Jump to content
The Education Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Motorcycle cop James Chaney, near right rear limo fender; "I looked back just in time to see the President shot in the face by the second bullet"
  3. Convince you? WHY? Knock yourself out. We poured over these images years ago. Day in day out... There was NO composite with LHO in any window, ever. Jesse Curry would give his eye teeth to have that when he wrote his book... Unless you (or someone else) can provide where this image came from and can then provide another copy of that same image with its bonfires and verification, it's a complete waste bandwidth... I suspect this little misdirection was created in the past 12-18 months... Simple stuff in Photoshop takes maybe 10 minutes (if that). LMAO!
  4. "Later on this changed to him driving through a mist.". Didn't Hargis first say he though initially he'd been shot? I have to wonder if his story was revised after a talk with SSA Elmer Moore or one of his cohorts. Moore spent a week in Dallas in early December 63 convincing Dr. Perry the throat wound wasn't such as well as conversations with other witnesses. Then he went on to become Earl Warren's body guard while he was on the Warren Omission. Makes one wonder if Vince Palamara's book on the Secret Service went deep enough. They did destroy a lot of files early on.
  5. This was delivered to her office in Minneapolis yesterday. I enclosed it as a cover letter to my article on JFK and the Middle East in the first issue of garrison. April 18, 2019 Rep. Ilhan Omar 404 3rd Avenue North Suite 203 Minneapolis MN 55401 Dear Congresswoman: I am enclosing an article I wrote recently for a national political magazine. I have noticed your comments on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which have caused much controversy in the media of late. I happen to personally agree with your statements about a two state solution and Palestinian rights. I also think, like you and Bernie Sanders, that American policy there has shifted too far toward the conservative Likud. This article shows that President Kennedy was probably the last president who was willing to stand up to the conservative strain in Israel on both atomic weapons and Palestinian rights. To the point that he was threatening to hold up funds. This apparently caused the resignation of Ben Gurion. The reason I am forwarding it to you is that it shows that there is a precedent for your ideas, and it came from the White House. Therefore you can say that what you are saying is pretty much what JFK was saying, and you can prove it. Sincerely, James DiEugenio
  6. OK David you think it is "Superimposed" on a blob or Fake? I doubt that without proof of Who Faked it, When, How and Why because you are in a sense describing a crime. So who are the criminals, Tom Dillard? Does he have a record of being a criminal or trying to frame Oswald? And since the dirty windows make the figure hardly noticeable why did it take so many decades for the figure to even be noticed until the public had the computer tools to examine it closely? Seems like a lot of work which I am not convinced it was even possible in 1963 by that night when Tom Dillard printed his Photo or that he even knew that the coup would be using Oswald as the "Lone Nut" by that night after he got back from Parkland. Also seems unlikely just because of the risk if exposed to the Paper and Tom Dillard. So is Tom Dillard a bad guy or his newspaper bad guys for faking the photo and exhibit for what purpose, if It wasn't used to prove it was Oswald at anytime even today? If you think it was Faked? Convince me. For me it is more likely for reasons I have given that it is Oswald or a look-alike, more then the crime of destroying and falsifying evidence. I see no purpose for what you think without evidence of how, who, when and why the risk was taken with no purpose since it was never even noticed. Like I explained, even if it could be proved it is Oswald that does not prove he was the "Lone Nut Shooter in the Sniper Window" during a crossfire ambush with the cover-up being the Coup. If you have proof or evidence with motive of your accusations I would want to hear it. So where was Oswald... who can even prove that? One thing has changed in this discussion. At first the figure was just a shape of the dirt on the dirty window. But now, another crime. So, this relatively new discovery has challenged most researchers who have invested years without Oswald's whereabouts proved so far. I think I understand yours and other's suspicion of another crime of Falsifying Evidence and that's OK by me. I can't prove it is Oswald or his Look-alike but I find it very compelling to be so. You have a good question: "If that's a face in the window in this version, are the eyes canted more toward the figure's right than in the Oswald version, as if the head is cocked downward to that side?" He does appear to be looking down and If Oswald told Capt. Fritz he was out front with Bill Shelly, by looking down he could possibly see Shelly who testified he was out on that island away from the steps. How would he know where Shelly was if he did not see him? There is no proof about much in this case. We have our beliefs about it after 55 years of killing, confusion, fear, decoys and cover-ups. Nothing we do or say will bring back JFK, Lee or the many people killed and hurt about this manufactured mystery. One thing Oswald said to a reporter in the Hallway, "Of course I was in the building... I work there!" He could have cracked the case at trial if allowed to defend himself but Ruby made sure that would not be. Thanks David for noticing the figure appears to be looking down. Happy Spring! .
  7. If you read LIfton's book, there is evidence that Custer changed his story. For instance on page 620, Custer said the x rays revealed the back of Kennedy's head blown off. BTW, this switching around is not at all an unusual occurrence. When motorcycle cop Hargis first talked about the shooting, he said he felt like he got hit with something. Later on, this changed to him driving through a mist. How you can feel like you got hit with something while riding through a mist is, well, Posnerian. Micah, I think you are talking about Paul O'Connor with the empty skull.
  8. Baker, can you read? I just said Single Bullet Fantasy. In reference to you! You buy it because you have to. So who is living a fantasy? And yes, unless you have new information that somehow CBLA is going to be used by the FBI again in court, its junk science. Do you have such information that the FBI is going to do so? I doubt it. Know why? Because when Randich testified the last time, after he was done, the judge threatened to charge the FBI witness with perjury. Since then, the FBI has not used it. They don't want to go to jail. Again, if you have different info, please come up with it. If not, I will consider this more of the same from you: gaseous drivel.
  9. Yes, political language can indeed be perilous and work upon the body politic like a virus. Thanks for this thoughtful reply, Joe.
  10. What's the current line of thinking about Madeleine Brown and her story?
  11. Thanks, Rob. Yes, we need to take back that term "fake news." As Orwell helped teach us, political language can be perilous. It was Poppy Bush who popularized the term "political correctness" -- he used it as his broad-bush slur on liberals, and then liberals unthinkingly took it up as their credo, and it spiraled out of control into what can at its worst be a narrow-minded and often puritanical censoriousness. We all know how the CIA spread the term "conspiracy theory" as a slur, and how eagerly the media took that up. This has caused endless problems, including the recent obsession over Trump and his cronies engaging in "collusion" -- forgetting or not knowing that collusion is not a crime, what people should have been focused instead on is criminal conspiracy. Collusion can be offensive and damaging to the body politic and a cause for impeachment and other political decisions. But the MSM and many people are terrified of the word "conspiracy," so they fixated on collusion rather than conspiracy, and even when Mueller clarified the difference in his report, it caused consternation among some people who still don't understand what the laws are or how we should deal with evidence of political conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
  12. Thanks, Jim & Ron, for all the information & links! I always learn something when I'm here.
  13. I just finished reading this book this week. Wow! I had previously read the book by Turner & Christian, but this work obviously has access to far more information than what was available to them at that time. There was a wealth of information here, so much so that I feel the need to let it digest for a bit. One thing is very clear, though. Using just the autopsy evidence and the statements of the people who tackled Sirhan that night, there's no way that he could have done the shooting attributed to him. Combine that with the remaining original statements of witnesses and the obvious mishandling of the evidence and witnesses in the case, and there's enough information to give any potential juror lots & lots of reasonable doubts. (Oh, and I read somewhere that somebody on the forum wrote the introduction. It was quite good, too.) ETA: I meant to post this earlier, but I forgot. It's been a long week, but I wanted to say what a good book this is if anyone hasn't read it yet.
  14. Beware, he's a bud of Alex Jones. Two adopted Austin peas in a pod. Molly Ivins would have a field day. Thank goodness the town itself is still considered an island of liberalism in the state (though not some of the suburbs) in spite or the conservatives running the state government there the last 30 years. https://www.infowars.com/the-lbj-cia-assassination-of-jfk/
  15. Well said. Trump has co-opted this term, and we need to take it back again. Enjoyed your "Into the Nightmare" and now looking forward to this one!
  16. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22835-ex-forum-member-robert-morrow-says-johnson-killed-kennedy-on-the-rachel-maddow-show/?tab=comments#comment-329370
  17. To elaborate, Vietnam has become the new Rubicon of the JFK case. To prove that take a look at a new book by the Power Elite. The author is Jared Cohen--look him up-- and a main source is Condi Rice. HIs book is called Accidental Presidents and its about VP's who became president. From what people tell me it is not a bad book. Well researched and balanced. Until you get to LBJ and Kennedy. Cohen goes full, all out Hit Man on Kennedy and is very careful with Johnson. He completely denies that Kennedy was leaving Vietnam and LBJ reversed policy. Who is his main source on this? Queen of the sell outs, Condi Rice. What Rice brings to the table as a JFK expert is pretty invisible. We do know that, as the whole Iraq thing showed, she can throw the BS around with the best of them. Heck, she can stand up in that category with Henry Kissinger. But this is how high the cover up reaches in the Power Elite with the JFK case. Caro knows that. He knows it all too well. Tell the truth? Heck no. Too much at stake for him.
  18. Notice how Baker is actually stuck in the room and couldn't get past the Secret Service and Oswald. Baker had the opportunity to to inform the Secret Service that he had just pulled a gun on the same man at the scene of the crime.
  19. Because there are still outlets out there that are alternative to the MSM. Feral House, who did Lisa's book, is one of them. Adam Parfrey was almost violently first amendment. Others are Skyhorse, and Trine Day. How did she get in the Post is the question? I believe that was through RFK Jr and his relationship with Tom Jackman. So no, it is not impossible to get something published that is anti mainstream. What to watch for is the aftermath. Watch what happens to Caro when his book comes out. See how he gets invited to all the big book fairs like the one In LA. Where you can sell literally thousands of books in one weekend. See how many media spots he gets, on both network and cable. See how many MSM positive reviews he gets. In my review of Bugliosi's POS doorstop, I analyzed in depth how this worked and how it was arranged by the editors in advance. Simply because Vince had a big name and he was in line with the Single Bullet Fantasy. Caro understands that if he stays on the straight and narrow with Halberstam's discredited book on Vietnam he will get the red carpet. If he does not do that and said what the truth really is--namely that Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam in the fall of 1963, LBJ knew that, and he consciously reversed it and covered it up--then the carpet gets yanked out from him. I reviewed Caro's The Passage of Power. I saw what he was up to in his discussion of the WC and the civil rights bill, which he both took out of LBJ's memoir. And were both wrong. In both cases he vitiated the truth. I am pretty sure I was the only guy who called him out on it. So I expect the same thing with this last volume, they are probably writing the reviews already.
  20. So Dulles next question Should have been, Did you recognize him as the man you encountered in the lunchroom? Or as the man you saw on the third or fourth floor. Or as the man you encountered at the front entrance?
  21. Mr. BAKER - As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit, I got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn't get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to see him at that time. Mr. DULLES - You saw him for a moment at that time? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
  22. Yesterday
  23. Lisa will be on CSPAN 3 this Saturday talking about RFK. https://www.c-span.org/video/?459353-1/robert-f-kennedy-assassination-reconsidered
  24. Pat, If Jerrol Custer was correct in his description of the skull wound in the "frontal temporal region", then is he implying that the front/top "flap" skull wound we see on the extant Z-film is, in fact, basically accurate? I am not taking a position here, merely asking.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...