Would An Agent Have Done That?

[Jack White]

I'm coming away from this "discussion"--and I use the term only because Dr. Lifton and Pat Speer have kept it from becoming the written equivalent of a "lynching"--with a great deal of respect for Dr. Lifton...and a lower opinion of Dr. Fetzer. Josiah Thompson's SSID was, in its day, a bombshell dropped on 'the establishment'...whether it was derivative of Dr. Lifton's work or not. In the '60's, I had never heard of RAMPARTS...but I sure as hell knew The Saturday Evening Post. I thank Josiah Thompson for opening the door, even if only a crack by today's standards. He may not deserve a monument in Dealy Plaza, but IMHO he doesn't deserve the accusations being thrown about.

Ans, as others have pointed out, all this discussion of Josiah Thompson is, indeed, taking away from the examination of the evidence. So PLEASE...let's go back to arguing over the evidence, rather than the [real or imagined credentials] of those presenting the evidence.

Researchers and their work are CENTRAL to any JFK evidence discussion.

Were that untrue, the Warren Report would have stood UNCHALLENGED.

There is great disagreement over the EVIDENCE. That is because RESEARCHERS

have shown us anomalies. To dismiss researchers as unimportant is fallacious.

Researchers may disagree over the evidence, but who those researchers are

is of great importance.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Jerry Logan has written an elegant and logical reply--one that addresses the corrupt logic and paranoid style that lays behind this sort of "agent" accusation.

I strongly disagree with Thompson (very strongly disagree, in fact) on a number issues, and even have been exasperated by some of the positions he takes, failing to understand why he doesn't believe A, but rather believes B. That happens a lot. But no, I do NOT believe that he is an agent.

Further, I agree with Logan: it diverts attention from the issues, to the person. Stick to the issues; take apart your opponent on the facts; but be very careful when getting into a conspiracy theory to explain your opponent's behavior.

For example, Pamela: you claim to have seen the Zapruder film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the Fall of 1964, and I have (elsewhere, on another thread) set forth my numerous (and valid) reasons for believing why that cannot possibly be true. Why I believe you're spreading an urban legend; why what you're saying belongs on Snopes dot com. Now, I could carry this further and speculate as to why you would disseminate such a clearly impossible claim. That would lead to conjectures about your psychological state (and would be really besides the point, would it not)? But let's say I were to travel down that path. Then, that line of "reasoning" could be carried a step further, to the political arena--perhaps by alleging that by putting someone up to spreading such a false claim on the Internet, circa 2010, you are acting as the agent of some conspirators whose goal is to influence future generations who should forget how the film was totally quarantined, and off limits, but instead remember the claim of that lady who says it was screened in a New York City cinema in the fall of 1964. All very Orwellian (right?). Well, wrong. That's absurd, of course. But my point is: I could view matters through that most peculiar lens, and come up with a conspiracy theory re your motivation.

Now here's another example. I happen to believe--strongly believe--that there was a hole in the windshield (I have no doubt about that at all, as a matter of fact) and furthermore, I believe that Doug Weldon's work is very important AND valid. You take issue with it. Well, not only might I disagree with your interpretation of the data, and your criticisms of his his interpretation; but in addition, I come up with a conspiracy theory to explain WHY you take the position(s) you do--i.e., that you are an "agent" sent out to destroy Weldon.

Now. . let's see. . what might my evidence be? . . hmmm. . . well now, isn't it the case that you were visited by Ken Rahn, the notorious lone nutter who runs a website with all sorts of defenses of the lone nutter theory? Why, isn't it the case that there are even pictures of you and him (and I believe your significant other) cavorting socially? . etc etc. . . Oh my gosh. . look at this web of associations!

But all this is quite beside the point, is it not? You're not a "government agent" any more than Josiah Thompson is an agent. You just happen to hold a set of beliefs (with regard to the windshield) that I believe to be completely incorrect. Does that make you an agent. As for your allegedly viewing the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in 1964? A claim that is so far out that I have to resort to words like "absurd," "ridiculous" and "totally unbelievable" to describe my reaction? In fact, I get personally irritated every time I think of Stewart Galanor or Thom Stamm taking a train to Washington, D.C. to view the Zapruder film at the Archives, while you are glibly claiming you saw it in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, within weeks of the release of the Warren Report. I may even ask "what were you smoking?" (that night), but no--I do not think you were an agent, sent out by malevolent forces to change the history of 1964.

You are free of course to go down that path. . .Swift boating your opponent. . .(as Logan has put it). . .in effect erecting a "conspiracy theory of motivation" for an intellectual opponent.

All I can tell you is: that way madness lies.

DSL

1/7/10; 7:15 PM, PST

Los Angeles, CA

PS: What WERE you smoking that night??

Thank you for this, David. You are a gentleman and a scholar and show the courage of your convictions. I commend both you and Jerry for your posts .... cries of reason in a rather bizarre wilderness.

Meeting people on the evidence is indeed the only way we can make progress; getting bogged down in this personal nonsense serves only to demean us all. You and I have been friends for years despite our distinct differences in perspective on the evidence. And despite those differences, not that we haven't tangled occasionally, I have never once doubted the sincerity of your beliefs or your integrity. As you know, I have always said I greatly admire you for the work you have done over the years, and your groundbreaking work in Best Evidence where you brought the medical evidence to the forefront. I actually appreciate the differences in perspective people have ... being able to hear and consider someone else's view makes us think, reconsider and helps us to grow.

As someone else I much admire noted to me recently, there's no place for character assassination in a community that is dedicated to ending assassination.

Indeed, that it happens is as obscene as it is absurd.

Bests to you, and thanks ...

Barb :-)

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, I just want to say that I appreciate the posts that you, Pam, Jack, and David have contributed to this thread.

You're welcome, Jim: You get the support of this complete stranger because, my goodness, you've earned it.

For imagine, if you will, the situation today had you, Jack White, Dave Healey, Bernice, and others on the pro-alterationist side, simply folded the tent and walked away in the face of the mockingbird consensus: Horne would have been ripped to pieces upon publication, dismissed by, say, Gary Mack, in a couple of lines - "pro-alteration, believes Greer fired at Kennedy" - and the status quo ante restored. Barb could be referencing Tink, who would in turn be deferring to Jerry, who would be agreeing with Bill while he was applauded by etc.

In summary, the ability of Doug to get a hearing is in large measure down to the work of the awkward squad. Long may they - you - prosper.

Paul

[Pamela Brown]

Jerry Logan has written an elegant and logical reply--one that addresses the corrupt logic and paranoid style that lays behind this sort of "agent" accusation.

I strongly disagree with Thompson (very strongly disagree, in fact) on a number issues, and even have been exasperated by some of the positions he takes, failing to understand why he doesn't believe A, but rather believes B. That happens a lot. But no, I do NOT believe that he is an agent.

Further, I agree with Logan: it diverts attention from the issues, to the person. Stick to the issues; take apart your opponent on the facts; but be very careful when getting into a conspiracy theory to explain your opponent's behavior.

For example, Pamela: you claim to have seen the Zapruder film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the Fall of 1964, and I have (elsewhere, on another thread) set forth my numerous (and valid) reasons for believing why that cannot possibly be true. Why I believe you're spreading an urban legend; why what you're saying belongs on Snopes dot com. Now, I could carry this further and speculate as to why you would disseminate such a clearly impossible claim. That would lead to conjectures about your psychological state (and would be really besides the point, would it not)? But let's say I were to travel down that path. Then, that line of "reasoning" could be carried a step further, to the political arena--perhaps by alleging that by putting someone up to spreading such a false claim on the Internet, circa 2010, you are acting as the agent of some conspirators whose goal is to influence future generations who should forget how the film was totally quarantined, and off limits, but instead remember the claim of that lady who says it was screened in a New York City cinema in the fall of 1964. All very Orwellian (right?). Well, wrong. That's absurd, of course. But my point is: I could view matters through that most peculiar lens, and come up with a conspiracy theory re your motivation.

Now here's another example. I happen to believe--strongly believe--that there was a hole in the windshield (I have no doubt about that at all, as a matter of fact) and furthermore, I believe that Doug Weldon's work is very important AND valid. You take issue with it. Well, not only might I disagree with your interpretation of the data, and your criticisms of his his interpretation; but in addition, I come up with a conspiracy theory to explain WHY you take the position(s) you do--i.e., that you are an "agent" sent out to destroy Weldon.

Now. . let's see. . what might my evidence be? . . hmmm. . . well now, isn't it the case that you were visited by Ken Rahn, the notorious lone nutter who runs a website with all sorts of defenses of the lone nutter theory? Why, isn't it the case that there are even pictures of you and him (and I believe your significant other) cavorting socially? . etc etc. . . Oh my gosh. . look at this web of associations!

But all this is quite beside the point, is it not? You're not a "government agent" any more than Josiah Thompson is an agent. You just happen to hold a set of beliefs (with regard to the windshield) that I believe to be completely incorrect. Does that make you an agent. As for your allegedly viewing the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in 1964? A claim that is so far out that I have to resort to words like "absurd," "ridiculous" and "totally unbelievable" to describe my reaction? In fact, I get personally irritated every time I think of Stewart Galanor or Thom Stamm taking a train to Washington, D.C. to view the Zapruder film at the Archives, while you are glibly claiming you saw it in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, within weeks of the release of the Warren Report. I may even ask "what were you smoking?" (that night), but no--I do not think you were an agent, sent out by malevolent forces to change the history of 1964.

You are free of course to go down that path. . .Swift boating your opponent. . .(as Logan has put it). . .in effect erecting a "conspiracy theory of motivation" for an intellectual opponent.

All I can tell you is: that way madness lies.

DSL

1/7/10; 7:15 PM, PST

Los Angeles, CA

PS: What WERE you smoking that night??

I don't smoke.

I fail to see how asking questions based on info in SSID has anything to do with *swiftboating*, unless you are saying that nobody else in this entire community has found it necessary to ask them?

You consider yourself an expert at hypotheses, don't you? Well try this one -- that LIFE/CIA with or without Tink's conscious involvement, seem to have created an elite researcher, with access to all that the rest of us did not have, to come down from on high and proclaim to everyone else that the Z-film is perfect in every way, and that the rest of us are just whining and complaining and need to get on with our lives, and, by the way, accept the conclusions of the WCR and stop being troublemakers.

Hmmm?

[Pamela Brown]

You seem to be living inside a bubble, Tink. Try to take a look from the outside. Here goes:

We have the film of the crime of the century. CIA becomes involved at once, and spirits off at least one copy. A script is put in place claiming that complete control has been maintained over the film. The Z-film is suppressed for years, with frames being dribbled out by LIFE here and there. At the same time, there is an underworld where rogue copies are made at least for some LIFE execs, kept in their vaults in their grand homes in Greenwich, CT. There are early viewings, some in livingrooms, at least one in a movie theater.

In you come with your wonderful ideas for a book. You have the right credentials -- Yale (Bones?), Navy (ONI?), a PhD, and you are tapped by the powers that be. They also happen to be the powers behind at least the ongoing cover-up, and maybe even the assassination itself. That doesn't phase you. You are the golden boy. You are ferried around the country for interviews with all the main witnesses. Every door is opened to you. You spend countless hours with a very good copy of the Z-film. You even feel sorry for the poor researchers at NARA who are suffering with slides and film of inferior quality to what you are using. You even realize the WC itself was sandbagged by the poor quality of slides they had available. Did you call out for a new investigation? Did you demand LIFE at least provide researchers with as good a copy as you had? Wait -- you were going to head the LIFE investigation into the assassination, weren't you? You, the super-researcher that had been hand-picked and trained by LIFE. And guess who probably gave LIFE the great idea to find a new fresh face with credibility with the CTs who could be used to counteract the growing current of dissent against the WCR and the govt?

All the time you were in NYC you were apparently oblivious to the underground around you. You were at ground zero of the holy grail of the assassination and nothing about the film or the slides caused you to wonder if it had been altered and if so how. After all these years your position has not changed.

Just what do you expect us to think?

Interesting, Pam. When Six Seconds came out I disbelieved the story that tiny charcoal sketches

were substituted for actual photocopies of frames. I wondered whether PHOTOS might reveal

things the sketches did not. Copyright was not an issue, because as in countless Disney lawsuits,

being "hand done reproductions" is not a legal point...IT PUBLICATION FOR PROFIT THAT IS

THE PROBLEM. So SSID could have used EITHER drawings or photos in the book with the same

degree of culpability...and they chose drawings. Why?

Jack

Interesting. The sketches were less controversial than the good-quality prints Tink was using, but LIFE went after the publisher of SSID anyway. But I wonder if they knew Tink was going to try to do something, and were prepared to attack either way; the strategy being perhaps to solidify Tink's stature in the CT community? David and Goliath? How irresistible.

[Josiah Thompson]

You write: "that LIFE/CIA with or without Tink's conscious involvement, seem to have created an elite researcher..."

Dick Billings and Ed Kern would have laughed their ass off to hear that.... "created an elite researcher.." To them I was that pointy-headed intellectual from Philadelphia who somehow knew where the bodies were buried in the JFK killing... that is, knew which witnesses to talk to and what to ask them.

Josiah Thompson

Jerry Logan has written an elegant and logical reply--one that addresses the corrupt logic and paranoid style that lays behind this sort of "agent" accusation.

I strongly disagree with Thompson (very strongly disagree, in fact) on a number issues, and even have been exasperated by some of the positions he takes, failing to understand why he doesn't believe A, but rather believes B. That happens a lot. But no, I do NOT believe that he is an agent.

Further, I agree with Logan: it diverts attention from the issues, to the person. Stick to the issues; take apart your opponent on the facts; but be very careful when getting into a conspiracy theory to explain your opponent's behavior.

For example, Pamela: you claim to have seen the Zapruder film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the Fall of 1964, and I have (elsewhere, on another thread) set forth my numerous (and valid) reasons for believing why that cannot possibly be true. Why I believe you're spreading an urban legend; why what you're saying belongs on Snopes dot com. Now, I could carry this further and speculate as to why you would disseminate such a clearly impossible claim. That would lead to conjectures about your psychological state (and would be really besides the point, would it not)? But let's say I were to travel down that path. Then, that line of "reasoning" could be carried a step further, to the political arena--perhaps by alleging that by putting someone up to spreading such a false claim on the Internet, circa 2010, you are acting as the agent of some conspirators whose goal is to influence future generations who should forget how the film was totally quarantined, and off limits, but instead remember the claim of that lady who says it was screened in a New York City cinema in the fall of 1964. All very Orwellian (right?). Well, wrong. That's absurd, of course. But my point is: I could view matters through that most peculiar lens, and come up with a conspiracy theory re your motivation.

Now here's another example. I happen to believe--strongly believe--that there was a hole in the windshield (I have no doubt about that at all, as a matter of fact) and furthermore, I believe that Doug Weldon's work is very important AND valid. You take issue with it. Well, not only might I disagree with your interpretation of the data, and your criticisms of his his interpretation; but in addition, I come up with a conspiracy theory to explain WHY you take the position(s) you do--i.e., that you are an "agent" sent out to destroy Weldon.

Now. . let's see. . what might my evidence be? . . hmmm. . . well now, isn't it the case that you were visited by Ken Rahn, the notorious lone nutter who runs a website with all sorts of defenses of the lone nutter theory? Why, isn't it the case that there are even pictures of you and him (and I believe your significant other) cavorting socially? . etc etc. . . Oh my gosh. . look at this web of associations!

But all this is quite beside the point, is it not? You're not a "government agent" any more than Josiah Thompson is an agent. You just happen to hold a set of beliefs (with regard to the windshield) that I believe to be completely incorrect. Does that make you an agent. As for your allegedly viewing the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in 1964? A claim that is so far out that I have to resort to words like "absurd," "ridiculous" and "totally unbelievable" to describe my reaction? In fact, I get personally irritated every time I think of Stewart Galanor or Thom Stamm taking a train to Washington, D.C. to view the Zapruder film at the Archives, while you are glibly claiming you saw it in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, within weeks of the release of the Warren Report. I may even ask "what were you smoking?" (that night), but no--I do not think you were an agent, sent out by malevolent forces to change the history of 1964.

You are free of course to go down that path. . .Swift boating your opponent. . .(as Logan has put it). . .in effect erecting a "conspiracy theory of motivation" for an intellectual opponent.

All I can tell you is: that way madness lies.

DSL

1/7/10; 7:15 PM, PST

Los Angeles, CA

PS: What WERE you smoking that night??

I don't smoke.

I fail to see how asking questions based on info in SSID has anything to do with *swiftboating*, unless you are saying that nobody else in this entire community has found it necessary to ask them?

You consider yourself an expert at hypotheses, don't you? Well try this one -- that LIFE/CIA with or without Tink's conscious involvement, seem to have created an elite researcher, with access to all that the rest of us did not have, to come down from on high and proclaim to everyone else that the Z-film is perfect in every way, and that the rest of us are just whining and complaining and need to get on with our lives, and, by the way, accept the conclusions of the WCR and stop being troublemakers.

Hmmm?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Great points, Pamela. Tink, Stop ducking and weaving, running and hiding! All we want to know is (1) where do you stand on the medical evidence in relation to the Zapruder film today (the issue you did not confront in your book) and (2) if Doug's summary of the eight Hollywood experts is accurate, then would you concede that the film is a fake and that you were mistaken all along?

Jerry Logan has written an elegant and logical reply--one that addresses the corrupt logic and paranoid style that lays behind this sort of "agent" accusation.

I strongly disagree with Thompson (very strongly disagree, in fact) on a number issues, and even have been exasperated by some of the positions he takes, failing to understand why he doesn't believe A, but rather believes B. That happens a lot. But no, I do NOT believe that he is an agent.

Further, I agree with Logan: it diverts attention from the issues, to the person. Stick to the issues; take apart your opponent on the facts; but be very careful when getting into a conspiracy theory to explain your opponent's behavior.

For example, Pamela: you claim to have seen the Zapruder film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the Fall of 1964, and I have (elsewhere, on another thread) set forth my numerous (and valid) reasons for believing why that cannot possibly be true. Why I believe you're spreading an urban legend; why what you're saying belongs on Snopes dot com. Now, I could carry this further and speculate as to why you would disseminate such a clearly impossible claim. That would lead to conjectures about your psychological state (and would be really besides the point, would it not)? But let's say I were to travel down that path. Then, that line of "reasoning" could be carried a step further, to the political arena--perhaps by alleging that by putting someone up to spreading such a false claim on the Internet, circa 2010, you are acting as the agent of some conspirators whose goal is to influence future generations who should forget how the film was totally quarantined, and off limits, but instead remember the claim of that lady who says it was screened in a New York City cinema in the fall of 1964. All very Orwellian (right?). Well, wrong. That's absurd, of course. But my point is: I could view matters through that most peculiar lens, and come up with a conspiracy theory re your motivation.

Now here's another example. I happen to believe--strongly believe--that there was a hole in the windshield (I have no doubt about that at all, as a matter of fact) and furthermore, I believe that Doug Weldon's work is very important AND valid. You take issue with it. Well, not only might I disagree with your interpretation of the data, and your criticisms of his his interpretation; but in addition, I come up with a conspiracy theory to explain WHY you take the position(s) you do--i.e., that you are an "agent" sent out to destroy Weldon.

Now. . let's see. . what might my evidence be? . . hmmm. . . well now, isn't it the case that you were visited by Ken Rahn, the notorious lone nutter who runs a website with all sorts of defenses of the lone nutter theory? Why, isn't it the case that there are even pictures of you and him (and I believe your significant other) cavorting socially? . etc etc. . . Oh my gosh. . look at this web of associations!

But all this is quite beside the point, is it not? You're not a "government agent" any more than Josiah Thompson is an agent. You just happen to hold a set of beliefs (with regard to the windshield) that I believe to be completely incorrect. Does that make you an agent. As for your allegedly viewing the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in 1964? A claim that is so far out that I have to resort to words like "absurd," "ridiculous" and "totally unbelievable" to describe my reaction? In fact, I get personally irritated every time I think of Stewart Galanor or Thom Stamm taking a train to Washington, D.C. to view the Zapruder film at the Archives, while you are glibly claiming you saw it in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, within weeks of the release of the Warren Report. I may even ask "what were you smoking?" (that night), but no--I do not think you were an agent, sent out by malevolent forces to change the history of 1964.

You are free of course to go down that path. . .Swift boating your opponent. . .(as Logan has put it). . .in effect erecting a "conspiracy theory of motivation" for an intellectual opponent.

All I can tell you is: that way madness lies.

DSL

1/7/10; 7:15 PM, PST

Los Angeles, CA

PS: What WERE you smoking that night??

I don't smoke.

I fail to see how asking questions based on info in SSID has anything to do with *swiftboating*, unless you are saying that nobody else in this entire community has found it necessary to ask them?

You consider yourself an expert at hypotheses, don't you? Well try this one -- that LIFE/CIA with or without Tink's conscious involvement, seem to have created an elite researcher, with access to all that the rest of us did not have, to come down from on high and proclaim to everyone else that the Z-film is perfect in every way, and that the rest of us are just whining and complaining and need to get on with our lives, and, by the way, accept the conclusions of the WCR and stop being troublemakers.

Hmmm?

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

(2) if Doug's summary of the eight Hollywood experts is accurate, then would you concede that the film is a fake and that you were mistaken all along?

I haven't seen Doug's report on this yet, but I gather that the Hollywood

people found fakery in the head shot frames.

That would indicate that the film contains faked frames, not that the

entire film is faked.

Again, the Zapruder film Z186-Z255 shows clear evidence pointing to CIA

involvement, and yet we are being asked to dismiss the entire film?

Why is that, Jim?

Edited January 9, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[William Kelly]

(2) if Doug's summary of the eight Hollywood experts is accurate, then would you concede that the film is a fake and that you were mistaken all along?

I haven't seen Doug's report on this yet, but I gather that the Hollywood

people found fakery in the head shot frames.

That would indicate that the film contains faked frames, not that the

entire film is faked.

Again, the Zapruder film Z186-Z255 shows clear evidence pointing to CIA

involvement, and yet we are being asked to dismiss the entire film?

Why is that, Jim?

Cliff, what exactly is the clear evidence pointing to CIA involvement again?

I must have missed it in those frames.

BK

[Jack White]

(2) if Doug's summary of the eight Hollywood experts is accurate, then would you concede that the film is a fake and that you were mistaken all along?

I haven't seen Doug's report on this yet, but I gather that the Hollywood

people found fakery in the head shot frames.

That would indicate that the film contains faked frames, not that the

entire film is faked.

Again, the Zapruder film Z186-Z255 shows clear evidence pointing to CIA

involvement, and yet we are being asked to dismiss the entire film?

Why is that, Jim?

Cliff...Jim has repeatedly posted a list of MANY REASONS THAT THE ENTIRE FILM IS FAKED,

so your question has been answered over and over and over. Does nobody read what

is posted here?

Jim...post the long list of reasons again for the entire film being faked....just for the benefit of Cliff.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

(2) if Doug's summary of the eight Hollywood experts is accurate, then would you concede that the film is a fake and that you were mistaken all along?

I haven't seen Doug's report on this yet, but I gather that the Hollywood

people found fakery in the head shot frames.

That would indicate that the film contains faked frames, not that the

entire film is faked.

Again, the Zapruder film Z186-Z255 shows clear evidence pointing to CIA

involvement, and yet we are being asked to dismiss the entire film?

Why is that, Jim?

Cliff, what exactly is the clear evidence pointing to CIA involvement again?

I must have missed it in those frames.

BK

Circa Z190-Z230. Do you see JFK become paralyzed in two seconds

consistent with known CIA operations involving blood soluble paralytics?

This isn't my observation. the prosectors concluded immediately after

the autopsy that JFK had been hit with blood soluble rounds, and the FBI guys

at the autopsy actually initiated an investigation that was cut short.

The Zapruder film, and the neck x-ray are powerful corroboration for this

conclusion.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[William Kelly]

(2) if Doug's summary of the eight Hollywood experts is accurate, then would you concede that the film is a fake and that you were mistaken all along?

I haven't seen Doug's report on this yet, but I gather that the Hollywood

people found fakery in the head shot frames.

That would indicate that the film contains faked frames, not that the

entire film is faked.

Again, the Zapruder film Z186-Z255 shows clear evidence pointing to CIA

involvement, and yet we are being asked to dismiss the entire film?

Why is that, Jim?

Cliff, what exactly is the clear evidence pointing to CIA involvement again?

I must have missed it in those frames.

BK

Circa Z190-Z230. Do you see JFK become paralyzed in two seconds

consistent with known CIA operations involving blood soluble paralytics?

This isn't my observation. the prosectors concluded immediately after

the autopsy that JFK had been hit with blood soluble rounds, and the FBI guys

at the autopsy actually initiated an investigation that was cut short.

The Zapruder film, and the neck x-ray are powerful corroboration for this

conclusion.

Thanks,

I just didn't realize that the CIA had a monopoly on blood soluble paralytics.

BK

[Cliff Varnell]

(2) if Doug's summary of the eight Hollywood experts is accurate, then would you concede that the film is a fake and that you were mistaken all along?

I haven't seen Doug's report on this yet, but I gather that the Hollywood

people found fakery in the head shot frames.

That would indicate that the film contains faked frames, not that the

entire film is faked.

Again, the Zapruder film Z186-Z255 shows clear evidence pointing to CIA

involvement, and yet we are being asked to dismiss the entire film?

Why is that, Jim?

Cliff...Jim has repeatedly posted a list of MANY REASONS THAT THE ENTIRE FILM IS FAKED,

so your question has been answered over and over and over. Does nobody read what

is posted here?

Jim...post the long list of reasons again for the entire film being faked....just for the benefit of Cliff.

Jack

Spare me. We've already had this discussion.

Zap alterationists have offered no reason to believe that Z186 thru Z255

are faked-- and I'm talking about JFK in the limo, not the people standing on Elm.

[Cliff Varnell]

(2) if Doug's summary of the eight Hollywood experts is accurate, then would you concede that the film is a fake and that you were mistaken all along?

I haven't seen Doug's report on this yet, but I gather that the Hollywood

people found fakery in the head shot frames.

That would indicate that the film contains faked frames, not that the

entire film is faked.

Again, the Zapruder film Z186-Z255 shows clear evidence pointing to CIA

involvement, and yet we are being asked to dismiss the entire film?

Why is that, Jim?

Cliff, what exactly is the clear evidence pointing to CIA involvement again?

I must have missed it in those frames.

BK

Circa Z190-Z230. Do you see JFK become paralyzed in two seconds

consistent with known CIA operations involving blood soluble paralytics?

This isn't my observation. the prosectors concluded immediately after

the autopsy that JFK had been hit with blood soluble rounds, and the FBI guys

at the autopsy actually initiated an investigation that was cut short.

The Zapruder film, and the neck x-ray are powerful corroboration for this

conclusion.

Thanks,

I just didn't realize that the CIA had a monopoly on blood soluble paralytics.

BK

You tell me.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

These weapons were developed to silence guard dogs in two seconds.

If evidence of others producing such weapons is uncovered, we can add

those to our suspect list.

But as of right now, given what we know, four people should have been

brought in for questioning the morning after the assassination: Richard Helms,

Sidney Gottlieb, Charles Senseney, and Mitchell L. WerBell 3.

[Cliff Varnell]

While I do believe the Z-Film was altered for the most sinister of reasons, It is also correct to point out that it could still contain some possibly important information. However, one would have to be mighty careful, as the timing seems to have been tampered with, many of the images in many of the frames. Even several to many frames removed completely. At least one mis-numbered and one reversed. It can no longer be used as a clock and nothing can be taken at face value.

I vigorously disagree. Compare JFK's posture in Betzner 3 (Z186), Willis 5 (Z202), and

Altgens 6 (Z255) -- they synch up. Z186-Z255 match the witness testimony of those

with the best view of Kennedy: Jackie K, Nellie C, Clint Hill, the Willis family.

JFK clearly seizes up paralyzed in roughly 2 seconds circa Z190 - Z230.

I find it interesting that the people who are quickest to accuse others

of being "government disinformation agents" are the quickest to

reflexively dismiss clear evidence pointing to CIA-connected complicity

in the murder of John F. Kennedy.

I'd think Peter D. Scott's negative template may be the most appropriate 'projector' now for the Z-film.

Ah yes, Peter Dale Scott.

Like Vincent Salandria, PDS is a universally revered figure whose essential conclusions

are universally ignored.

P.D. Scott, Pittsburg, Oct 2008 (emphasis added)

For over two years now I have been speaking and writing about what I call deep events. I mean by deep events the traumatic and unexpected episodes that recur periodically in US history and alter it, nearly always for the worse. These deep events can never be properly analyzed or understood, because of an intelligence dimension which results in a socially imposed veil of silence, both in the government and in the Mainstream Media.

The more that I look at these deep events comparatively, ranging over the past five decades, the more similarities I see between them, and the more I understand them in the light of each other. I hope in this paper to use analogies from the murder of JFK and 9/11 to cast new light on the murders of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy.

I began this analysis in 2006 by comparing the JFK assassination with 9/11. I drew attention to over a dozen similarities, of which today I will be focusing on only four:

1) the remarkable and puzzling speed with which those in power identified what I call the designated culprits (Lee Harvey Oswald and the 19 alleged hijackers),

2) the self-incriminating trail allegedly left by the culprits themselves – such as the bundle that James Earl Ray is said to have conveniently left in a doorway on his way to his car. Oswald was said to have carried a flagrantly falsified draft card identifying himself with the name A.J. Hidell, thus consolidating a link between himself and the Mannlicher-Carcano which had been ordered under that name. Even more spectacularly, Mohamed Atta was said to have left one rental car in the Boston airport, filled with boxcutters and other incriminating items; he then allegedly rented a second car and drove to Maine, where he packed bags with still more self-incriminating material.

3) the CIA's withholding of relevant information about the designated culprits from the FBI, thus leaving the culprits free to play their allotted roles on 9/11. I will say more about this.

4) the role of drug-trafficking in both JFK and 9/11 – and indeed in virtually every major deep event since JFK, specifically including MLK, RFK, Watergate, the Letelier assassination, and Iran-Contra.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Cliff Varnell