Black Dog Man is a woman with a baby...

[Mike Rago]

Click on the picture for full size.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Mike Rago]

The Betzner photo provides one of the best views of the retaining wall within 7 seconds of the headshots.

There is no indication that anyone is at the bench area behind the wall.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

The Betzner photo provides one of the best views of the retaining wall within 7 seconds of the headshots.

There is no indication that anyone is at the bench area behind the wall.

Hey Mike... maybe you can explain something then...

As one looks at the photos, one is hard pressed to find anyone with that black an appearance as this person holding the baby in white...

The other photos show her to have light colored clothing on... and we can see people also in light colored clothing waving at the top of Elm... THEY are not turned completely BLACK o nthe side facing away from the sun, and furthermore, the front of the "baby" shows no indication of being in the shade or in any shadow at all... the contrast between mother and baby is literally black and white... which seems to me, impossible.

I am posting this as an example of what one can find with shadows, light, foliage and an imagination... There is of course no one kneeling there... but making it look like there is is not hard...

Plus, she would have to come from somewhere and go somewhere afterward... Sitzman does not talk about a woman and baby, just a boy and girl.

Now whether what we are seeing is a trick of the eye or a desire to see what's not there, IDK, but the events as described by G Arnold, Sitzman, Hill, Craig, Weitzman do not support the conclusion that it was a mother and baby.

[Mike Rago]

I am willing to go through this step by step if you are willing.

First, here is the woman and baby in Moorman. It is not clear as a bell, but we know what to look for because of what we see in the Betzner and Willis photos taken just a few seconds earlier.

We are looking for an adult in black and a baby in white. In this photo the baby has his/her arms around the mothers neck. The mothers arms are resting on the wall and the baby is in her arms with his/her arms around moms neck. The baby is dressed in white but because the Moorman photo is so underexposed the white clothes of the baby are greyed out but you can see them.

So why is the woman we see after the assassination with the baby dressed in light clothing?

I can tell you what the evidence indicates to me....

First, there is a man , with a gun behind the woman and baby, He can be seen inside the red ellipse in the following photo , in the background behind the woman and baby at the retaining wall.

That man inside the red ellipse is as easy to see as Zapruder. The only difference you know Zapruder is there and you accept him.

That man is not a bunch of shadows and light.

I made this gif file to make him easier to see...

Before the assassination the woman is wearing a raincoat and rain hat. (It rained that morning).

The man with a gun fired from behind her. She must have taken off the rain coat after the gun fired.

We see her ( and her baby) after the assassination in the same location but without the rain coat.

The baby is the key marker here. The baby in white is the marker that lets us trace and conjecture what happened.

Lee Bowers said there was a flash of light and commotion in this area on the knoll.

We have a man with a gun , dressed like a policeman, behind the woman and baby, in front of the fence before the assassination.

Bottom line is this....

If there was a shot from the knoll( and there was ) she and her baby were the closest people to the gun and its burning gun powder.

The assassin used her like a human shield, putting her between himself and the rest of the world.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

in Moorman, just cause you say it's a baby and mom doesn't make it so, Mike....

As I've shown you, I can place a kneeling person in front of the wall who we both know is not there... there are more BDM's than just Moorman and Betzner... there is Willis, in color

and then an extreme close up... showing a causcasian face and no baby... so I am not convinced, especially when we add who was there just before and just afterward and who they saw, that is the mom/child you point to.

As you can see from Willis, there is noone behind BDM... this other person is behind the fence west of the tree/steps... there is simply no coroborration for anyone being in FRONT of the fence at that spot...

unless you have something we haven't seen... look at muchmore... aint nobody there Mike.

as for the man chaning into khakis... interesting theory, yet pretty much all speculation without any real proof...

Mr. WEITZMAN - There was a little period in between the second and third shot.

Mr. BALL - What was the longest, between the first and second or the second and third shot; which had the longest time lapse in there?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Between the first and second shot.

Mr. BALL - What did you do then?

Mr. WEITZMAN - I immediately ran toward the President's car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didn't know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall.

Mr. BALL - What is the location of that wall?

Mr. WEITZMAN - It would be between the railroad overpass and I can't remember the name of that little street that runs off Elm; it's cater-corner--the section there between the--what do you call it--the monument section?

Mr. BALL - That's where Elm actually dead ends?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steampipes. I burned them.

Mr. BALL - Did you go into the railroad yards?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - What did you notice in the railroad yards?

Mr. WEITZMAN - We noticed numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions.

Mr. BALL - Were there other people there besides you?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well, and somebody started, there was something red in the street and I went back over the wall and somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker and it turned out to be, I believe, I wouldn't quote this, but I turned it over to one of the Secret Service men and I told them it should go to the lab because it looked to me like human bone. I later found out it was supposedly a portion of the President's skull.

Mr. BALL - That you picked up off the street?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes.

Mr. BALL - What part of the street did you pick this up?

Mr. WEITZMAN - As the President's car was going off, it would be on the left-hand side of the street. It would be the----

Mr. BALL - The left-hand side facing----

Mr. WEITZMAN - That would be the south side of the street.

The shot came from there...

[Mike Rago]

The Willis photo is the best photo for me. This is the photo that makes me positive it is an african-american woman and baby.

Here is almost the same blowup you show of willis. I have not removed the multiple exposures. You can see multiple heads, (multiple white heads and multiple black heads). The key signature is the white and black close relative positioning. Those two bodies are in uniform relative motion. One is connected to the other. There are two people.The image has been polluted with motion blur. (The same thing is shown in the Willis image you posted but it is not as clear)

In this image the motion blur has been removed so we see just one exposure.

The muchmore image was taken 7 seconds after the Betzner. The man has moved to under tree by this time ( which is only a few feet from where we saw him in Betzner)

Notice where the Muchmore frame is cut off. You cannot see under the tree. The man is under the tree on the Knoll by this time.

The Willis photo is too blurred to see behind the blackdog person. You are seeing lots of motion blur in the Willis photo.

The muzzle flash from his shot can be seen in the Moorman photo.

Not sure what you want me to gleen from your Weitzman testimony.

Weitzman arrived at the Knoll after all of this action took place.

The man on the pergola steps in Towner 3 got there too quick. He had to have already been on the Knoll.

I am not disputing that there was someone behind the fence , in the Josiah Thompson location, smoking cigarettes. But he was not the assassin. He was there to make sure that no spectator took up a position behind the assassin on the knoll. He was probably a fake SS agent.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Joseph Backes]

It’s amazing what people will believe.

Black Dog Image Man is not a woman holding a baby.

Once again, we have Cinque level work and conclusions going on.

And Ron Ecker finds this stuf convincing. That’s really sad. And I believe I heard Jim DiEugenio say on Black Op Radio something positive about Mike Rago’s conclusion, which is baffling to me as I think he was in the room when Casey Quinlan gave his presentation at Lancer 2010 which refutes this thesis.

Duncan McRae seems to be taking Mike Rago’s idea seriously and running with it, although with some better images.

The Black couple who sat on a bench and ate a lunch are not this other Black couple that Duncan MacRae has.

There is an assumption going on that the unidentified Black couple, who were noticed by Marily Sitzman, that one of them is the Black Dog Image Man. No. Wrong. There is no evidence for this. None.

There is also an assumption that Black Dog Image Man must be a Black person. This is stupid.

There is also an assumption that one Black couple is as good as another so we’ll assign identity and actions to them as we see fit. This is really stupid.

There was a Black couple who were sitting on a bench eating their lunch very close to where Zapruder and Sitzman stood. Their names are Evelyn and Arthur King. They are brother and sister. They did not have a baby with them. They had hamburgers from a chain restaurant, Tom Thumb. They also had soda pop bottles. Evelyn’s was a

Ni-Hi Strawberry pop.

The three guys on the steps are known. They are Emmet Hudson, Earl Schaeffer, and Jerry Williamson.

Now, Casey Quinlan did a presentation at Lancer 2010 and part of it touched on these people.

“The identification of some new eyewitnesses. Okay, this is where they were standing. Dealey Plaza, November 22nd, a young black couple, a sister and brother, Evelyn and Arthur King were eating lunch on the park bench located on top of the north grassy knoll behind the concrete retaining wall. Some of these names you’ve heard before, some of you have seen or heard from them with the books that have been writen over the past 47 years and some of them your haven’t.

Evelyn King identifies two gunmen behind the picket fence on the north grassy knoll. She was a 69 year old woman who came forward last year, 2009, to verify and confirm about the information. We gathered that information and this is what we are presenting. She won’t come forward. She doesn’t want her picture taken on the grassy knoll and I asked her, or I asked a couple of people who we were getting information from I said would you please ask her why she won’t and her detailed information was real simple. This is 1963, I’m female, I’m Black, I live in Dallas, Texas. And I go, I gotcha, I gotcha.

This is where she and her brother were located, on the wooden bench [behind] the concrete retaining wall.

Well, Evelyn said she and her brother walked in about 12:12, probably about 12:10 but she says it was after 12:10 so she said about 12:12 p.m. and she and her brother were going to eat lunch. So, they sat on the bench behind the retaining wall.

She said a gentleman walked by whom she identified later on would be Emmet Hudson and he will pass them by and walk down the grassy knoll, not only there but he will be standing on the steps.

Another gentleman enters in, a guy by the name of Earl Schaeffer. Mr. Earle Schaeffer walks by her, again, walks down the grassy knoll and stands on the steps next to Emmet Hudson.

Jerry Williamson pushes in his cousin. Well, she said a car pulled up and parked in the back area by the opening, where the car parking lot was right next to the railroad yards, and she basically said that a man got out of the car, opened the front door, took out a wheelchair, put his cousin in the chair, and that person has been identified but [it] was related to us that it was Jerry Williamson’s cousin and I think Jerry wanted to wheel him down toward the gutter area or at least to the Elm street area and he said no just leave him right out there. So, he left him there. And then Jerry Williamson walks past these two young people, Evelyn and Arthur King and then he goes down and stands on the steps with the other two men.

Then she said there was a conversation with a police officer by a young man who was in an Army uniform. And she said this guy came in with a camera and stood at the fence line here. And that was Gordon Arnold.

And then she says very fast, quickly, somebody ran right in front of her and then past her and got next to the corner of the concretre wall. Now Robert Groden over the years has said that this is the Black Dog man. Well, Evelyn King related to us basically that she didn’t know who the guy was but he had a Black hoodie on and that his hands were in his front pocket and he appeared to have something in his hands. She said she saw what appeared to be a gun, but she said it was a little bit larger than a handgun. And did the gentleman use it? She said, I don’t know, because she was distracted. She was distracted because as she was sitting there eating lunch a Dallas police officer fired a shot. Well, how do we know it was a Dallas police officer? When the shot was fired she turned around and looked right at the fenceline 15 to 20 feet away, looking at him right in the eye. She said it was a Dallas cop. Before she could hit the ground, another person and she believed was another police officer fired from the fence line. She couldn’t tell if it was a police uniform, but it was blue or black. She hits the ground. While she was eating her lunch she had a Ni-Hi bottle, strawberry, and it broke. It shattered on the sidewalk.

Marilyn Sitzman who was standing next to Abraham Zapruder said that there were two people there, a Black couple and that they were eating lunch, and not only were they eating lunch they were drinking pop. And she heard a bottle shatter there. A shot was fired, she said. Smoke rose. Another shot was fired. Smoke rose, and both of the smoke [clouds] drifted out into the trees.

There’s a red plaid shirt. I don’t know. It’s Jerry Williamson, Earl Schaeffer, Emmet Hudson. Shots are bing fired at that time.

Evelyn King said she was sitting on this park bench. Well, people were called up there, Dallas detectives, they are looking at a splotch, a red splotch on the sidewalk. Somebody had told them that a Secret Service agent was shot up there and that there was blood on the sidewalk. Well, it’s not blood, it’s a Ni-Hi strawberry drink that Evelyn had kicked over. [Also] found was a Tom Thumb lunchbag. It will be seen on the park bench, black outline of the concrete retaining wall. Abraham Zapruder was standng five feet away from them and filming during the murder of JFK. There is grass in the area behind the retaining wall. It’s approximately where the bench was. The detectives found an empty bag, with hamburger buns, some of the buns had been eaten. [As seen on p. 75 of “Pictures of the Pain” by Richard Trask.] And obviously from Tom Thumb which is still active in the Dallas, as well as Arlington area. And we’re still trying to figure this one out, for the most part Evelyn related to us that she was wearing an SMU shirt or a sweatshirt, and that they had just come from classes. They bussed down there, dropped off at the corner of Elm street and Houston and then they walked to the area where they were going to eat [lunch] and view the president.”

So, that’s who Black Dog Man was, a possible shooter, a guy in a hoodie.

The information from Duncan MacRae presents is incorrect. It sounds plausible only if you don’t know who the heck the men on the steps are, and if you don’t know who the Black couple were, as they were brother and sister, the guy on the steps isn’t Evelyn King’s husband. The photo he has of a woman holding a child is irrelevant as she is most likely someone near the assassinaiton scene who like many, many others ran to the area and are photographed loitering around wondering if the shooter was in that area and whether or not he was caught.

David Josephs shows the entire photo from which Duncan McRae used to say that the woman holding a small child is one member of the Black couple Sitzman saw. No. This photo is after the assassinaiton. Sitzman’s Black couple have left the area by the time this photo was taken. This is a seperate couple, if they are even together at all.

Joe Backes

In short your "eye witness" statements are not supported by the photographic record.

First, this is not my original idea. This idea was proposed several years ago by some people over at Lancer, (Duncan may have been one of them).

My study of the photographic evidence was completely independent. I realized they were a woman and baby before I know about the existing theory. All I have done, and all I claim to have done, is verified this theory.

There are no assumptions being made here. The woman and baby can be seen. And they were african american. It is not an assumption.

According to your "eyewitness" this person is holding a gun..

Woman and baby seen afterward in almost exact same spot behind the retaining wall.

She was not loitering. She is photographed two more times waiting inline to the TSBD. (She knows the camera is there and she keeps her back to the camera lens)

And again right outside the door to the TSBD.

Again, the Cinque level mindset persists. Eyewitness statements do not have to be filmed in order to be real. This is ridiculous nonsense. When Booth shot President Lincoln would you negate that reality because it wasn’t photographed? When the Titanic sank was that a non-event because it wasn’t photographed? Not everything was photographed and filmed in Dealey Plaza before, during, or after the assassination. For you to claim that eyewitness stories must be accompanied by a film or photogaph to be valid is arrogant, ignorant nonsense.

I don’t care who’s idea this is it’s total garbage.

Your photographic study is totally worthless.

There is nothing but assumptions being made here. You imagine you see a woman and a baby, so for you it’s real. So, then you find a woman with a baby in a photograph and BAM, you're done. Pathetic.

Evelyn King said at one point “Black dog Image Man,” held something that looked like a gun. That doesn’t fit in with your theory so you carefully cherry pick one of the several photographic images of him in an attempt to discredit the idea he ever held a gun or something that looked like a gun in Dealey Plaza that day. He didn’t have to hold it while being photographed in the image you want to use. Not all of his actions were photographed. We don’t have a photographic record of where he came from or where he went, that doesn’t mean he didn’t arrive suddenly and leave just as quickly. So, your attempt to discredit Evelyn King’s using one and only one piece of the photographic record fails.

You also fail to prove that Black Dog Image Man is the woman you later have in a photograph of the area where the Kings were. Again, you’re making assumptions, forcing the evidence to fit your theory. So, you found a woman holding a baby after the assassination. So, what? Big damn deal. Where’s the proof they are one and the same? You don’t have that information, because you’re making an asumption.

You cannot even prove the woman is Black.

The one you got holding a child near the bench in the aftermath of the shooting, who for clarity’s sake I’m going to call “Unknown Woman with child - A” is dressed differently than the woman holding a child near the bottom of the step on Elm Street, who I’m going to call “Unknown Woman with child - B”.

These are two completely different women.

One is wearing a dark top and pants, and the other has a white, or light colored clothing, and is wearing a skirt.

This woman, “Unknown Woman with child - B” is the same as the woman you refer to standing in front of the TSBD.

But, the woman seen after the assassination near the bench, “Unknown Woman with child - A” is not the same as the woman in white with a skirt. Also, her child, that would be “Unknown Woman with child - A” that I’m talking about, has some type of hat or cloth bonnet on its head.

Joe Backes

[Mike Rago]

There is a cinque mindset here but you are the one who has it.

The one who has no proof, is you. You have absolutely nothing to substantiate any of your statements. Nothing. I went to your website where you discuss Casey Quinlan's presentation. Even after Debra Conway warned that it was all speculation what Casey mentioned in the presentation you state it as fact on your website. I did not see anywhere where you cautioned the readers.

And you have not done it here.

Again, the photographic evidence does not support your theory AT ALL.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Joseph Backes]

The Betzner photo provides one of the best views of the retaining wall within 7 seconds of the headshots.

There is no indication that anyone is at the bench area behind the wall.

Well, if the Kings hit the ground, like Gordon Arnold did, there wouldn't be. Why are you stuck on needing a photograph or film to verify the King's story? Or that Sitzman saw a young Black couple there? Why must there be a photographic record to verify an eyewitness account? It's great when there is, but when there isn't it is not proof that the eyewitness account is wrong, or a lie.

Joe Backes

[Mike Rago]

BTW, I asked you this yesterday and you still have not responded. This needs to be addressed by you.

We gathered that information and this is what we are presenting. She won’t come forward. She doesn’t want her picture taken on the grassy knoll and I asked her, or I asked a couple of people who we were getting information from I said would you please ask her why she won’t and her detailed information was real simple. This is 1963, I’m female, I’m Black, I live in Dallas, Texas. And I go, I gotcha, I gotcha.

This does not sound right to me. Who did he ask?

[Mike Rago]

The Betzner photo provides one of the best views of the retaining wall within 7 seconds of the headshots.

There is no indication that anyone is at the bench area behind the wall.

Well, if the Kings hit the ground, like Gordon Arnold did, there wouldn't be. Why are you stuck on needing a photograph or film to verify the King's story? Or that Sitzman saw a young Black couple there? Why must there be a photographic record to verify an eyewitness account? It's great when there is, but when there isn't it is not proof that the eyewitness account is wrong, or a lie.

Joe Backes

The picture you refer to was taken before they would have hit the ground.

This is the way your logic sounds to me ... If it cannot be shown to be correct then it must be correct!.

Let me put it this way....The photographic record does not support your theory. Debra Conway's statement that Casey was speculating does not support your theory. You have nothing to support you theory. Your theory is entirely based on hearsay. The question is it first degree hearsay or is it second degree hearsay. (maybe third) I am still waiting for you to answer that question.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Joseph Backes]

There is a cinque mindset here but you are the one who has it.

The one who has no proof, is you. You have absolutely nothing to substantiate any of your statements. Nothing. I went to your website where you discuss Casey Quinlan's presentation. Even after Debra Conway warned that it was all speculation what Casey mentioned in the presentation you state it as fact on your website. I did not see anywhere where you cautioned the readers.

And you have not done it here.

Again, the photographic evidence does not support your theory AT ALL.

What a BS artist you are. I'm not promoting a theory. I'm destroying yours.

Black dog Image Man is not a Woman and a Baby. I'll repeat that tell hell freezes over. Your methodology is exactly like Cinque. You, and you alone, see something, and you stop, as if your imagination is proof. Nobody can tell you you're wrong. You just repeat your false conclusion.

You have nothing to prove your conclusions. Nothing.

Sitzman saw a young Black couple. She never said anything about a Black couple and a baby.

They were there eating their lunch. There is photographic proof of the food they left behind. If they hit the ground how could they possibly appear in any photograph? The retaining wall and the fence would block them from the view of any camera. Schmuck.

[Mike Rago]

There is a cinque mindset here but you are the one who has it.

The one who has no proof, is you. You have absolutely nothing to substantiate any of your statements. Nothing. I went to your website where you discuss Casey Quinlan's presentation. Even after Debra Conway warned that it was all speculation what Casey mentioned in the presentation you state it as fact on your website. I did not see anywhere where you cautioned the readers.

And you have not done it here.

Again, the photographic evidence does not support your theory AT ALL.

What a BS artist you are. I'm not promoting a theory. I'm destroying yours.

Black dog Image Man is not a Woman and a Baby. I'll repeat that tell hell freezes over. Your methodology is exactly like Cinque. You, and you alone, see something, and you stop, as if your imagination is proof. Nobody can tell you you're wrong. You just repeat your false conclusion.

You have nothing to prove your conclusions. Nothing.

Sitzman saw a young Black couple. She never said anything about a Black couple and a baby.

They were there eating their lunch. There is photographic proof of the food they left behind. If they hit the ground how could they possibly appear in any photograph? The retaining wall and the fence would block them from the view of any camera. Schmuck.

When you start calling people names ( which you do alot) you don't have much of a case.

In your very first post you made a point of pointing out that it was not me and me alone who believes that is a woman with a baby. So which is it? Get your story straight.

I am going to keep asking you this question until you answer it....

We gathered that information and this is what we are presenting. She won’t come forward. She doesn’t want her picture taken on the grassy knoll and I asked her, or I asked a couple of people who we were getting information from I said would you please ask her why she won’t and her detailed information was real simple. This is 1963, I’m female, I’m Black, I live in Dallas, Texas. And I go, I gotcha, I gotcha.

This does not sound right to me. Who did he ask?

Edited August 1, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Joseph Backes]

BTW, I asked you this yesterday and you still have not responded. This needs to be addressed by you.

We gathered that information and this is what we are presenting. She won’t come forward. She doesn’t want her picture taken on the grassy knoll and I asked her, or I asked a couple of people who we were getting information from I said would you please ask her why she won’t and her detailed information was real simple. This is 1963, I’m female, I’m Black, I live in Dallas, Texas. And I go, I gotcha, I gotcha.

This does not sound right to me. Who did he ask?

What's so hard to understand about that? How dumb are you? She feared for her life. Does that actually need to be spelled out and diagramed for you? Go ask Acquilla Clemons how safe it was to comment on what she saw on November 22, 1963, oh, that's right you can't because she disappeared.

Casey asked people that he was getting information from about Evelyn King, and why she didn't come forward sooner, and why she does not want to be photographed, especially on the Knoll. She was afraid back then, and probably still is to some extent. That's not difficult to understand.

Why don't you step away from the computer and go read some books on this case.

Joe Backes

[Joseph Backes]

There is a cinque mindset here but you are the one who has it.

The one who has no proof, is you. You have absolutely nothing to substantiate any of your statements. Nothing. I went to your website where you discuss Casey Quinlan's presentation. Even after Debra Conway warned that it was all speculation what Casey mentioned in the presentation you state it as fact on your website. I did not see anywhere where you cautioned the readers.

And you have not done it here.

Again, the photographic evidence does not support your theory AT ALL.

What a BS artist you are. I'm not promoting a theory. I'm destroying yours.

Black dog Image Man is not a Woman and a Baby. I'll repeat that tell hell freezes over. Your methodology is exactly like Cinque. You, and you alone, see something, and you stop, as if your imagination is proof. Nobody can tell you you're wrong. You just repeat your false conclusion.

You have nothing to prove your conclusions. Nothing.

Sitzman saw a young Black couple. She never said anything about a Black couple and a baby.

They were there eating their lunch. There is photographic proof of the food they left behind. If they hit the ground how could they possibly appear in any photograph? The retaining wall and the fence would block them from the view of any camera. Schmuck.

When you start calling people names ( which you do alot) you don't have much of a case.

In your very first post you made a point of pointing out that it was not me and me alone who believes that is a woman with a baby. So which is it? Get your story straight.

I am going to keep asking you this question until you answer it....

We gathered that information and this is what we are presenting. She won’t come forward. She doesn’t want her picture taken on the grassy knoll and I asked her, or I asked a couple of people who we were getting information from I said would you please ask her why she won’t and her detailed information was real simple. This is 1963, I’m female, I’m Black, I live in Dallas, Texas. And I go, I gotcha, I gotcha.

This does not sound right to me. Who did he ask?

I call 'em like I see 'em.

I will stand up for honest JFK research. I will defend good, honest research and will always denounce charlatans like you.

Hey moderators, we need to set some standards for JFK research and forum posting. This guy Mike Rago is just another Cinque. And we're going to get more and more screwballs like this as we get closer to the 50th anniversary. People like this, and clueless methodology like this need to be weeded out, the sooner the better.

Joe Backes