Jump to content
The Education Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Lisa will be on CSPAN 3 this Saturday talking about RFK. https://www.c-span.org/video/?459353-1/robert-f-kennedy-assassination-reconsidered
  3. Today
  4. 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.
  5. 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? I'm thinking that the Oswald features were superimposed over this roundish, face shaped blob, which may be a face but is unidentifiable.
  6. Which is why the cable news shows trashed Hillary 24 hours a day over the last 11 days of the election. The #1 topic in the 2016 election was Hillary's e-mails. The MSM isn't owned by liberals. If a President Clinton (or any Dem Prez) had a Mueller Report written about them the MSM would be 24/7 Treason Television until they were forced to resign. That's how f'n liberal the MSM is...
  7. Thanks, Paul, for your astute comments. Yes, Baker did not identify right away (his affidavit from November 22) Lee Oswald, who was in DPD custody already, as the man whom he allegedly encountered in an open-space area of the 3rd or 4th floor. He added a "lt brown jacket" to his first affidavit as the cloth the man had on himself which could mean a light-brown jacket. I just do not know what Baker's first affidavit means. Superintendent Roy Truly also saw a light-coloured shirt on Oswald on Friday, 22nd of November: This document is available via a link in The Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter.
  8. Didn't Jerrol Custer say that he didn't remember seeing any brain in the cranium? If so, is the skull cavity he drew even large enough to remove the brain?
  9. How a national conspiracy theory museum wound up in the 'boondocks' Mike Argento, York Daily Record Published 1:58 p.m. ET Jan. 16, 2019 | Updated 11:19 a.m. ET Jan. 17, 2019 https://www.ydr.com/story/opinion/columnists/mike-argento/2019/01/16/how-national-hidden-history-museum-wound-up-york-county-pa-conspiracy-theory-museum-john-judge/2582211002/?fbclid=IwAR3t08DWwyqGhdXLFnN7nA9GwoSqIecdmH2Q4uheA2ZbcC0kXLRMO7H_peQ
  10. A fantasist then? And that term 'junk science' ... again.
  11. Andrej, You and I agree that the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter between Baker/Truly and "Oswald" was phony. But if we re-read Baker's first day affidavit carefully, we see that he referred not to a shirt, but to a "brown jacket". While it is theoretically possible he mistook an untucked shirt over a white t-shirt for a jacket, it is not very likely. Men customarily wore white t-shirts underneath their shirts in the early 1960's. In my view, Baker would have recognized a shirt over a t-shirt at once - that's what men wore then! But that is not what he wrote - he wrote "brown jacket". Which leads me to suspect Baker did not encounter our "Oswald" - neither in the 2nd floor lunchroom, nor on the 3rd or 4th floor near the stairs. (Whether Baker briefly encountered "Oswald" on the first floor as Baker entered the TSBD is another matter entirely. One that I shall not discuss here.) Further, Baker's last lines in his 11/22/63 hand-written affidavit indicate that he clearly wanted to place in the record a description of the man he encountered - the suspect. Since Baker completed his affidavit within 15 feet of the then handcuffed "Oswald", and since Baker did not identify "Oswald" as the same suspect he encountered, it is reasonable to suppose that "Oswald" and the suspect Baker encountered were two different people. And therefore, I think in his own bumbled way, Marion Baker was initially honest, but was later coerced into narrative he related in his Warren Commission testimony. Which by September of 1964, he could no longer keep straight in his head. To Jim Hargrove - you are correct that later on Marvin Johnson completed an affidavit in which he claimed that Marion Baker had identified the handcuffed "Oswald" as the same man he'd encountered a few hours earlier, but nowhere in Baker's own affidavit does that vital, crucial, extremely important identification appear! Instead, we get just the opposite - Baker went out of his way to provide a physical description of his suspect (one that does not match "Oswald") but Baker DID NOT write that it was the same man just a few feet away at that very moment! The physical description was irrelevant - all Baker needed to write was "that's the guy!" But he did not! Remember, at that moment "Oswald" was still wearing his (brownish) shirt over his t-shirt. And at that moment, Baker could see him as he completed his affidavit - yet Baker wrote "jacket", not "shirt"! If Baker really encountered our "Oswald", then all Baker had to do was to move his eyeballs to see what "Oswald" was wearing at that very moment! It's a shirt, not a jacket! http://time.com/3804560/an-end-to-conspiracy-rare-photo-of-lee-harvey-oswalds-arrest-suggests-why-hes-guilty/
  12. The 2016 Election made it clear that the MSM had a clear preference for Hillary. It seemed to go way beyond the MSM's normal liberal leanings, which I always figured reflected the personal political preferences of individual reporters. MSM newsrooms may have mostly consisted of liberals anyway, but I figured that was through self selection. The message from the MSM this time looked more like coordinated institutional endorsements. The MSM messages about how evil Trump was were too consistent. The lack of reporting on HRC's missteps, or actual incidents of falling over looked purposeful. Everything that happened after the election looked like a coup attempt against Trump. The Russia Dossier, the FISA abuses, the bugging of Trump Tower, and then the Mueller investigation made it clear that the FBI, the CIA, and the DOJ did not want Trump. It was blatant to me. The MSM's push for Hillary before the election, and then the attempted coup afterwards seemed too extreme to be over Repub & Democrat differences for preferences of what the Top Marginal Tax Rate should be, or whether the American Embassy should be in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. After reading and watching videos, it seemed that the necessity of getting rid of Trump was a function of covering up more recent Clinton Crimes (Uranium One, and Foundation) and more severely, 70+ years of Bush Crimes. ie. Trump was not part of the Bush Crime syndicate, so their franchise was at Risk. (Not just the immediate Bush Family, but their allies and whoever owed them a favor.) Russ Baker's book convinced me they were up to no good, and probably had a hand in past coup attempts, including JFK and Watergate. The Bush Family is the Deep State as far as I can tell. I am a hawk. I am not a hawk if the reason for going to War is just a contrived attempt to keep open a revenue stream that finances Deep State projects and families. That's what Vietnam and Afghanistan look like to me. The Bush Family were not legitimate businessmen, they financed their campaigns and rise to Power through all types of illegal activities. They needed Hillary to win because she would not upset the status quo (ie. she is as dirty and compromised as they are, so they had no fear of exposure.) I took an objective look at the Bush family, their history, connections and actions before and after the election of Trump and decided they were dirty, even if I did vote for them four times in the past.
  13. Stave, Thanks, and interestingly, that memo is dated to 2 days prior to McCord taking his oath of secrecy. Michael
  14. Don't know about the tall guy, but the "short and kinda heavy" fella doesn't sound like the guy George knew; Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT ; "he was small, you know, and he was a rather puny individual"
  15. I get the part where witnesses described that, but who told the dispatcher? I'm not seeing it on the transcript.
  16. I don't see what the mystery is here. Any number of witnesses could have provided the information about the suspect moving (i.e., "running") west on Jefferson Boulevard just after the Tippit shooting. Those witnesses would include Callaway, Patterson, Guinyard, Reynolds, Searcy, Lewis, and Russell.
  17. There was a guy that ran north on Patton according to this; Lane: And then what happened with the man with the gun? Clemons: He unloaded it and then reloaded it. Lane: And what did the other man do? Clemons: The man kept going, straight down the street. Lane: And then did they go in opposite directions? Clemons: Yes, they were, they weren’t together, they went this way [indicating opposite] from each other. The one done the shooting went this way, the other went straight down past the street, that way. Lane: What was the man, the man who did not do the shooting, but the man who went in other direction from the man with the gun, what was he wearing, if you remember? Clemons: Well, as far as I can remember he had on, looked like light khakis and a white shirt. Lane: And was he tall or short? Clemons: He was tall. Lane: And was he heavy or thin? Clemons: He was thin. Lane: But the one who did, the one who had the gun seconds after Tippit was shot, he was short and heavy? Clemons: Yes, he was short and kinda heavy.
  18. Tony, For myself, I've always been interested in this passage: 1:44 PM 87 (Ptm. R.C. Nelson) 87. What was the last location anybody had on that suspect out here in Oak Cliff? Dispatcher Running north on Patton. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm Steve Thomas
  19. Thanks Denis, Bad Idea to give anyone an important negative. This seems to be a pattern. I don't use Blevin's enhancements. The Commission Exhibit was printed more than a decade before the negative was ruined by someone at HSCA. And it does not show anyone in the "snipers window".
  20. Project Idealist: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp63-00313a000500140033-6 "14 OCT 1963MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORDSUBJECT: Project IDEALIST - Status1. Project IDEALIST is the employment of the U-2 overdenied areas to obtain high resolution photographic data oftechnical intelligence quality. Of increasing importance inrecent years has been its secondary capability of SIGINTcollection.2. The Project has in its inventory nine U-2 aircraft,seven of which are J-75 configured with the two additional... Steve Thomas
  21. Project Idealist: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T01137A000500020001-3.pdf I didn't know that U-2's could land aboard ships, and I didn't know that there were U-3's. Steve Thomas
  22. Robert said: I am still somewhat perplexed as to why Trump picked Barr. What?? It's obvious, why.you said it yourself it's because of Barr's 19 page memo. In short, and in my opinion, Barr's position with respect to Mueller's efforts were known when Trump picked him to be AG. In short????,That was 4 paragraphs where you start out perplexed and you end up convincing yourself of the obvious. Robert everyone knows about the Barr 19 page memo. That was obviously why Trump picked him..That was Barr's audition for the job.That's no secret! ( with the Barr pick)Trump would certainly have a lot of leverage on the Bush Family (for example, imagine if there was something in the 2017 JFK Records Release that the Bush Family did not want to be made public.) ?? I didn't get this spy vs.spy logic. So having a historic Bush exonerator who has tied his past career to George H.W. Bush would give Trump leverage on the Bush family???? or vice versa? If Trump wanted leverage, why wouldn't Trump get a Bush enemy? But even so, leverage over the Bush's to do what? To use Trumps and your adopted Trump terms. Trumps cleaning up the "swamp" of the JFK assassination had it's opportunity, and that shipped has sailed. (A number of MSM articles have even gone on to claim that Mueller stepped up to the job at considerable financial sacrifice since he would not be drawing income as a Senior Lawyer in a prestigious private practice firm.) "A number of MSM articles?" Ok If you say so. Though I don't think anyone who reads assumes that Mueller, pushing 75 with his career and background is at all in need of money. That game is long over for him. So I think I misunderstood your leaning because I thought you once said something disparaging about Nato. How can you be so eager to show some collusion within the Eastern Establishment and be a multi generational Bush voter? They are as gung ho Eastern Establishment American interventionist a political family as you can get. Did these deep state thoughts come to you later in life? Anybody who vote so much for the Bushes is definitely for actively preserving the American Empire. So you're a hawk.Right?
  23. Thanks for your kind words, Robert. I also like that Gary Wills book on John Wayne. I did an enjoyable and informative radio interview today with Doug Holm and Matthew Clark of KBOO-FM (Portand, Oregon), dealing with my new book, FRANKLY: UNMASKING FRANK CAPRA, on my legal and other problems getting my 1992 Frank Capra biography, FRANK CAPRA: THE CATASTROPHE OF SUCCESS, published. We also discuss how I dealt with the enigmatic personality of John Ford in two books, a critical study (written with Michael Wilmington) and a biography. My part of this show begins 45 minutes from the end and concludes seven minutes before the end. https://www.kboo.fm/media/71697-interview-film-historian-joseph-mcbride-frank-capra?fbclid=IwAR39Ea0RfEwUxQU8GOovo9w5CevEPYajtpZROHSfHkz7B0pYcJwwjJJpOxw
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...