Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

David Andrews

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Andrews

  1. Who financed the JFK hit?

    Don't forget bribery of officials. There had to be some of that, because you can't threaten everybody and promise everything, and not everybody looks the other way for free. From all accounts , there had to be cash floating from a number of interests (Teamsters, Mob, Cubans, right-wingers, maybe JBS, etc.) who each thought they were financing something at ground level. But any large-sum bribery, and also any Defense operations funding, had to come from black sources, governmental or corporate.
  2. OK, from photo above, that's one bank of four tallish two-section window per floor. And it looks even more like that's public space back there, not narrow offices with one window each. In Keyvan's muzzle flash videos - those cameramen are within 20 feet of the shooter, not across the street and below. So I'm thinking that large "flash" is lost emulsion. Someone who knows film stock or the Hughes film better ought to weigh in.
  3. Sorry - posting at work again. I really do know the differance, I'm just not used to shot theories from the CRB windows. Here's a take: 1) The issue of figures and movement in that CRB window has been discussed in a past thread. 2) That movement doesn't look particularly stealthy in Bronson. It looks like someone leaning out and waving, maybe waving an object. 3) Whoever or whatever that is in the window, it's up awfully high in that window, if that window fits a conventional floor plan. Perhaps these modernist windows only have an opening section at the top, for ventilation. Possibly someone's on a ladder indoors. 4) A modernist-design window in a façade such as that usually fronts an interior public space such as a corridor, not a secluded office. (Though it could be otherwise in the CRB floor plan.) So maybe not a lot of privacy for a rifleman. 5) I don't think there's a muzzle flash visible in Hughes. I think that white light is a loss of emulsion in that spot. You can see lines of white light/emulsion loss in Hughes just a few moments later. However, that "flash" in Hughes may occur over several film frames, which is suspicious. Could the emulsion be scraped away to conceal something? 6) Could the emulsion loss be due to continued viewing of the film? The large burn during the limo turn is ostensibly the result of continued rewinding and pausing of the original. Could that have caused the emulsion loss "flash" also? 7) There is no way to tell from a video transfer posted online if that's a muzzle flash or emulsion loss. One would have to examine the original Hughes film frames. But I'm betting that's emulsion loss in that frame or frames, from one cause or another.
  4. I don't know why I don't see the flash in Hughes, either. Is it in the window with the man sitting below it on the fire escape? Part of my viewing problem is that 0:34 coincides with a jump cut to a closer perspective on the later cars in the motorcade. If someone could isolate the relevant before-during-after video frames as stills, it would be a help.
  5. I'll bite, Keyvan, because I'm like that. Where is that flash, exactly? Camouflaged in the burned frame(s)?
  6. The Paine Files

    The 1960s-ubiquitous Porta-file boxes: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1950s-RETRO-Vintage-PORTA-FILE-GREY-Metal-Box-Hamilton-Skotch-/272614063027?hash=item3f79107bb3:g:~eYAAOSwx6pYq1GJ
  7. Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    As if. We hold it self-evident that the back threads of this Forum offer ample evidence against, on all proposable grounds.
  8. Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    Just to say: No knock here at Mark Knight for reminding us of the Plumlee interview, which - like Plumlee's past posts on this Forum - are well worth study.
  9. Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    Plumlee: Well, as we say in CIA. "There's many, many rogues out there." If people were saying that at CIA, it tends to sound like a cynical cop-out - just as disingenuous as it sounds coming from Plumlee. The quotation carries its own implicit meaning that "many" rogues were sanctioned by authority to carry out policy as cut-outs for the policymakers in office. "My goodness, all these rogues! Why are we not putting a stop to this? We're up to our a** in rogues out here!" I mean. really - for how many decades is this dodge supposed to work? Why does it work on you, George? "Rogues" equals "Nobody's guilty." "Blasted rogues, they've killed our president! Something must be done." But nothing was, until some "rogues" were under subpoena. Why was that, exactly? EDITED FOR CLARITY
  10. Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    Rogue thoughts from Tosh Plumlee: Well, as we say in CIA. "There's many, many rogues out there." You have just as many rogues in Mafia. * * * That's why I don't feel that any direct involvement on a high level from our government was involved in the Kennedy assassination but I certainly believe that there were certainly rogues within CIA, rogues within military intelligence, rogues within Mafia, and rogues within high-ups in the National Security Council that was certainly aware that an attempt was gonna be made. Apparently there was a stampede of inculpability upon the land, approaching the proportions of a disaster movie. Tosh Plumlee Transcript
  11. Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    In the YouTube film: People ran up the knoll to take shelter from the rooftop shooter? After the limo had left the Plaza? And the motorcycle cop ran up there for shelter, too? Junk, Junk, Junk. Does that YouTube guy make money for every viewing? Let's not pay him.
  12. Bobby Baker talks about the Senate

    Be sure to read Bakers full interview (200+ pages) for the Senate history office, which is linked to in the article. It's slow reading, but will reward you with an exhibition of how the sausages are made, and demonstrate that the 20th century Senate was little different from the Senate in the days of Thomas Nast's political cartoons.
  13. Tracking Oswald Part 5

    I'm supposing that their brand of empirical science precluded firing a frontal shot through the area above the right temple?
  14. Three Tramps.

    Some things to consider: Did Lansdale really know three guys like the tramps personally? Know somebody like, say, Charles Harrelson, personally? Did these three matter enough to him for Lansdale to walk by and give them the "high sign"? If that is Lansdale in the photo, he may have seen the three tramps approaching under "police escort," and taken a stroll past them for a simple reconnaissance, without necessarily knowing them. Where is that "Lansdale" figure heading, anyway? He's not on Elm Street, he's on the Elm Street extension that leads to the parking lot behind the knoll. Did he go to the parking lot, or cut back to Elm Street? Don Roberdeau, in a post above, reports research that cites the tramps-Lansdale picture as taken c. 2:19 PM. Is the "Lansdale" figure in any other photos or film taken at that time?
  15. Henry Hecksher

    Paul - I agree. With the intermingling of US and German corporate entities (GE, IG Farben, etc., operating in both countries) before the war, there had to be extra-governmental intel pooling, which I'm sure helped Sullivan Cromwell mesh Brown Brothers with Thyssen. Paperclip and the Gehlen network were, more accurately, sold on the basis of the government's isolationism, not the corporations'.
  16. Henry Hecksher

    Interesting to speculate on how much our need for Nazi-origin intelligence on Russia may have been caused by the American 20th-century isolationism that resisted our entrance into both World Wars. That and perhaps a tendency to ignore the Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution could not be reversed.
  17. Veciana and the CIA

    I'm-a get the book and straighten this out. Bottom line: Fonzi was impressed enough to recommend perjury charges against Phillips. It may have meant a battle of He Said v. He Said that wouldn't hold in court. but the intent was inspired by something Fonzi witnessed.
  18. Cord Meyer and the Assassination of JFK

    If I remember, the source for that attributed quotation was C. David Heymann, whose books have been widely discredited: https://www.bing.com/search?q=david heymann jfk&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=david heymann jfk&sc=0-17&sk=&cvid=233374CD85A149FDB6FB7053E6B2ED87
  19. David Morales

    Perhaps he did him a favor once.
  20. Veciana and the CIA

    Again, I don't have Fonzi's book in the house, but my recollection is that Fonzi meant that Phillips violated "basic tradecraft" by being spooked when he encountered Veciana in Reston, VA. He later denied knowing Veciana twice on the day Fonzi brought Veciana to confront Phillips during his HSCA testimony.
  21. David Morales

    To play devil's advocate - DeMohrenschildt was for a time an associate of Jacqueline Bouvier's family, and knew the First Lady as a child, which weakens the "habit of writing high level people" quirk angle a bit.
  22. Veciana and the CIA

    I don't have the Fonzi book in front of me, but here from Spartacus is a Fonzi interview excerpt regarding the first time Fonzi brought Phillips and Veciana together in Reston, VA, which led to Fonzi recommending to Robert Blakey that Phillips be charged with perjury for denying knowing Veciana: (5) Gaeton Fonzi, interviewed on 8th October, 1994. Veciana was introduced by name to Phillips twice, once in the banquet hall and once in the hallway. Phillips even asked that it be repeated and then, when Veciana asked him, "Don't you remember my name?" Phillips responded, "No." As Veciana himself later pointed out, that was odd considering that Veciana had been exceptionally well-known in anti-Castro activity, being the founder, key fund-raiser and spokesman for Alpha 66, the largest and most militant anti-Castro group. It was odd because anti-Castro activity was the heart and soul of Phillips' mission during the period in question. It was impossible for Phillips not to know or remember Veciana's name. Phillips had simply been caught off-guard by Veciana's surprise appearance at Reston and had a little "slip of tradecraft." Phillips himself must have later realized that because later, under oath during his Committee testimony, he decided the only way he could rectify that "slip of tradecraft" was to lie and say that Veciana was never introduced to him by name at that encounter. I urged Chief Counsel Bob Blakey to recommend Phillips be charged with perjury, since we had three witnesses to that Reston encounter: myself, Veciana and an aide from Senator Schweiker's office. Blakey declined to take on the CIA. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKphillips.htm
  23. Veciana and the CIA

    But Phillips knew Veciana, and seemed to have some guilty knowledge when he was confronted with Veciana. In The Last Investigation, Gaeton Fonzi published his eyewitness account of bringing Veciana to Phillips' testimony session before HSCA. Phillips reacted as if he'd seen a ghost, and refused to talk to Veciana. I believe Phillips fled the room. See Fonzi's book for the entire action. As Phillips was testifying before a commission specially investigating assassinations, gee - why was he spooked when Veciana appeared?
  24. Veciana and the CIA

    Remember that Howard Hunt was, allegedly, once going by "Knight."
  25. Veciana and the CIA

    On a lower operational level, but yes. My sense is that there were migratory field names at CIA, and they were used to confuse field contacts and destroy culpability, but perhaps also to certify persons dropping the name ( e. g., "Bishop") to other persons observing an op at CIA.