I roll down the window a crack to talk, find out what the person wants, when the person leaves I'm gonna roll it back up again. (Because as noted, I like the passenger window rolled up when I drive alone.) This strange, strange notion you keep repeating that if no witness such as Helen Markham or Jimmy Burt saw the killer do a hand movement it didn't happen (also if Helen Markham or Jimmy Burt did see a hand motion it also didn't happen), is no less arbitrary than what you characterize me as doing. Very simply: if the witness is correct that Tippit rolled down the passenger window a crack or partway, then he did roll it back up because the window was found up. That's all there is to it on that. And there's nothing that doesn't make sense about Tippit cracking the passenger window down partway for the man flagging him down, find out what he wants (unaware the man is about to kill him), the only issue is how far to roll the window down for personal security and safety reasons. Now maybe Tippit just sat there and looked and the man did awkwardly speak through the vent which he already found open, without Tippit making a move. Maybe it did happen that way. Maybe Jimmy Burt was just blowing smoke saying so very specifically and repeatedly that he witnessed Tippit reach over, and roll down the window. I don't know. Do you? You may think you know, but I know you don't. I will agree with you on one thing. If Jimmy Burt was a block away, I wonder how he could claim to see that precision of movement of Tippit inside the car. If it can be settled conclusively that Jimmy Burt was a block away (as distinguished from Wm Smith and Jimmy Burt saying they were a block away), then I would not pay much attention to it (and would still consider it open that Tippit could have cracked the passenger window, then raised it back up again, before being killed, in the absence of direct witness testimony). But if Jimmy Burt was inside his car where two witnesses claim to have seen his car next to Tippit's patrol car at the moment Tippit was killed, then its a different matter. In that case, Jimmy Burt could have seen it very clearly. If Jimmy Burt's claim to what he said he saw is true, that Tippit rolled down the window a crack or two, THEN Tippit did roll it back up, because the window was found up.

I inquired on another thread as to how LBJ was picked, perhaps as an insurance policy for an assassination should it be deemed necessary. I’ve seen summaries of Caro’s account and I am reading “The Road to Camelot” by Oliphant and Wilkie (2017) which says there is still no consensus on what actually happened in the final hours. Joe Kennedy said it was a master stroke. Look like it was a mix practical politics and misinterpreted understandings.

Trump's stock made giant gains the past 2 days, in what was a textbook example of a "short squeeze"; short sellers bought back the stock to take their profits. But what caused the squeeze? Possibly Trump giving instructions to shareholders on his Truth Social site on how to thwart short selling, the legality of which I can only speculate on...

There was absolutely no need for Israel to get the US into that war against Egypt. At the time of the attack (two days before the war’s end), Israel had essentially beaten Egypt soundly and had complete air supremacy. Having the US involved would add numerous complications and the US might force Israel to give back the Sinai just like what happened in 1956. The other commonly offered explanation is that it was to cover up Israeli execution of Egyptian POWs. But that didn’t happen until the next day. Those fighters were dispatched from the carriers to investigate and repel the forces attacking the Liberty. They would not need nukes for that. The attack was deliberate but it was not done for the above reasons which are misdirection. My suspicion is that the Israelis knew or feared that Liberty intercepted communications regarding nuclear weapons that Israel had recently acquired as an insurance policy if the war went badly for them and they needed to deter an Egyptian counter-invasion of Israel. The investigation of the attack was covered up to prevent a nuclear arms race in the middle east. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/world/middleeast/1967-arab-israeli-war-nuclear-warning.html

It's working now. Here we go W.

Hey look, more needless chaos in the Middle East, what a shocker... NOT Non-stop chaos until November 5th. N O N - S T O P

Dick Clark. Seriously. Hendrix bailed after a few gig's.

Live updates: Israel attacks Iran, explosions in Isfahan, war in Gaza (cnn.com)

Supposedly over 600 attempts on Castro and Castro outlived all of them. I had Cuba in mind. I don’t know why everyone give Cuba a pass. Their intelligence service could run rings around the CIA and FBI except for technical intelligence gathering. Castro wanted Khrushchev to nuke the US if there was a US invasion of Cuba. Castro was also pissed at having the Soviets pull the rug out from under him to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis. I don’t believe things were patched up until Castro paid an extensive visit to the USSR in early 1964. Note, it might not even have been Castro himself. Cuba’s intelligence service, like all others, surely must have rogue elements. It doesn’t matter if JFK instigated or even knew of the assassination attempts on Castro. Agreed. The Discovery Channel documentary “Beyond the Magic Bullet” went to great lengths to replicate the single bullet theory, no doubt thinking they would dispel the critics. But in their demo, the throat exit wound was a chest exit wound. They even showed the trajectory in slow motion, though from behind. They never directly showed the exit wound (for obvious reasons) or Connolly’s wounds. They made up “autopsy forms” showing the wounds on JFK and Connolly. if you freeze frame and look carefully, you can see the JFK wound exiting the chest. They took it to an independent forensic pathologist who concluded it was two bullets. My takeaway is that the single bullet theory is possible but not from the 6th floor of the TSBD (probably lower floor of DalTex). There was another demo actually conducted in Dealey Plaza with lasers. Lasers are high tech so this surely must be accurate right? Except bullets follow a ballistic trajectory, not a straight line. A bullet would fall several inches from a straight line in the 0.15 seconds it would take to hit the target at the speed and distances involved.

I should probably let this thread slide into oblivion, not much interest. But before we do, a few things. As Paul mentioned, great and important work(s). A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments: Albarelli Jr., H. P.: 9780977795376: Amazon.com: Books Several things in the book are shocking, fascinating, and important. Pont-St.-Esprit was one of the most such for me, in addition to Olson's murder. LSD to me was the 1960's mind expanding drug I tried 3 -4 times in the early 1970's. No bad trips, though one a little tense because of unforeseen circumstances. Overdosing people spraying it from a crop duster in 1951 kind of blows my mind today. Allen Dulles facilitated that. It was a multi agency experiment, CIA - Army, Multi National effort, British (French?). Then the Swiss/Sanoz. Eric Olson remembering his father's b/w home movie blurb of a crop duster taking off in an unknown field in the middle of other family things. The villagers noticing men in expensive suits in town the day before. Dr. Albert Hoffman, the Swiss Sanoz researcher/developer of LSD wandering the streets observing in the days afterwards, Sanoz supplied the CIA with LSD for years before I think, MERK synthesized it for the CIA. All a bit mind boggling given the CIA was just getting started. I just kind of figured LSD was something a chemist came up with. I'd never heard of ergot, people afflicted BC. It forms on the grains of rye then ferments under certain conditions of humidity , liberating several alkaloids of ergot. LSD-25 it was noted, was one of the alkaloids produced by the fermentation of ergot. I never knew people were experimented on without their knowledge, many over dosed, purposefully, many died.

Ron, The volume of this video is low in parts. If I recall correctly, Phillip Nelson wrote at length about RFK's hostile relationship with LBJ in his book, LBJ-- Mastermind of the JFK Assassination. RFK, reportedly, referred to LBJ derisively as, "Colonel Cornpone," during JFK's presidency. P.S. I can't picture Hendrix opening for the Monkees. Who came up with that weird venue?

Thank you Paul. I think so too.

"First, the mole must be caught." That is easy: a hunter, I think, could have caught it. "Next, the mole must be bought." That is easy: two c-notes, I think, would have bought it. "Now debrief it, my wish!" That is easy, and will not take more than a minute. "Let it lie in a dish!" That is easy, because it already lies in it. "Bring it here, buttercup!" It is easy to set such a dish on the table. "Take the dish-cover up!" Ah, THAT is so hard that I fear I'm unable! For it holds it like glue— Holds the lid to the dish, while it lies in the middle: Which is easiest to do, Un-dish-cover the snitch, or dishcover the riddle?

I know it started before the JFK administration so it's relevant to the JFKA in that respect. RFK went ballistic, tried to subvert LBJ as VP at the LA DNC convention in 1960. And that it went on from there. I was surprised to see this featured at the top of the page on MSN yesterday. I'm wondering if anyone else has seen or Heard it. Because, I can't hear it, the volume is so low. The volume on my pc is turned up full blast. Other things with audio I view are fine. With one exception. A video I watched earlier about Jimi Hendrix opening for the Monkey's. For it I scrunched down with my ear near the lap top speaker and watched out of the corner of my eye. A really interesting video, 12 minutes long. This one is closer to an hour. Anyone else have a similar problem with this? The Intense Feud Between Lyndon B. Johnson & Robert F. Kennedy | White House Tapes | Timeline | Watch (msn.com)

KB- Again you raise very interesting observations. 1. I agree, it makes no sense for the CIA proper to use LHO in a planned JFKA, in any role, even as a patsy role, for the reasons you mentioned. Caveat: In times of stress, people make rushed judgments. Sometimes people do not act rationally. I give this low probability. 2. I disagree that the CIA was not competent in assassinations. They conducted quite a few and perhaps many that we do not know of. Talk is easy; actually getting things done in the physical world is a whole 'nother matter. The best (baseball) batters hit .350. Are they crappy batters? 3. The DPD? The reason I think they were not involved is that I suspect planning for a JFKA would involve a very small number of people, and would not cross organizational lines, and would involve only very trusted compatriots--such as fellow BoP vets, something along those lines. But again, this is a rational assessment---sometimes people act irrationally, or take big chances. Drug users and alcoholics often lose judgement, as well as those with suicidal tendencies. 4. Foreign government (Russians) turned LHO? CIA'er Woolsey said this in a book he published. The dubious Richard Case Nagell said something along these lines. Doesn't line up for me; JFK was about as good a leader as Moscow was going to get. But then, perhaps a hawkish and war-loving fragment within the Russia military did not want detente, and they manipulated LHO. I give this low probability. LHO's manuscript on Russia reveals a man disaffected with Russia. Was it an earnest manuscript? Seems like it. But who knows for sure? I still contend the Z-film shows shots being fired too rapidly to have been issued by a lone gunman with a single-shot bolt action rifle. So, they had to be two gunsels, or someone armed with a repeating rifle. Add on, the WC was an investigation-prosecution, or show trial. The HSCA was a little better, though Blakey was hot on the trial of the Mafia. And so it goes.

Ron, That 239 beans joke sounds like some old-fashioned Texas Ranger campfire humor. And, speaking of Texas, I know from matrimonial experience that Texans really know how to make great chili. I once wrote a song about this subject, in which I borrowed Oscar Wilde's line about marriage being a relationship in which, "bad words are exchanged by day and bad smells by night." I thought it was funny, but my wife was only slightly amused... 😬

Although I admit a cognitive dissonance here on the fingerprints suggesting a left-handed killer, since my prime suspect, Craford, I have looked at his handwriting and it is how most right-handed writers rather than left-handed writers cross their “t”’s. That’s not absolute but it is something. Bill, on Jimmy Burt, how do you interpret the sighting of Burt-like car descriptions next to the Tippit patrol car from two witnesses, and Burt told the FBI he drove his car next to the Tippit patrol car though he said after the shooting, with plenty of understandable motive of Burt to distance his car’s presence next to Tippits at the crime scene at the moment Tippit was killed? The reason for asking is obviously it matters whether Burt was witnessing from a block away or only feet away when Tippit was murdered, in assessment of weight to what Burt says he saw or may have seen. I wrote the specifics of my case on that before and I don’t think you commented. If Burt did not drive his car to be in a position next to Tippits patrol car, why do you suppose he told the FBI in Dec 1963 that he did, and the two witnesses saw it there at the time Tippit was killed, after which Wright saw it take off in a hurry? Any thoughts?

Ug. By stuffing the show with TimeInc Propaganda about JFK's foreign policy and TimeInc obfuscation about how that foreign policy changed after the assassination, the importance of the assassination on the long term evolution of the Democrats and the US in general is de-freighted. Why does this not surprise me coming from the Meathead who supports a hollow shell of a human named Joe Biden who is basically DNC's Dick Cheney. The Meathead's essence of establishment support for DNC dictates this TimeInc narration of foreign policy. More might see the irony if WaPost had not let Joyce Carol Oates review the recent book on the Zaprudef film, God and or polytheisms help us.

Hi Cliff. I was re reading this thread and had a second thought. When I first read it, I thought the last line referenced JFK. I now wonder given the first line, you weren't saying Bissell and Bundy were sabotaging Dulles were you?

Tom I believe Bill’s reasoning is since no witness said they saw the killer who was at the right front fender, physically touch that front fender inches from where he was standing next to that fender, logically that PROVES somebody ELSE who nobody saw touch it left those prints. Makes perfect sense. And since the same individual person left prints in two places on the Tippit patrol car, both places of which the killer was seen standing near to, but ONLY ONE of those two places—only ONE! Tom—did eyewitnesses of the Tippit killing directly see the killer with arms and hands touching there exactly where the prints were lifted twenty minutes later … that PROVES Bill’s point, does it not—PROVES that the killer did NOT leave prints in EITHER location! Is that clearer now Tom? Bill is citing absence of a witness seeing touching by the killer in one of those two locations as evidence that the prints were left by somebody who nobody saw touch it. Bills logic is an interesting line of logic: your honor my client cannot possibly have left these prints right next to where he was standing, definitive proof of that being no witness saw him touch. (But who put those prints there then?) Obviously, some one ELSE that was not seen to touch! How many times do I have to repeat this blindingly clear logic? Bill serious point here is you’re overstating your claim that lack of eg Helen Markham seeing the killer touch the right front fender, therefore you reason the killer conclusively did not, and therefore conclusively did not at the passenger door either (no matter what witnesses and common sense say). You fail to see your point, if true, rules out any human on earth from having left the right bumper prints since no one saw anyone touch there. since that is not true (that no one left prints which do exist), your assumed premise is mistaken. Namely, you should correct and admit that it is reasonable that a human with hands inches from and standing next to something at a crime scene may be the source of prints there even if not seen by somebody else doing so. Probably 98% of prints were left by people whom no one saw leave those prints. Maybe the Tippit killer was among that 98% of cases in the case of the right bumper prints, where no one saw the person leave the print. The positive argument that the Tippit killer did is because the killer was seen touching at the passenger door and the right bumper ones come from the same guy, plus the killer was there too. I do think if the killer left those prints from the same individual in both locations (even if the killer was seen doing so in only one of those), that the killer probably was left handed, gun in left hand, right bumper prints from a free right hand. And Oswald was right-handed. Plus, Oswald is excluded as source of those prints anyway. Plus, that exclusion was unconscionably covered up and went undisclosed for three decades.

How did I guess? And your logic never ceases to amaze me Bill. You don’t think the most likely person to touch the car, is the only person seen right next to the car, who was witnessed physically touching the car? I thought you might just be avoiding it but now I’m not sure you understand the concept of probability at all. I’ll type this slow, so you can follow. Just because no eyewitness said they saw the killer physically touch the front fender of the car, doesn’t mean the killer MUST - a term you should be able to comprehend - have NOT touched the front fender of the car. Do you honestly think that’s what witnesses would’ve focused on or noticed, especially if the fender contact occurred during the actual shooting? The killer was witnessed physically touching one of two locations on the car where prints were lifted twenty minutes later, and in direct proximity to the other. There is zero evidence that anyone else was in proximity to either of those two locations. Yet to Bill Brown, some imaginary phantom person is more likely to have left the prints than the killer?