Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Worst Books Ever on the JFK Assassination


Guest Robert Morrow

Recommended Posts

If we could only photoshop the picture of DVP at KFC or whatever into that You Tube clip.

And then slowly place feathers on him.

On a more serious note, I ran across this recently on the website

http://www.rigorousinstitution.ca

http://rigorousintui...php?f=8&t=11669

A novel that unsuspectedly described the spy next door

When Norman Mailer began his novel Barbary Shore, there was no plan to have a Russian spy as a character. As he worked on it, he introduced a Russian spy in the U.S. as a minor character. As the work progressed, the spy became the dominant character in the novel. After the novel was completed, the U.S. Immigration Service arrested a man who lived just one floor above Mailer in the same apartment building. He was Colonel Rudolf Abel, alleged to be the top Russian spy working in the U.S. at that time. (Source: Science Digest)

I found that pretty interesting, in light of his really suspect tome on Oswald, with an assist by Lawrence Schiller.

If you don't believe it was a coincidence, that places Mailer in a rather interesting light considering the year Rudolf Abel was arrested was in 1957.

On June 21 1957 a photographer by the name of Martin Collins a.k.a Kayutis a.k.a Goldfuss a.k.a Col Rudolf Ivanovich Abel was arrested in New York. His real name was allegedly Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.

Also See

http://www.maryferre...0&relPageId=423

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's a great website, Robert, and I've read that info on Mailer only recently...The Blog owner of Rigorisintuition has a collection of articles in book form.

An author called Peter Lavenda has written of Mailer as well, in his "Sinister forces" trilogy. Mailer contributed the forward to, I think, the second volume?

Lavenda talks about some of these "coincidences" surrounding Mailer...interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

That's a great website, Robert, and I've read that info on Mailer only recently...The Blog owner of Rigorisintuition has a collection of articles in book form.

An author called Peter Lavenda has written of Mailer as well, in his "Sinister forces" trilogy. Mailer contributed the forward to, I think, the second volume?

Lavenda talks about some of these "coincidences" surrounding Mailer...interesting.

I have been meaning to get this off my chest for quite awhile......

"A SIMPLE ACT OF MURDER" by Mark Fuhrman, Stephen Week (2006) 232 pages. Publisher: William Morrow & Co. ISBN: 0060721545. The former Los Angeles County police detective who gained fame and notoriety in the O.J. Simpson murder trial sifts through the mountain of evidence from the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and comes up with a new take on the events. Fuhrman is procedural and skeptical as he shares his professional insights on evidence and forensics, disposes quickly of some elaborate theories, and probes into new directions. The former LAPD detective and best-selling author of Murder in Greenwich takes his own look at the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, re-examining the hard evidence of the crime and the testimony of hundreds of witnesses to cut through the myths and misinformation about the murder.

Robert:.....Don King made the phrase "only in America" a commentary on various success stories, I would add Only in America can you screw up up the crime scene at the Brentwood Mansion and use that "fame" to catapult you into the category of uniquely qualified to tackle the JFK Assassination......Yes Only in America......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about it, Robert?

NOTE: No one who has actually read even the Preface and the Prologue to HOAX could possibly make this claim. Just to

cite ONE of its contributions, I point out that frame 374 actually shows the blow-out to the back of the head. I know

that others, like Pat Speer, who want to disregard the multiple and consistent reports from experienced and competent

physicians at Parkland hospital, want to bury their head in the sand and ignore the obvious fakery in the film. But I

had thought that Robert Morrow was above that. It dismays me that, even after I have patiently taken him through the

way in which he can discover for himself that the film has been altered, he puts HOAX on his list of one of the worst

books on JFK. That is his new ad hominem. The contributors include some of the best students of the case to tackle

it, including David Mantik, John Costella, Jack White, David Healy, and David Lifton. Including it is simply absurd.

Robert,

You are far too intelligent to pass through this life and not appreciate the extent to which the government went to

conceal the true causes of the death of JFK. If they would alter the autopsy X-rays, substitute someone else's brain,

post agents at the photo processing plants around Dallas for two weeks to make sure they got all the photos and

films, steal the body and alter the wounds (by surgery to the head and mutilating the throat wound), why would you

think they would be squeamish about reworking the film, when it would have given the game away? You know that

Greer brought the limo to a halt after bullets began to be fired, which is only one of at least fifteen indications of

Secret Service complicity in the assassination, do you not? Leaving that in would have blown the case wide open.

There are five physical properties that distinguish the original (developed in Dallas) from the substitute (developed

in Rochester). I am talking about properties of the strips of celluloid, respectively. So we know there were different

films. The chain of custody of the original was clearly broken, since one was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, the

23rd, where it was studied by one team of specialists, the other on Sunday, the 24th, where it was studied by another

team of specialists. The second film appears to have been a transitional version in relation to what we have today

since Homer McMahon, who worked on it Sunday night to prepare a briefing board of hits to passengers for an

unspecified official, reported observing six to eight impacts, which is certainly not what we see in the film today.

There are many features beyond the blow-out to the left-rear that are not seen in the current version of the film,

including brains and blood strewn across the trunk and JFK's motions under the impact of the two head shots he

received after Greer brought the limo to a halt: he fell forward from the hit to the back of his head, then Jackie

eased him up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple by the frangible bullet

that blew his brains out to the left-rear with such force that Officer Hargis, when hit by the debris, though that

he himself had been shot. No witness, by the way, reported the back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's body that

is such a prominent feature of the extant film. The bulging of brains (called the "blob") to the right-front of his

head as well as the blood spray were painted in, while the massive defect (visible in frame 374) was painted out.

Here are some resources I would invite you to consider if you want to understand how we know that the film is

a fake and why it had to be altered. Dawn is not quite right when she suggests that the term "alteration" is a

better term than "fabrication", because each of its frames had to be reshot (using an optical printer) in order to

create a series of images around the sprocket areas (called "ghost panels") which link successive frames due

to images that are created when a film is exposed because of the properties of light relative to its mechanisms.

If they had not reshot the frames (in a laboratory), the deception would have been immediately apparent, since

the non-consecutive "ghost panels" would have exposed the deception. They had to change the film's content.

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

Then watch John Costella's "Introduction to the JFK Film Hoax"

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

You might want to start with the last on my list, which is John Costella's video introduction to the faking of the

film. John has a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which means he is an expert on

the properties of light in relation to the physics of moving bodies. I like Robert Groden personally, but he is not

a scientist and cannot compare with John in relation to technical and scientific questions about the film. I do

not know what he told you, but if you simply compare frame 374 with 313-316, it should be obvious where

the blow-out to the back of the head, which is visible in frame 374, has been painted over black in 313-316.

You may also want to take a look at "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK", which I have linked before.

In the process of recreating the film, they removed multiple impacts of bullets on bodies and shortened the time

line, which means that, for anyone who takes the film to be authentic, it becomes impossible to reconstruct what

actually happened. They did not only remove the limo stop, but also placed Mary Moorman and Jean Hill back on

the grass, when they had both stepped out into the street, where Jean called to JFK and Mary took the picture for

which she is know. Officer Chaney, who was riding to the right-rear, motored forward to inform Chief Curry the

president had been hit, which John discovered when he complied a record of the eyewitness reports about the

shooting, which is archived at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html When he explained to me what he had

found, I published an article about it, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

What about it, Robert?

NOTE: No one who has actually read even the Preface and the Prologue to HOAX could possibly make this claim. Just to

cite ONE of its contributions, I point out that frame 374 actually shows the blow-out to the back of the head. I know

that others, like Pat Speer, who want to disregard the multiple and consistent reports from experienced and competent

physicians at Parkland hospital, want to bury their head in the sand and ignore the obvious fakery in the film. But I

had thought that Robert Morrow was above that. It dismays me that, even after I have patiently taken him through the

way in which he can discover for himself that the film has been altered, he puts HOAX on his list of one of the worst

books on JFK. That is his new ad hominem. The contributors include some of the best students of the case to tackle

it, including David Mantik, John Costella, Jack White, David Healy, and David Lifton. Including it is simply absurd.

Robert,

You are far too intelligent to pass through this life and not appreciate the extent to which the government went to

conceal the true causes of the death of JFK. If they would alter the autopsy X-rays, substitute someone else's brain,

post agents at the photo processing plants around Dallas for two weeks to make sure they got all the photos and

films, steal the body and alter the wounds (by surgery to the head and mutilating the throat wound), why would you

think they would be squeamish about reworking the film, when it would have given the game away? You know that

Greer brought the limo to a halt after bullets began to be fired, which is only one of at least fifteen indications of

Secret Service complicity in the assassination, do you not? Leaving that in would have blown the case wide open.

There are five physical properties that distinguish the original (developed in Dallas) from the substitute (developed

in Rochester). I am talking about properties of the strips of celluloid, respectively. So we know there were different

films. The chain of custody of the original was clearly broken, since one was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, the

23rd, where it was studied by one team of specialists, the other on Sunday, the 24th, where it was studied by another

team of specialists. The second film appears to have been a transitional version in relation to what we have today

since Homer McMahon, who worked on it Sunday night to prepare a briefing board of hits to passengers for an

unspecified official, reported observing six to eight impacts, which is certainly not what we see in the film today.

There are many features beyond the blow-out to the left-rear that are not seen in the current version of the film,

including brains and blood strewn across the trunk and JFK's motions under the impact of the two head shots he

received after Greer brought the limo to a halt: he fell forward from the hit to the back of his head, then Jackie

eased him up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple by the frangible bullet

that blew his brains out to the left-rear with such force that Officer Hargis, when hit by the debris, though that

he himself had been shot. No witness, by the way, reported the back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's body that

is such a prominent feature of the extant film. The bulging of brains (called the "blob") to the right-front of his

head as well as the blood spray were painted in, while the massive defect (visible in frame 374) was painted out.

Here are some resources I would invite you to consider if you want to understand how we know that the film is

a fake and why it had to be altered. Dawn is not quite right when she suggests that the term "alteration" is a

better term than "fabrication", because each of its frames had to be reshot (using an optical printer) in order to

create a series of images around the sprocket areas (called "ghost panels") which link successive frames due

to images that are created when a film is exposed because of the properties of light relative to its mechanisms.

If they had not reshot the frames (in a laboratory), the deception would have been immediately apparent, since

the non-consecutive "ghost panels" would have exposed the deception. They had to change the film's content.

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

Then watch John Costella's "Introduction to the JFK Film Hoax"

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

You might want to start with the last on my list, which is John Costella's video introduction to the faking of the

film. John has a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which means he is an expert on

the properties of light in relation to the physics of moving bodies. I like Robert Groden personally, but he is not

a scientist and cannot compare with John in relation to technical and scientific questions about the film. I do

not know what he told you, but if you simply compare frame 374 with 313-316, it should be obvious where

the blow-out to the back of the head, which is visible in frame 374, has been painted over black in 313-316.

You may also want to take a look at "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK", which I have linked before.

In the process of recreating the film, they removed multiple impacts of bullets on bodies and shortened the time

line, which means that, for anyone who takes the film to be authentic, it becomes impossible to reconstruct what

actually happened. They did not only remove the limo stop, but also placed Mary Moorman and Jean Hill back on

the grass, when they had both stepped out into the street, where Jean called to JFK and Mary took the picture for

which she is know. Officer Chaney, who was riding to the right-rear, motored forward to inform Chief Curry the

president had been hit, which John discovered when he complied a record of the eyewitness reports about the

shooting, which is archived at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html When he explained to me what he had

found, I published an article about it, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

Jim

I do not currently believe that the Zapruder film was significantly altered. I am in the camp of Robert Groden who I highly respect. I have not studied the issue at length.

As for the book Assassination Science, the reason I listed it as one of the "worst" books was its emphasis on the Zapruder film being altered significantly ... or forged or created to deceive. Having said that, this book also has a lot of very good stuff in it, as I flip through it. So for my assessment of the book, it is a mix.

Also, as others have pointed out above, in many of the "worst books" on the JFK assassination, you can learn a lot of valuable things in them. For example, Dale Meyers book With Malice has a lot of plats and maps that can be useful even if his theory is bogus.

If you used *critical thinking* you can learn from almost ANY book on the JFK assassination. Some of the bad books have golden nuggets in all the doo doo that still make them valuable. Just as I disagree with small parts of LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination and JFK and the Unspeakable, both are very fine books on the topic. I agree with the vast majority of those 2 books -on selected items I am in strong disagreement.

On the good books, I might agree with 70-99% of the content ... on the *worst* books I might agree with 1% to 10% of the content. Having said that, sometimes that 1-10% of *truth* can be extremely valuable.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Morrow Said:

"I do not currently believe that the Zapruder film was significantly altered. I am in the camp of Robert Groden who I highly respect. I have not studied the issue at length."

Question Robert:

How would you regard a "researcher" who claimed the following:

"I do not currently believe that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy. I am in the camp of Bugliosi who I highly respect. I have not studied the issue at length."

What could you determine, if anything, about the value of such a researcher's methodology? Keep in mind, this is NOT about "the researcher's ultimate conclusion" at this stage. Rather, it

is first about the soundness of the means employed to reach said conclusion. Moreover, how would you regard a researcher who further placed a book on the "best or worst of list" even

though, by their own admission, they have not thoroughly studied the issue sufficiently enough to offer any rebuttal to the salient points raised in that book?

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Robert,

Your answer to my earlier post and the questions Monk has raised are

extremely telling. I used to think that you were a serious student

of JFK. To fault the brilliant chapter by David Mantik on the film in

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), for example, as you have done, tells

me that I have misjudged you. And to list THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM

HOAX (2003) on your list of the worst books on JFK is simply absurd.

Since MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) also discusses the Zapruder

issue, I suppose you don't like it either. As a commentator on one

of your posts on amazon.com has observed, you excluded all three of

these books from a list you gave of "good books" on the assassination.

I expect that from Tink, but not from you. Even Bugliosi acknowledged

they are the only three "exclusively scientific" studies of his death.

Any student of JFK could learn more about the case--the serious side

of the case--from the Preface and the Prologue of HOAX by themselves

than from your collected works! The Prologue, for example, offers a

dozen or more examples of fraud in the evidence, which may be the key

issue for understanding the case. And for you to trash this book when,

by your own admission, you "have no studied the issue at length" is an

affront and an insult to those of us who have. At the very least, you

should acknowledge that you don't know enough to take a stand, not put

it on you list of "bad books". I am sorry to say that, on this basis, I

no longer regard you as being a competent scholar of the death of JFK.

For those who do "have time" to study one of the most contentions and

important issues in JFK research, here are some additional resources.

Over and beyond the articles cited below, I have several interviews

on the film with Rich DellaRosa on "The Real Deal", who, like Monk,

has seen "the other film" on multiple occasions. John Costella has

just done an interview with Len Osanic on "Black Op Radio" and a new

interview with Greg Burnham about the film will be broadcast on the

http://revereradio.net from 5-7 PM/CT, where the first hour features

Jesse Ventura discussing his new book, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT

DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ (2011), where the "63" was chosen because

1963 was the year in which JFK was taken out. Here are some links,

where anyone who studies EVEN ONE will know more than Robert Morrow:

ON THE FAKING OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM:

"New Proof of JFK Film Fakery"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

"Mary in the Street - Revisited"

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html

"Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?"

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-zapruder-film-zapruder-film.html

Plus John Costella has a nice tutorial into to Z-film fakery:

"THE JFK ASSASSINATION FILM HOAX: AN INTRODUCTION"

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

and there is a 66-part series about the Duluth conference I organized under

the title, "Zapruder Fakery", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert has only read like 5 books on the assassination!

He has admitted that its a waste of time to read books on the assassination!

Robert the Zapruder film was altered!

TGZFH is in my top 10 books of all time, and MIDP and Assassination Science are in my top 20 for sure

Greg and Jims posts were both spot on, how can you dismiss alteration when you claim your not familar with the subject?

Its just like you listing books on your top 50 list that you have never read! You even listed Judyth Bakers new book on your list BEFORE IT EVEN CAME OUT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

The JFK assassination was a full blown coup d'etat. In a coup d'etat one simply can not trust the official record; it is completely corrupt and *bizarre anomolies* to cover up the coup are the norm not the exception. The Zapruder Film in an of itself is 99% proof of a conspiracy because of the "back and to the left" movement of JFK's head. FBI, CIA, Secret Service, LBJ, Hoover, Warren Commission all knew this very early on. The fact that all those parties - and LIFE Magazine - had proof of a conspiracy in their hands yet they ALL chose to blame it on the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald is PRIMA FACIE evidence of a coup d'etat.

I think that the murderers of JFK would have altered signficantly the Zapruder Film if they needed to, but they did not feel they needed to just so long as they kept the Zapruder Film out of public's eye. And for the most part they did. Jim Garrison had to subpeana it; then some bootleg copies of Zapruder were made; then they were shown on college campuses nationwide. But for the most part the killers of JFK kept this extremely damning video out of the hands and from the eyeballs of millions of Americans.

I do think that there were missing frames of the Zapruder film - I think the ones that showed the back side of the Stemmons Freeway sign, perhaps some revealing bullet holes in it. That is a posssibility.

Robert Groden is the nation's #1 photographic expect of the films and pictures of the JFK assassination. And HE has studied this issue at length and HE says the Zapruder Film is legit. So munch on that.

I feel about Zapruder Film alteration the same way I feel about 9/11 being an *inside* job - not buying it, not enough evidence, not interested enough to pursue it further.

Having said that, unlike SOME people on this board, I am always willing to change my mind based on new facts, evidence and analysis of the 1963 Coup d'Etat or anything else.

Also, I should point out someone did physically take down the Stemmons Freeway sign soon after the JFK assassination, didn't they? Maybe they did it because there were some revealing BULLET HOLES in the sign (sing of a shot from the front); that is a pretty good supposition. And another Stemmons Freeway sign was put back up in time for the FBI's recreation in May, 1964.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

....Any student of JFK could learn more about the case--the serious side

of the case--from the Preface and the Prologue of HOAX by themselves

than from your collected works! The Prologue, for example, offers a

dozen or more examples of fraud in the evidence, which may be the key

issue for understanding the case. And for you to trash this book when,

by your own admission, you "have no studied the issue at length" is an

affront and an insult to those of us who have. At the very least, you

should acknowledge that you don't know enough to take a stand, not put

it on you list of "bad books". I am sorry to say that, on this basis, I

no longer regard you as being a competent scholar of the death of JFK.

More than a few members reached a similar conclusion long ago, before Jim Fetzer began telling us

how highly he regarded Morrow and his research.

Apparently, much of Fetzer's approbation stemmed from their common regard for Madeleine Brown's claims

and Phil Nelson's book. Fetzer and Morrow's Amazon reviews were posted within two days of each other.

http://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1453503013

Agree with Jim Fetzer and he will be apt to praise you. Disagree with him and he will be quick to insult

you and your dedication to the truth. That's just the way it has been and likely always will be.

Jim Fetzer's latest about face was predictable. It was just a matter of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

I do think Madeleine Duncan Brown is one of the keys to truth in the JFK assassination. Lyndon Johnson told her that it was Texas oil men and the CIA who murdered John Kennedy. LBJ only left himself out, not surprisingly. I think the high level intelligence ties of LBJ and his Texas oil men (Clint Murchison, Sr, and H.L. Hunt) with the PEAK of post WWII US intelligence (Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, John J. McCloy, George Herbert Walker Bush, McGeorge Bundy) is the key to understanding the JFK assassination.

(According to Bobby Baker, even Averell Harriman was urging John Kennedy to put LBJ on the 1960 Demo ticket. Averell Harriman was as high up the food chain as you can go as far as power, influence, inside connections, intelligence. I do not *currently* have him as a player in the JFK assassination. But its a possibility. LBJ had networked his way into favor with the most powerful and richest men in both Texas and America by 1960.)

That does not mean I believe *everything* Madeleine said, but at her core I thing she is relaying some extremely valuable truth on the 1963 Coup d'Etat. Most of the JFK researchers who spoke to her at length - many interviewed her 20 or 30 times- came to the exact same conclusion.

Her book, which I highly recommend, is Texas in the Morning:

http://www.amazon.com/Texas-Morning-Madeleine-President-Johnson/dp/0941401065/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301879815&sr=1-1

In the night of 12/31/63, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:

"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."

He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!

"That's bull___, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that ____!"

"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.

"It was Texas oil and those %$%& renegade intelligence bastards in Washington." [said Lyndon Johnson, the new president; Texas in the Morning, p. 189] [LBJ told this to Madeleine on 12/31/63 in the locally famous Driskill Hotel, Austin, TX in room #254. They spent New Year's Eve `64 together here (12/31/63). Room #254 was the room that LBJ used to have rendezvous’ with his girlfriends - today it is known as the LBJ Room, and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskill; located on the Mezzanine Level.]

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think Madeleine Duncan Brown is one of the keys to truth in the JFK assassination...

That's a bit of an understatement on your part. You called the alleged conversation between Brown and Lyndon Johnson at the Driskill hotel the strongest and most revealing evidence of a Coup d'Etat -- Even though you conclude that Brown exaggerated, misremembered or embellished some details of the so-called Murchison party.

If I had to name the strongest and most revealing evidence in the 1963 Coup d'Etat, I would say it was what the usurper, traitor, murderer president Lyndon Johnson told his most beloved mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown on 12/31/63 ... that it was Texas oil and the CIA who murdered John Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

I do think Madeleine Duncan Brown is one of the keys to truth in the JFK assassination...

That's a bit of an understatement on your part. You called the alleged conversation between Brown and Lyndon Johnson at the Driskill hotel the strongest and most revealing evidence of a Coup d'Etat -- Even though you conclude that Brown exaggerated, misremembered or embellished some details of the so-called Murchison party.

If I had to name the strongest and most revealing evidence in the 1963 Coup d'Etat, I would say it was what the usurper, traitor, murderer president Lyndon Johnson told his most beloved mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown on 12/31/63 ... that it was Texas oil and the CIA who murdered John Kennedy.

Michael Hogan, witnesses and people don't all tell 100% truth or 100% lies (usually). Usually what witnesses to history tell is a mixture of truth, lies, misremembering, embellishments. So one has to use *critical thinking* and evaluate people's statements one by one and see if anything can corroborate what they are saying. For example, Lyndon Johnson is VERIFIED at being at the Driskill Hotel on the night of 12/31/63- that is one big reason Madeleine has credibility with me on this point.

It might seem arbitrary to believe or not believe various statements by a witness, but it is not. Use your head and examine them one by one.

Different people can evaluate differently whether they find a witness credible or not. That is fine. I prefer to evaluate the individual statements of witnesses on a case by case basis. I think that is a much more sophisticated and accurate way to treat eyewitness history. Meaning sometimes these folks are wrong and sometimes they are giving you the golden truth.

I do think what LBJ told Madeleine sums up the JFK assassination: Texas oil men and their influence over the CIA. With LBJ fully in the mix. Add in a little Rockefeller participation and the mafia in a subordinate role to the CIA and you have what I think is the essential truth of the JFK assassination. Bingo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Hogan, witnesses and people don't all tell 100% truth or 100% lies (usually). Usually what witnesses to history tell is a mixture of truth, lies, misremembering, embellishments. So one has to use *critical thinking* and evaluate people's statements one by one and see if anything can corroborate what they are saying. For example, Lyndon Johnson is VERIFIED at being at the Driskill Hotel on the night of 12/31/63- that is one big reason Madeleine has credibility with me on this point.

Ok, Robert--why don't we apply *critical thinking* to a researcher's credibility by evaluating their METHODOLOGY? How did you "evaluate people's statements one by one...etc" if you didn't read those statements thoroughly? How did you come to the conclusion that Zapruder Film alteration was false? Was it based on a "gut feeling"? Was it based ONLY on the work of others (like Groden) or did you conduct your own separate research? If you conducted your own separate research, was it "to the EXCLUSION" of the work conducted by every SCIENTIST with an opposing view to that of your preconceived ideas? If you failed to study the work of David Mantik, MD (Oncological Radiology), PhD (Physics), and the work of John Costella, PhD (Physics, with a specialty in the properties of light and optics), then you dismissed their conclusion without considering their arguments, indeed, without considering the evidence!

It might seem arbitrary to believe or not believe various statements by a witness, but it is not. Use your head and examine them one by one.

Yes, that seems reasonable--except that you didn't do it yourself! Why would you apply a double-standard to evidence evaluation, Robert? Is that really what you consider to be *critical thinking*?

Different people can evaluate differently whether they find a witness credible or not. That is fine. I prefer to evaluate the individual statements of witnesses on a case by case basis. I think that is a much more sophisticated and accurate way to treat eyewitness history. Meaning sometimes these folks are wrong and sometimes they are giving you the golden truth.

Apparently, by you own admission, the method you employed to reach your conclusions about the value of the books regarding Zapruder film fakery, is NOT sophisticated nor accurate. After all, if you fail to study the testimony of witnesses whose evidence opposes your already predetermined mindset, you are holding yourself to a much lower standard than that to which you are holding everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...