Lo-Grade JFK Assassination Porn (Sabato Edition)

[William Kelly]

I was there at the COPA conference when E. M. Schotz gave his "Waters of Knowledge" speech and Vince Salandria his keynote, though I hope we've learned a lot more since then, including the realization that despite Fonzi and Cliff to propagate the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket as positive proof of conspiracy, and while convincing on a personal level, it will not reopen the case at the legal level.

But if all the scientists could agree on the acoustical evidence, - that there are at least four shots on the DPD tape and one is from the Grassy Knoll, then that could and should require the legal gears to move, however rusty they are.

The scientists don't agree however, and although I have a copy and have tried to read the "new" study referred to, I don't understand it and am not qualified to comment on it. If you are a scientist or a really smart person and want a copy of the "Sabato" acoustics study, send me a PM with your email and I forward it to you.

I do know that the scientists who did the original studies stand by their work, and no attempt has ever been made to duplicate their work, which is the way science is supposed to be tested.

And the porno is in the mind of the beholder, not in the words or the pictures or the conferences and symposiums.

BK

Edited October 15, 2013 by William Kelly

[Douglas Caddy]

All part of a fake debate.

http://jfkproject.org/

Hey Douglas!

I have an idea...please indulge me...right now, Mr. Douglas Caddy, turn your head to the right.

Glance down upon the fabric of your shirt along your right shoulder-line.

Now raise your right arm and begin to wave like JFK circa z190.

Observe the fabric of your shirt indent along your right shoulder-line.

Given the low location of the bullet holes in JFK's clothes, you've just demonstrated with that indentation the fact that 4+ shots were fired at JFK.

The evidence of conspiracy is literally under your nose.

Who gives a damn about some stupid dictabelt?

It is obvious that the Kennedy family is interested this subject although you may not be.

http://jfkproject.org/

“Dr. Randolph Robertson, having been given special access by the Kennedy family, is the only non-government Board Certified Diagnostic Radiologist to have seen, studied and analyzed the primary materials of President Kennedy’s radiography and autopsy sequestered at the National Archives. In September 1993 in Fort Worth Texas, at the meeting of the National Association of Medical Examiners Postmortem Radiography, he presented an analysis of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Two months later he testified before a House Subcommittee about the effectiveness of the President John F. Kennedy Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act).”

[Cliff Varnell]

I was there at the COPA conference when E. M. Schotz gave his "Waters of Knowledge" speech and Vince Salandria his keynote, though I hope we've learned a lot more since then, including the realization that despite Fonzi and Cliff to propagate the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket as positive proof of conspiracy, and while convincing on a personal level, it will not reopen the case at the legal level.

On what basis do you make that determination?

On what legal basis would the T3 back wound be challenged?

What evidence trumps physical evidence with a clear chain of possession?

But if all the scientists could agree on the acoustical evidence, - that there are at least four shots on the DPD tape and one is from the Grassy Knoll, then that could and should require the legal gears to move, however rusty they are.

I seriously question your legal expertise in this matter.

The clothing evidence trumps the acoustics.

The scientists don't agree however, and although I have a copy and have tried to read the "new" study referred to, I don't understand it and am not qualified to comment on it. If you are a scientist or a really smart person and want a copy of the "Sabato" acoustics study, send me a PM with your email and I forward it to you.

No thank you.

I think you're talking through your hat about what would constitute determinative evidence in this case.

You go to a grand jury with your evidence and I go with mine -- you go no where.

I go to the gates of Fort Detrick -- and this ain't no theory.

I do know that the scientists who did the original studies stand by their work, and no attempt has ever been made to duplicate their work, which is the way science is supposed to be tested.

And the porno is in the mind of the beholder, not in the words or the pictures or the conferences and symposiums.

BK

Bang up job you guys have done.

[Cliff Varnell]

All part of a fake debate.

http://jfkproject.org/

Hey Douglas!

I have an idea...please indulge me...right now, Mr. Douglas Caddy, turn your head to the right.

Glance down upon the fabric of your shirt along your right shoulder-line.

Now raise your right arm and begin to wave like JFK circa z190.

Observe the fabric of your shirt indent along your right shoulder-line.

Given the low location of the bullet holes in JFK's clothes, you've just demonstrated with that indentation the fact that 4+ shots were fired at JFK.

The evidence of conspiracy is literally under your nose.

Who gives a damn about some stupid dictabelt?

It is obvious that the Kennedy family is interested this subject although you may not be.

Looks like they got hoodwinked, too.

[Cliff Varnell]

More E. Martin Schotz 1998:

HOW COPA'S COOPERATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT

FACILITATES THE COVER-UP with A CASE EXAMPLE

Let us take a look at the COPA mission statement, "What is the Coalition on Political Assassinations?"

In paragraph two COPA claims that these "official investigations [into the murders of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.] were flawed." Is "flawed" the operative word? Or were these apparently "flawed" investigations the only possible outcome of a process aimed at concealing obvious conspiracy? Indeed wasn't the government ultimately able to use the so-called "flawed" nature of these investigations in its strategy of cover-up via confusion and uncertainty? From this point of view "flawed" investigations were exactly what was needed for the purposes of the pseudo debate. Is the word "flawed" used rather than the more truthful word "fraudulent," because such truth would threaten the coalition? If so, the commitment to coalition takes precedence over the commitment to truth.

In the third paragraph of this document we find the following words: "The inability of past and present government agencies to resolve public doubts and distrust concerning the assassination" ... Is it really inability? Does the government really want to resolve doubts but is unable to? No, it is interested in fostering mystery and confusion. This sentence from COPA conveys the notion that the government has tried but failed to resolve doubts. To suggest that the government is unable to resolve doubts, is to invert the truth. In asserting this, COPA is allying itself with the government strategy of cover-up via mystery.

Paragraph two tells us that COPA's policy is that "all US and foreign government records relating to these murders should be made public immediately." We read on and learn that the Assassination Records Review Board is a government body charged with "locating, defining and facilitating the release of these files unless clear and convincing evidence of harm to current intelligence sources and methods, or harm to individuals outweighs the public right to access... COPA works closely with ARRB."

To treat the government as if some part of it can be an honest broker, rather than indicating the ubiquitous nature of the cover-up across the entire society, and the central role of the intelligence community in the crime is to be part of the cover-up.

Just how this orientation operates on a practical level can be seen by examining a newspaper article that was sent to me this past spring by its author, Dr. Gary Aguilar, a leading member of COPA. While what I say here may be perceived as particularly critical of this article, the reader should be clear that in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing unusual about this article. Neither do I believe that the author is consciously doing what he is doing. The article is an example of Orwellian crimestop functioning as unconscious self mind control.

The article in question appeared on March 17th, 1998 in the Marin Independent Journal and was entitled "Now that files are open, the case isn't closed". The words "case closed" are a reference to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. Indeed, the article in question was an attempt to reply to an article which had appeared on March 7th, in which a certain Don Kates attempted to slam the "critical community" and defend the Warren Report by praising Case Closed.

Aguilar's reply opens with the following line, "Don Kates' spirited defense of the official version of John F. Kennedy's death -- that Lee Harvey Oswald alone caused it -- is uninformed as to the exciting new revelations from the Assassination Record Review Board."

What is conveyed by this opening sentence? Wouldn't the reader reasonably get the impression from Aguilar's sentence, that were it not for the new exciting revelations from the ARRB, one might reasonably conclude that Oswald had indeed been the lone assassin? And the article continues with a mass of new detail. Aguilar at no time indicates that all this new material is totally unnecessary for the question of deciding whether there was or wasn't a conspiracy. And in fact he winds up asserting that this question is still controversial, and at some point may be cleared up, when all the records are released. The effect of all this is to totally distort the whole process by which the crime is being covered-up. Aguilar is leading the reader away from the fact that there is no doubt about a conspiracy, and that the confusion is based on a process in which the media, the departments of history and the government are all complicit in cover-up via confusion. No, based on Aguilar one gets the impression that all these institutions of society are the innocent victims of a government that has failed to release enough information. This is the government's line. This is the ARRB line. It is absolutely false. It is the essence of the cover-up.

Finally the article concludes, "It is also important, if embarrassing to our just pride as Americans, that it took an Oliver Stone film to force the US government to do what it should have done without Stone -- be open and accountable." So our pride as Americans is just? And the government is now open and accountable?? This is Orwellian crimestop. It is misleading the public.

But there in one final irony, and that is how Dr. Aguilar's article in reality actually aids the forces which lie behind the production of Gerald Posner's book, Case Closed. It order to see how this is the case, one must understand what Gerald Posner and Case Closed really are. Posner's book is part of a governmental/establishment strategy for defending itself by establishing that the JFK assassination is a continuing mystery, and that the critics are at most conspiracy theorists. That is, that the idea of conspiracy in the case is only a theory. A critical necessity for such a strategy is to be able to continue to maintain that the Warren Report was and is debatable. In order for the Warren Report to be debatable, some "honest and intelligent" people have to be able to look at the Report and the evidence and claim that it is still valid.

Now of course, Posner is not honest. His entire book is a complete fraud. But this doesn't matter because those institutions which the public more or less has allowed to decide what is and is not legitimate, these institutions proclaim that this is a serious book. A book which is complete and utter nonsense is produced by a "legitimate" publisher and is favorably reviewed by the "legitimate" press. Thus, it is "legitimate". It must be taken seriously and debated. No honest person who takes the trouble to look into the case and to know something about it, should have to waste a moment on Gerald Posner. The reason for this is that the honest person should be able to put his hands easily on material that shows that the "theory" that there was a conspiracy is not a theory at all. It is a proven fact. And no one, no how, and no where, can unprove such a fact. (The fact that the honest person may not be able to easily put his hands on such material is the really profound failure of the "critical community".)

Thus the purpose of Posner's book is to provide the establishment with an assertion which it can claim has some substance and must be debated. The establishment doesn't care whether you agree with Posner or not, they simply want him taken seriously enough to give the impression that there is something to debate here. And the basic thrust of Aguilar's article is totally in line with this. There is a mystery. We still don't know.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[William Kelly]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that those independent researchers who formed the COA - Committee for an Open Archives with me in the late1980s and the people who formed COPA in the early 1990s and monitored the activities of the ARRB and were the only group to continually oversee the JFK Act in Congress, - shall we just let idiots with internet access ignore all the work we have done over the past 30 years and call us soft porn stars and detract from the original work being done today?

I think those Lone Nutters who continually proclaim Oswald guilty even though we know for a fact that he was no where near the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest at the time of the assassination, and those Conspiracy Theorists who try to pin the blame on their favorite donkey, are equally wrong, and the correct approach to the assassination of President Kennedy is to consider it an unsolved cold case homicide - as it should be legally classified and investigated.

Those who think COPA "cooperated" with the government are correct only in the sense that COPA actually garnered the overall support needed to get the JFK Act of 1992 passed by Congress, and reluctantly signed by President Bush (G.H.W.), and as accurately described in the Final Report of the ARRB. COPA was the only organization that continued to monitor the work of the ARRB from its inception until it was dissolved, and we continue to monitor it - the only org that I know of that does so - so all attempts to degrade COPA can be blatantly seen as from idiots or part of a psy ops propaganda attack by those who believe COPA to be a threat to them or those who sponsored the Dealey Plaza operation.

Those who attack anyone who merely asks questions and seeks answers and those who feel threatened by those questions should consider the fact that they have their heads up their arse and aren't in a position to be objective.

I think the soft-porn in the JFK assassination is propagated by those who keep repeating the same themes over and over as if they are can't get enough of it, when in fact the truth about the the assassination is very diverse but can be very clear to anyone who wants to really know the truth.

BK

[Paul Brancato]

I agree with Schots completely. The Kennedy family made a conscious decision I think to at least appear to have drank the Koolaid. RFK might have been playing a waiting game, hoping that as president would be able to go after the perpetrators. If any family knew how dangerous it was to tell the truth it was the Kennedys. Of course RFK never got to the White House, and it wasn't until RFK Jr. visited Dallas in January that any Kennedy dared to speak out. And we all know that his words on that occasion were misquoted. The Kennedys made an understandable choice in my opinion, and it has left the rest of us in limbo. Many of us, and many Americans, know the truth in their hearts. But collectively we do slip into the more comfortable position of finding solace in the slowly emerging details that prove what we individually already know. Schots' point about the victims of American aggression not having the luxury that Americans do to pretend not to know what our military does in our name, is well taken. I don't think that I have personally been hoodwinked by any of this Orwellian reality, but I have been seduced into accepting the idea that I cannot change things for the better. The only thing that could alter that would be a revolution on our own shores, and even then I might well choose personal safety. I always come back to how horrible it must have been to be a Jew in Europe in the years leading up to WW 2. Bottom line - its dangerous to know the truth and act on it.

[William Kelly]

Well, if it is too dangerous to know the truth and act on it - then COPA - whose members are trying to get a release of the remaining government records that are sealed by the government, and trying to get a federal grand jury to investigate the destruction of records and obstruction of justice in the assassination, and a trying to get a local Dallas grand jury to properly investigate the murder of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit and its association with the assassination, and establish a Hidden History Museum and an assassination archives and research center in DC - COPA members trying to do these things are the biggest threat to those who killed JFK.

So I assume those who attack COPA and COPA's projects and objectives feel threatened by what we are doing and I'm glad that we are upsetting people.

I just wish it was the people in power and not just internet idiots, or maybe they represent them in spirit?

BK

Edited October 16, 2013 by William Kelly

[Cliff Varnell]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that those independent researchers who formed the COA - Committee for an Open Archives with me in the late1980s and the people who formed COPA in the early 1990s and monitored the activities of the ARRB and were the only group to continually oversee the JFK Act in Congress, - shall we just let idiots with internet access ignore all the work we have done over the past 30 years and call us soft porn stars and detract from the original work being done today?

Tilting at windmills, digging rabbit hole after rabbit hole, over-looking obvious investigative leads -- Yes! You've all been hoodwinked. Just as Salandria predicted in '75, and just as Schotz observed in '98.

When you claim that the clothing evidence doesn't belong in a court of law you are acting as adjunct to the official cover-up.

I'm repeating Schotz' critique, Bill.

You guys haven't done much with the old evidence, much less tell us about all the new and exciting evidence you're working on now.

[Cliff Varnell]

So I assume those who attack COPA and COPA's projects and objectives feel threatened by what we are doing and I'm glad that we are upsetting people.

I'm not attacking COPA per se -- I'm attacking a flawed mid-set that doesn't recognize the obvious.

It's not just COPA.

[Cliff Varnell]

...internet idiots...

Anyone at COPA wanna explain why the clothing evidence wouldn't be acceptable in court?

[William Kelly]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that those independent researchers who formed the COA - Committee for an Open Archives with me in the late1980s and the people who formed COPA in the early 1990s and monitored the activities of the ARRB and were the only group to continually oversee the JFK Act in Congress, - shall we just let idiots with internet access ignore all the work we have done over the past 30 years and call us soft porn stars and detract from the original work being done today?

Tilting at windmills, digging rabbit hole after rabbit hole, over-looking obvious investigative leads -- Yes! You've all been hoodwinked. Just as Salandria predicted in '75, and just as Schotz observed in '98.

When you claim that the clothing evidence doesn't belong in a court of law you are acting as adjunct to the official cover-up.

I'm repeating Schotz' critique, Bill.

You guys haven't done much with the old evidence, much less tell us about all the new and exciting evidence you're working on now.

I didn't say the clothing evidence didn't belong in a court of law - I said that it hasn't led to a legal reopening of the case - just as I am repeatedly reminded that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter hasn't exonerated Oswald -

As for the new and exciting evidence I am working on now - it is identifying new documents and records that weren't reviewed and new witnesses that haven't been questioned, and there are many.

You are the one who wants to wallow in the old xxxx, while others, not just me, but others are getting new witnesses and information all the time, and wouldn't it be grand to post it all so you and the debunkers can xxxxe all over it.

There will be a time and place to review the new stuff, but its not here and now.

[Cliff Varnell]

I think the soft-porn in the JFK assassination is propagated by those who keep repeating the same themes over and over as if they are can't get enough of it, when in fact the truth about the the assassination is very diverse but can be very clear to anyone who wants to really know the truth.

BK

The operative definition of JFK Assassination Porn is the claim that JFK's clothing wouldn't be examined in a court of law.

[Cliff Varnell]

I didn't say the clothing evidence didn't belong in a court of law - I said that it hasn't led to a legal reopening of the case -

Whose fault is that?

How does that change the significance of the evidence?

How does a tailor-made suit initiate legal proceedings?

Are those who want to proceed down a legal avenue so inept that they don't recognize the prima facie case for conspiracy?

You are the one who wants to wallow in the old xxxx,

You don't know what the "old xxxx" is, Bill.

You don't evince a clue.

Bill, what happened to the bullets that caused JFK's throat and back wounds?

With the body and the x-rays in front of them the autopsists considered the possibility JFK was struck with advanced weaponry, hi-tech bullets that didn't show up on x-ray.

They asked the FBI men if such weaponry existed. SA Sibert called the FBI Lab to find out.

We didn't get an answer to that question until the Church Committee in 1975 -- advanced weaponry was tested at Fort Detrick Maryland where the rounds didn't show up on x-ray. Many different types of weapons firing paralytics and toxins.

We can't say for certain that this is what happened to JFK, but the corroborative evidence is substantial.

[William Kelly]

I didn't say the clothing evidence didn't belong in a court of law - I said that it hasn't led to a legal reopening of the case -

Whose fault is that?

How does that change the significance of the evidence?

How does a tailor-made suit initiate legal proceedings?

Are those who want to proceed down a legal avenue so inept that they don't recognize the prima facie case for conspiracy?

You are the one who wants to wallow in the old xxxx,

You don't know what the "old xxxx" is, Bill.

You don't evince a clue.

Bill, what happened to the bullets that caused JFK's throat and back wounds?

With the body and the x-rays in front of them the autopsists considered the possibility JFK was struck with advanced weaponry, hi-tech bullets that didn't show up on x-ray.

They asked the FBI men if such weaponry existed. SA Sibert called the FBI Lab to find out.

We didn't get an answer to that question until the Church Committee in 1975 -- advanced weaponry was tested at Fort Detrick Maryland where the rounds didn't show up on x-ray. Many different types of weapons firing paralytics and toxins.

We can't say for certain that this is what happened to JFK, but the corroborative evidence is substantial.

You keep telling us about Fort Detrick, what did happen there?

Please inform us.

thanks

And I will ask your question as to what happened to the bullets that caused JFK's throat and back wounds, but only once, not a hundred times, as you have asked it here.