Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Wilson

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark Wilson

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,157 profile views
  1. I'd love to view the "other film".I read that as many as 7 researchers have observed the film we"re discussing.Let's be honest,the Zapruder film fits with the official government explanation with the exception of "back and to the left",imo.There are dozens of witnesses that claimed the limo stopped,not seen in Zapruder.The descriptions of the "other film" both estimate a 2-4 second stop or extreme slowing,before the fatal headshot, which fits more with the witnesses' comments that were there.
  2. Nice topic......I'll be damn....the more things change...you know the rest.
  3. The film that David Josephs spoke of (if it exists at all) is undoubtedly a re-creation that was filmed in Dealey Plaza for a movie.......DVP Hey Ron....When i posted this response,i thought of you.You've been here longer than me and certainly can remember the good ol' days when the content of threads had substance.Are calling out Rich and Greg's testimony's as viewing a re-creation? Rich and Greg have and had forgotten more about the JFK assassination than I'll ever know.Not looking to get into a pissing match but to your credit,i have to think you've been aware the "other film" you call bigfoot for quite a few years....?
  4. Mr. Von Pein....You're my favorite lone nutterist and I sincerely appreciate all of your videos,ect...now, generally,you don't contradict your position with any videos you put out there.In the JFK research community.The term "other film" does not apply to the recreation video you posted.I am saddened that this thread has went 5 more pages from your initial postage and no one else has adressed this error on your part...For clarification....the "other film" describes a movie shot from a similar location as Zapruder but tells a different story than the Zapruder Film of the murder of JFK...I know of 2 researchers on the record that have seen the "other film".The late Rich Dellarosa and Greg Burnham,both have Youtube videos out there describing what they observered on the "other film".Both of their descriptions were consistent with one another.While Greg is evasive about the circumstance which he viewed the film,Rich,who i believe,viewed it on multiple times years apart,initially saw this movie at the University of Maryland.Mr. Dellarosa also wrote an appendix in one of Dr. Fetzer's books that was identical to his Youtube testimony of the "other film".Rich Dellarosa and Greg Burnham,imo, both have unimpeccable character/ honesty and are my heroes and legends in the JFK community.
  5. well...i will throw a few more names out there that were contributors in TMWKK...Gary Shaw,Larry Harris,Bill Turner,Doug Weldon,andJack White....Were they National Enquirer or CIA?.....Whatever you choose to call them or claim their motives were.....they're hero's of mine.
  6. TMWKK was a decent series imo....Turner was all over the place,much like Jim Marrs in Crossfire.....One can critcize TMWKK but there were important interviews,like; Phil Willis and family,Bill/Gayle Newman, Billy Hargis,Aubrey Rike,the exposure of the SS stand down at Love Field moments before the killing,interviews with the Parkland doctors,interviews concerning the autopsy in Bethesda and more...Turner threw alot of theories out there much like Marrs,but both touched on areas/witness' that,well, the Warren Commission ignored.On that point,thumbs up over here....One other question......If the TMWKK is so ridiculous and off base,why was it bannned from the History channel? all the while Dale Myers and others from Shillville get exposure?
  7. Hello,folks,been a while.Important topic...I always thought the Dallas doctors had no reason to lie and were the best witness'...Malcom Kilduff's emotional statement and description of the cause of death has always resonated with me...Kilduff was clearly "in the loop" on this tragic day.
  8. Good point,David.There is little known info about what Oswald said,after and and during his apprehention and interrogation.
  9. Hi Chris.Great work.Unbelievably,none of the Secret Service agents, which statements you've provided, were deemed important enough to be called to testify before the Warren Commission.Ironically, the agents in the Queen Mary had the best view of the assassination but,only, Clint Hill was called to testify before the WC.IMO,it's a mistake to limit the shot sequence to only three shots.Although,nearly every statement or witness testimony, known to exist, points to a three shot scenerio...Here's what Kellermen had to say to the WC; Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty? Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen. Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say? Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman? Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots. Representative FORD. Is that why you have described-- Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry. Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm#c When you look at the evidence from the gunshots and ignore the statements/testimony,3 shots could never have done all of the reported damage.I wonder if Kellerman was aware of the Tauge evidence?
  10. Mark, I personally think the idea that Oswald was trying to expose the plot is a bit silly. Surely all he would have had to do was phone the FBI or the DPD or yell for help as soon as he realised what was going on? But he didn't. While someone was up on the sixth floor shooting Kennedy, Oswald was sitting in the first floor lunch room reading a newspaper and eating a cheese sandwich. Presumably what you're suggesting is that Oswald knew the people involved and, therefore, new about the plot in advance? If that was the case then why did he make no attempt to stop it? Again, all he would have had to do was call the feds and say "There's a plot to kill Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on Friday. These are the people involved - go arrest 'em!" Hi Martin.Your criticism of my theory is understandable.In defense of my theory,we have the Hosty note and the FBI telex warning of the assassination attempt.In regards to the FBI telex,there was someone who accurately predicted the scenerio played out in Dealey Plaza.There is no proof that Oswald was the source of the telex,but we have the proof that the FBI was informed of the plot in advance and did nothing to prevent it...So your question of why didnt Oswald phone the FBI or DPD is mute because someone did notify the FBI in advance and as we see,nothing was done.For all we know,Oswald did exactly what you've implied he didnt do....What we do know is there was alot of disinformation on Oswald from the very beginning,like him being a defector,the Fair play for Cuba,the Cuban embassy "episode" ,beating his wife, and how about the alleged statement made by Oswald at the time of the arrest,"I got me a president and a cop and i'll go for 2 more".? In regards to Oswalds alleged statement when arrested,this is in stark contrast from his statements captured by tv cameras while in custody,like, "i'm just a patsy", "i didnt kill anyone", or his request that he be given legal assistance...It's beyond belief that the APB on Oswald,within the hour, closed the case...Of the many witnesses to the assassination,there is a bevy of conflicting testimony and accounts, who were all looking at the same incident. Yet,we are supposed believe that with the capture of Oswald, the case was solved...Oswald had to be killed before a trial or even before securing an attorney. No Oswald,no trial,no resistance....no problems.
  11. Len, The quote you pasted on this thread by Mark Wilson was not complete. You removed the first sentence of his post. He was responding to another poster (Scott?). I included the relevant portions, the excluded sentence was (ellipses {and punctuation errors} his) “Hi Scott.....these kind of statements are what i'm talking about....rather than participate and offer alternative ideas you deal the anti semite card straight from the bottom of the deck.”, it did not change the import of the rest of what he said i.e. - his focus no Billy Graham’s statement to Nixon that “"The [Jewish media] stranglehold has got to be broken” as if it were evidence this were true and evidence they helped cover up Israel’s and North American Jews’ roles in the assassination - his apparent belief that the Duke Lacrosse team controversy was less newsworthy because the complainant was a “black stripper” This from Terry “Them some Jews” Mauro, cultish follower of infamous anti-Semite Lyndon LaRouche and former subscriber of Willis Carto’s Spotlight. Take a look at the Freedman tripe he posted, I imagine even you will “see [it] as "anti-Semitic"”. As I explained in the linked post the author usually used the term “Zionist” as a euphemism but is clear he is talking about Jews because: 1) Several of the Jews he claimed pushed Wilson in WWI were not Zionists. 2) In the chapter about WWII he said, “Hitler and the Nazi party soon seized control of the German media, banks, and universities away from the influential Zionists who had reigned supreme in those institutions.” But of course the Nazi’s racial codes forced all Jews (and even grandchildren of Jews) out of “media, banks, and universities” regardless of their influence, politics or religious practices. 3) In the same chapter he also wrote: A few years later, Lord Beaverbrook, a British newspaper magnate issued this warning about the Zionist influence over the British press. Beaverbrook warned: "There are 20,000 German Jews who have come here to England. They all work against an agreement with Germany. The Jews have got a big position in the press here. Their political influence is driving us into the direction of war." […] In the spring of 1940, the war in the West began when Germany launched pre-emptive invasions of Norway, Holland, and Belgium, pinning the British and French forces on the beaches of Belgium. Beaverbrook’s prediction was realized. Note that Beaverbrook only mentioned the Jews not specifying “Zionists” but ‘Pastore’ said his “prediction” that Jews “political influence is driving [britain] into the direction of war" “was realized”. This fits a pattern in the chapters he refers to “Zionists” but sites sources that referred to Jews. Some of the quotes seem to be made up more on that below. Pastore’s claims are rubbish anyway: - The US entered WWI because of 1) the Zimmermann Telegram (in which the Germans tried to get Mexico to agree to enter in the war against the US if they entered 2) continued U-boat attacks on US ships. - Britain and France declared war on Germany because Hitler continued to abide by his previous agreements. At Munich he said he had no territorial aims beyond the Sudetenland but soon took over all of Czechoslovakia he then set his sites on all of Poland (not just the parts that had belonged to Germany). Britain and France declared publicly guaranteed Poland’s territorial integrity. In both cases it was the German government not Jews (Zionist or otherwise). - As I pointed out the Jabotinsky seems to have been made up the only hits were from book or to forum/blog posts. The Beaverbrook quote almost certainly was. It too only appears on forum and blogs, the cited source was merely “Beaverbrook papers. House of Lords Records Service” no specific document or even year was cited. Beaverbrook was a friend of Churchill and one of the people responsible for bringing down pro Nazi King George. I showed that was the case but you simply denied the obvious. All of the 2 - 3 members who commented agreed that I was correct. Notably you refused my suggestion that a mutually arbiter decide our bet, presumably that was because you knew you’d loose. Untrue as has been pointed out to you, my dad started working for RJR in the 1950’s, the sterilization program run out of a hospital funded by an endowment from Bowman Gray who was chairman of the company till his death in 1935. The school and hospital had no direct relationship with the company. Wrong on several accounts as has already been pointed out to you 1) My dad came to the US with an immigration not a sponsored work visa 2) His first job in the US was with Industrial Tape Corporation (part of Johnson & Johnson) in New Brunswick, New Jersey 3) Commercial Solvents Corp. paid Weizmann a royalty for exclusive rights to his patented process for producing acetone. He was a university professor and politician not a partner or employee of the company. I doubt anyone here but you (and perhaps Fetzer) thinks Weizmann was the devil incarnate. http://butanol.com/docs/Weizman-Terre_Haute.doc Of course none of this is relevant to whether or not “Pastore”, Fetzer, Wilson or Larrouche (or you) are anti-Semites or racists. Colby,You've proved my point.You are a double standard.In both of my statements,that you use as your examples that i'm a bigot and or anti semetic,I was merely quoting each case as the media had reported them...Is the reverand Billy Graham a bigot or ant semetic? When Nixon and Graham had this conversation,Nixon was POTUS and Graham was probably the most influential Christian in America.My statement was in the context that if Graham and Nixon held these views 30 years ealier,is it such a reach that the same elements which they discussed still had america by the throat 30 plus years later?? Moving along to the Duke lacross rape case,which was thrown out of court for lack of evidence.My point was it was a non story to begin with,but your media ran with it night after night,with the emphasis on the race factor, instead of reporting real stories like the United States being duped into a hunt for WMD that still havent been found.All the while,the people doing your bidding not the bidding of America,like Wolfowitz,Perle,Feith,Cheney are given a free pass and virtually no media coverage to lie and fabricate stories about WMD,yellowcake,mushroom clouds,pre-emptive strikes,ect.All the while, it's ignored that there is only one country in the middle east with WMD or the capability to create mushroom clouds...Colby,you must know how i feel about you and your tactics,but i must admit you're very good at what you do.Your efforts to twist,turn,deflect,label, and especially changing subjects is impressive.
  12. Thank you Mr. Wilson. It seems you and I are fairly lonely here in considering Lee Oswald a COMPLETELY innocent man, falsely accused by LN's and CT's alike. I note that John Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA, is seldom mentioned on this forum. Newman has gone a long way towards identifying some of the individuals who framed Lee Oswald, but there is one VERY IMPORTANT mistake in his book, where he alludes to Oz being present at the assassination scene with a rifle. Apart from that, Newman does a brilliant job of tracking down the small group of CIA officers who secretly and carefully monitored Lee Oswald's movements, right up to his employment at the TSBD. The next step, (I think Jim Root has recently pointed this out) was to arrange for the motorcade to pass the TSBD and the grassy knoll AT A VERY SLOW SPEED. Now the plot includes certain members of the Secret Service (and beyond). Lee Oswald, contrary to misinformed opinion, was no agent of any intelligence agency, and he was not a spy of any kind. He was just a guy who liked to think and act for himself, and of course his views evolved as he learned from life's experiences. John Newman seems to have begun by suspecting that OZ may have been a spy, but a careful reading of Newman's book shows that in the end he is not prepared to accuse Oz of spying for anyone. Newman does make it very clear, however, that Oz was very much the TARGET of spies. For the benefit of some members here who don't seem to understand, there is a difference between being a spy, and being SPIED UPON. Precisely because he was totally innocent, and knew nothing whatsoever about the crime, all the endless probing of his life has led precisely nowhere (and as for the know-nothings who insist on probing his wife as well -- don't get me started!) Since Oz was completely innocent, and the "evidence" against him was so flimsy, the plotters decided ahead of time that he could not be allowed to live long enough to speak to a lawyer. So to all the Oswald accusers out there, whether you consider yourself an LN or a CT, I cite the old Sufi saying: Oh Pilgrim, I fear you will never reach Mecca For you are on the road to Turkestan. Mr.Carroll,Although we agree that Oswald was innocent in the assassination,we differ on your position that Oswald was not involved in any kind intelligence.At a minimum,he was involved in some kind of domestic intelligence involving the FBI.I've come to this conclusion based on,1)his arrest in New Orleans and interview with the FBI,2)his interaction with Hosty, and 3)Waggoner Carr's claim that Oswald was receiving $200 a month from the FBI during the months of 9/62 through 11/63...Hoover later denied this tidbit,but who are you going to believe? Oswald being paid by the FBI at the time he supposedly killed JFK,of course Hoover would deny this..I think Oswald was a good guy.If he was trying to expose the assassination plot,as i think he was,he had to be killed.What other reason can there be that Oswald was in custody for around 2 days and for the most part(less Fritz's notes) there's no real record of any interrogation.
  13. Colby,You're the worst thing that ever happened to the Education Forum.The truth is, you want to run and moderate the forum....Here's an example, from a few years back, of you telling John Simkin how he should run his forum, where you got your panties in a bunch and gave us a preview of the future. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6130 ....and now you have the audacity to start a thread critcizing the Education Forum of some double standard..You are the double standard.I'm going to be very surprised if your plea turns into a sing along with Len Colby.Your motives are clear, For anyone that has had to sift through your garbage whilst legitimate attempts of debate and discussion are give little or no chance to breath.
  14. Well I guess that makes TWO of us so thank you. I have been very lonely up to now. But I am still not following you. If Lee Oswald was completely innocent, as I maintain (and I thought you did too) then following him will lead you exactly where it has lead AMERICANS up to now for the last forty-odd years, Which is completely NOWHERE! I agree.The whole investigation into Oswald has led nowhere.Just where it was supposed to.
  15. Hello Mr.Carroll,I also believe Oswald to be innocent.I think Oswald is the ultimate red herring inserted into the picture from the very beginning.47 years later, probably 50%,or more,of JFK assassination books,articles,documentaries,and internet discussions are still dominated about Oswald in one way or another...IMHO,Oswald was more likely to have been attempting to prevent the assassination of JFK, in the weeks leading up to it, than participating in the plot.The perfect red herring.The crime of the century,it really was easy.Just follow that Oswald.
  • Create New...