Jesse Ventura's JFK "Conspiracy Theory" program

[Martin Hinrichs]

Jim, Where can we see the Lancer presentations? Are you going to post your Lancer presentaion on line?

What else was said at Lancer of signifiacne?

Was Zavada there? If so, what did he say?

BK

Lately i listen from time to time Black Op Radio hosted by Len Osanic.

Here is Jim talking about it, Bill:

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2010.html

Click on:

Play Part Two Interview - Jim DiEugenio

•Oliver Stone

•Lancer 2010 Conference summery

•Listener questions answered

Jim, it was a good idea to go to Lee Bowers Tower. What a view, isn't it?

best

Martin

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Robert:

The whole idea of this case today is to take it to a level where we do not have to rely on someone like St. John Hunt or Alex Jones.

I mean, did you see the presentation at Lancer on this subject? Costner and his pal David G came away feeling that Hunt was trying to sell a movie. That is why they lost interest after offering Hunt a ton of money.

ALso, why does this version of the Hunt confession differ from the one in his book? I mean, if its true,that should not happen.

Why on earth would someone like Cord Meyer be involved in an assassination? Because Hunt knew about all the lore about JFK and his former wife and knew it would be a spicy sell?

If you look at this objectively what is Hunt selling? A rogue operation with LBJ that gets him and David Phillips off the hook.

That's right partner. Yet these are the two CIA guys who we can really make a case about.

So what happens is that Hunt is true blue to the end. He gets off Helms, Dulles, Angleton and Phillips and diverts us all with a "rogue operation" led by LBJ.

No sale.

This is why I talked about this issue in my lecture at Lancer and also in an article I did about "Silver bullets" and the JFK case. Too many people have a weakness for this kind of stuff. Therefore, you get things like Gregory Douglass and the Zipper documents and Louis Russell finding JFK's brain and Peter Janney and his Mary Meyer as guru to JFK. All of them leading us down the primrose path.

The Kennedy case will not be solved like this. And what this does is distract us from the record that is solid and has been established.

PS Robert, how can the backyard photos be genuine if Marina said she never saw a rifle with a scope until after the assassination? Jesse and his crack staff somehow missed that point or failed to ask her about it.

Jim, those are all excellent points. Having said that, I think that Hunt's "confessions" are very important. What he is doing is clearing implicating BOTH Lyndon Johnson and the CIA in the JFK assassination. And that is key. I think Hunt is conveniently leaving HIMSELF out of the operations, yet having his good buddy and close friend Frank Sturgis in it. Hunt is being disingenuous when he says he turned down participation in the 1963 Coup d'Etat and that he was a "backbencher" on this operation. E. Howard Hunt helped Allen Dulles write his book the Craft of Intelligence.

I think it is very possible that Lyndon Johnson and Allen Dulles were the co-CEO's of the JFK assassination. Did you know that James Angleton was carrying the cremated remains of Allen Dulles at the funeral of Dulles? Those men were CLOSE. Someone was telling me - I can't source it at the moment - that James Angleton had a direct phone line into J. Edgar Hoover's office. That is the same J. Edgar Hoover who was a close friend and across the street neighbor to the psychopathic serial killer Lyndon Johnson for 19 years in Washington, DC.

All those bastards were in it together on the 1963 Coup d'Etat. The outside shadow government promoting it would be HL Hunt, Clint Murchison, Sr and the Rockefellers. You can add in McGeorge Bundy, too, who was already re-writing Vietnam policy before JFK's murder and Henry Cabot Lodge, too. There is another way to refer to the Vietnam War and that is "Rockefeller foreign policy" which replaced JFK foreign policy instantly upon JFK's death. Nelson Rockefeller was the one who told JFK to use TACTICAL NUKES in Vietnam. When JFK heard that his hands started shaking. Allen Dulles/Nelson Rockefeller - longtime and very close personal working relationship dating to OSS days. Allen Dulles was president of Rockefeller controlled CFR from 1946-1950. Warren Commission con artist and Rockefeller operative John J. McCloy was CHAIRMAN of the CFR from 1953-1970. McCloy was also running Operative Paperclip, integrating the former Nazi intelligence operation into the modern CIA.

Cord Meyer helped cover up the 1963 Coup d'Etat while he was running Operation Mockingbird. Someone once asked Cord Meyer who HE thought killed his beloved Mary Meyer. And he said and I paraphrase:"The same ones who killed John Kennedy!"

I guess Cord thought that his CIA buddies murdered Mary Meyer. I personally don't know what Cord Meyer knew, but he was probably the one who wrote that 1967 CIA memo to its media assets about covering up the JFK assassination.

E. Howard Hunt opened his big mouth and gave us a lot of truth. He left a lot of his CIA buddies out ... be he gave us a lot of truth and that is valuable. Notice how Hunt was not protecting Lyndon Johnson.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[John Dolva]

Excellent, thank you Jim. I believe I get what you mean. Thank you.

So one could also say that the film also itself had all the gross characteristics of precicely what it was, a real amateur 'home movie'?

[Guest Robert Morrow]

...

PS Zavada was there. I thought he was good. He made a cogent argument about the pin registration in a Bell and H camera at 8mm being too unsteady to blow up and then reduce down without him being able to detect it.

What's pin registration as he defined it?

He was referring to the mechanism which pulls the film through the back plate of the camera where it is placed to be exposed to light through the lens.

He said that in a professional camera like a 35 mm Mitchell or Arriflex, this transaction is very secure, precise, and accurate. The reason being that in professional films, you have to allow for opticals after.

But in an amateur 8 mm camera, like Zapruder's, it was not anywhere near as precise since post production optical were not allowed for. Therefore the image would slide around as you both blew it up and reduced it down. ANd he would be able to detect it, especially in comparison to the early family scenes on the film, which he considered a baseline.

If you know anything about films, and since I went to film school I do, this is a cogent argument. Pin registration on 8 mm or Super 8, which is what I worked with in one class, is very loose in those cameras compared to say an Arri.

Jack, as I warned earlier, the idea that Zavada is some kind of disinfo agent will not fly anymore since he has now been seen in public and talked and answered questions. He just does not have those qualities about him. He is very open and candid and he answers questions as directly as he can. And he tells you what he bases the answers on, and he even qualifies his answer by telling you how hard the data is he is using. He then gave me his business card after so I could call him if I had any other questions.

This is why I think Horne made a mistake in his book by characterizing him as a pathological xxxx and CIA agent. He does not come off as that at all. He really believes in what he is saying.

I saw Zavada present at JFK Lancer and I thought he was a very credible guy and a straight shooter. I think the Zapruder Film is not a fake or alteration. At the most it was spliced and a few key frames knocked out, but we have those key frames back. So I am pretty firmly (for now) in the Zavada/Robert Groden camp that the Zapruder film is legitimate and a very useful tool for studying the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

[Pat Speer]

Robert:

The whole idea of this case today is to take it to a level where we do not have to rely on someone like St. John Hunt or Alex Jones.

I mean, did you see the presentation at Lancer on this subject? Costner and his pal David G came away feeling that Hunt was trying to sell a movie. That is why they lost interest after offering Hunt a ton of money.

ALso, why does this version of the Hunt confession differ from the one in his book? I mean, if its true,that should not happen.

Why on earth would someone like Cord Meyer be involved in an assassination? Because Hunt knew about all the lore about JFK and his former wife and knew it would be a spicy sell?

If you look at this objectively what is Hunt selling? A rogue operation with LBJ that gets him and David Phillips off the hook.

That's right partner. Yet these are the two CIA guys who we can really make a case about.

So what happens is that Hunt is true blue to the end. He gets off Helms, Dulles, Angleton and Phillips and diverts us all with a "rogue operation" led by LBJ.

No sale.

This is why I talked about this issue in my lecture at Lancer and also in an article I did about "Silver bullets" and the JFK case. Too many people have a weakness for this kind of stuff. Therefore, you get things like Gregory Douglass and the Zipper documents and Louis Russell finding JFK's brain and Peter Janney and his Mary Meyer as guru to JFK. All of them leading us down the primrose path.

The Kennedy case will not be solved like this. And what this does is distract us from the record that is solid and has been established.

PS Robert, how can the backyard photos be genuine if Marina said she never saw a rifle with a scope until after the assassination? Jesse and his crack staff somehow missed that point or failed to ask her about it.

Jim, some years ago on this forum, I discussed some state dept. papers regarding the Guatemala coup. They reflected that a high-ranking CIA agent had left behind some papers in a rented room, and that, as I recall, these were recovered by another agent. Anyhow, after comparing these state dept. papers with what we knew from other sources, it seemed almost certain that the screw-up was Hunt, and that Morales was the one who'd turned him in.

In other words, years before Hunt made his "confession" fingering Morales, I suspected there was bad blood between Hunt and Morales.

This doesn't mean Hunt lied. It only means he had a reason to lie. Or for telling the truth, for that matter. In any event, any analysis of Hunt's confession should take this into account...

[Jack White]

...

PS Zavada was there. I thought he was good. He made a cogent argument about the pin registration in a Bell and H camera at 8mm being too unsteady to blow up and then reduce down without him being able to detect it.

What's pin registration as he defined it?

He was referring to the mechanism which pulls the film through the back plate of the camera where it is placed to be exposed to light through the lens.

He said that in a professional camera like a 35 mm Mitchell or Arriflex, this transaction is very secure, precise, and accurate. The reason being that in professional films, you have to allow for opticals after.

But in an amateur 8 mm camera, like Zapruder's, it was not anywhere near as precise since post production opticals were not allowed for. Therefore the image would slide around as you both blew it up and reduced it down. ANd he would be able to detect it, especially in comparison to the early family scenes on the film, which he considered a baseline.

If you know anything about films, and since I went to film school I do, this is a cogent argument. Pin registration on 8 mm or Super 8, which is what I worked with in one class, is very loose in those cameras compared to say an Arri.

Jack, as I warned earlier, the idea that Zavada is some kind of disinfo agent will not fly anymore since he has now been seen in public and talked and answered questions. He just does not have those qualities about him. He is very open and candid and he answers questions as directly as he can. And he tells you what he bases the answers on, and he even qualifies his answer by telling you how hard the data is he is using. He then gave me his business card after so I could call him if I had any other questions.

This is why I think Horne made a mistake in his book by characterizing him as a pathological xxxx and CIA agent. He does not come off as that at all. He really believes in what he is saying.

Others who have talked to Zavada paint a different picture. He knows NOTHING about image content. Horne's image is more consistent

with what others have said. I DO NOT TRUST ANYONE FROM KODAK.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

...

PS Zavada was there. I thought he was good. He made a cogent argument about the pin registration in a Bell and H camera at 8mm being too unsteady to blow up and then reduce down without him being able to detect it.

What's pin registration as he defined it?

He was referring to the mechanism which pulls the film through the back plate of the camera where it is placed to be exposed to light through the lens.

He said that in a professional camera like a 35 mm Mitchell or Arriflex, this transaction is very secure, precise, and accurate. The reason being that in professional films, you have to allow for opticals after.

But in an amateur 8 mm camera, like Zapruder's, it was not anywhere near as precise since post production opticals were not allowed for. Therefore the image would slide around as you both blew it up and reduced it down. ANd he would be able to detect it, especially in comparison to the early family scenes on the film, which he considered a baseline.

If you know anything about films, and since I went to film school I do, this is a cogent argument. Pin registration on 8 mm or Super 8, which is what I worked with in one class, is very loose in those cameras compared to say an Arri.

Jack, as I warned earlier, the idea that Zavada is some kind of disinfo agent will not fly anymore since he has now been seen in public and talked and answered questions. He just does not have those qualities about him. He is very open and candid and he answers questions as directly as he can. And he tells you what he bases the answers on, and he even qualifies his answer by telling you how hard the data is he is using. He then gave me his business card after so I could call him if I had any other questions.

This is why I think Horne made a mistake in his book by characterizing him as a pathological xxxx and CIA agent. He does not come off as that at all. He really believes in what he is saying.

Jim, as I warned earlier, 2003 in fact: what the hell does 8mm pin registration have to do with with possible Zapruder film alteration? There is no such animal as 8mm optical film effects, therefore pin registration at the 8mm level is a non-started, ain fact, a canard -- even today's first year film students know that's impossible! Try reading my chapter in The Great Zapruder Film HOAX....

Let's follow the bouncing ball, again: 8mm film blown up to 35mm film, any possible alteration happened at the 35mm format! The 35mm altered version of the Zapruder film is then copied to 8mm film format, end of story!

Perhaps someone here would like to make the claim that 8mm film can't be blown up to 35mm....? This little 8mm to 35mm blow-up sequence is EXACTLY what Moe Weitzman did with the alleged Zapruder film for LIFE magazine.... Ya know Jim, Rollie knows all about this, yet he continues to pursue the foolish argument of doing optical film effects to 8mm to 8mm film.... might want to ask him about that yourself!

Edited November 24, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

...

PS Zavada was there. I thought he was good. He made a cogent argument about the pin registration in a Bell and H camera at 8mm being too unsteady to blow up and then reduce down without him being able to detect it.

What's pin registration as he defined it?

He was referring to the mechanism which pulls the film through the back plate of the camera where it is placed to be exposed to light through the lens.

He said that in a professional camera like a 35 mm Mitchell or Arriflex, this transaction is very secure, precise, and accurate. The reason being that in professional films, you have to allow for opticals after.

But in an amateur 8 mm camera, like Zapruder's, it was not anywhere near as precise since post production optical were not allowed for. Therefore the image would slide around as you both blew it up and reduced it down. ANd he would be able to detect it, especially in comparison to the early family scenes on the film, which he considered a baseline.

If you know anything about films, and since I went to film school I do, this is a cogent argument. Pin registration on 8 mm or Super 8, which is what I worked with in one class, is very loose in those cameras compared to say an Arri.

Jack, as I warned earlier, the idea that Zavada is some kind of disinfo agent will not fly anymore since he has now been seen in public and talked and answered questions. He just does not have those qualities about him. He is very open and candid and he answers questions as directly as he can. And he tells you what he bases the answers on, and he even qualifies his answer by telling you how hard the data is he is using. He then gave me his business card after so I could call him if I had any other questions.

This is why I think Horne made a mistake in his book by characterizing him as a pathological xxxx and CIA agent. He does not come off as that at all. He really believes in what he is saying.

I saw Zavada present at JFK Lancer and I thought he was a very credible guy and a straight shooter. I think the Zapruder Film is not a fake or alteration. At the most it was spliced and a few key frames knocked out, but we have those key frames back. So I am pretty firmly (for now) in the Zavada/Robert Groden camp that the Zapruder film is legitimate and a very useful tool for studying the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

Anyone who says this simply has not studied the evidence.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

David (i'm a video guy) Healy sez:

Let's follow the bouncing ball, again: 8mm film blown up to 35mm film, any possible alteration happened at the 35mm format! The 35mm altered version of the Zapruder film is then copied to 8mm film format, end of story!

Ray Fielding, who knows a wee bit more than David (i'm a video guy)Healy responds:

“You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I

agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the

conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and

the time line involved, (2 in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation

of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the

technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the

footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived

professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA

footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in

the document you sent me, are technically naïve."

Edited November 25, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Anyone who says this simply has not studied the evidence.

Jack

No, simply studied the evidence, including the wacky alteration nonsense and reached a far different conclusion. Maybe someday, when you learn even the most basic principles of photogrpahy, perhaps you too might actually see the light. Not holding my breath however....

[Dean Hagerman]

Let's follow the bouncing ball, again: 8mm film blown up to 35mm film, any possible alteration happened at the 35mm format! The 35mm altered version of the Zapruder film is then copied to 8mm film format, end of story!

I agree with David Healy, this is how the film was altered!

[Dean Hagerman]

...

PS Zavada was there. I thought he was good. He made a cogent argument about the pin registration in a Bell and H camera at 8mm being too unsteady to blow up and then reduce down without him being able to detect it.

What's pin registration as he defined it?

He was referring to the mechanism which pulls the film through the back plate of the camera where it is placed to be exposed to light through the lens.

He said that in a professional camera like a 35 mm Mitchell or Arriflex, this transaction is very secure, precise, and accurate. The reason being that in professional films, you have to allow for opticals after.

But in an amateur 8 mm camera, like Zapruder's, it was not anywhere near as precise since post production optical were not allowed for. Therefore the image would slide around as you both blew it up and reduced it down. ANd he would be able to detect it, especially in comparison to the early family scenes on the film, which he considered a baseline.

If you know anything about films, and since I went to film school I do, this is a cogent argument. Pin registration on 8 mm or Super 8, which is what I worked with in one class, is very loose in those cameras compared to say an Arri.

Jack, as I warned earlier, the idea that Zavada is some kind of disinfo agent will not fly anymore since he has now been seen in public and talked and answered questions. He just does not have those qualities about him. He is very open and candid and he answers questions as directly as he can. And he tells you what he bases the answers on, and he even qualifies his answer by telling you how hard the data is he is using. He then gave me his business card after so I could call him if I had any other questions.

This is why I think Horne made a mistake in his book by characterizing him as a pathological xxxx and CIA agent. He does not come off as that at all. He really believes in what he is saying.

I saw Zavada present at JFK Lancer and I thought he was a very credible guy and a straight shooter. I think the Zapruder Film is not a fake or alteration. At the most it was spliced and a few key frames knocked out, but we have those key frames back. So I am pretty firmly (for now) in the Zavada/Robert Groden camp that the Zapruder film is legitimate and a very useful tool for studying the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

Well Robert you also claim that LBJ is a pyschopathic serial killer

[Guest Robert Morrow]

...

PS Zavada was there. I thought he was good. He made a cogent argument about the pin registration in a Bell and H camera at 8mm being too unsteady to blow up and then reduce down without him being able to detect it.

What's pin registration as he defined it?

He was referring to the mechanism which pulls the film through the back plate of the camera where it is placed to be exposed to light through the lens.

He said that in a professional camera like a 35 mm Mitchell or Arriflex, this transaction is very secure, precise, and accurate. The reason being that in professional films, you have to allow for opticals after.

But in an amateur 8 mm camera, like Zapruder's, it was not anywhere near as precise since post production optical were not allowed for. Therefore the image would slide around as you both blew it up and reduced it down. ANd he would be able to detect it, especially in comparison to the early family scenes on the film, which he considered a baseline.

If you know anything about films, and since I went to film school I do, this is a cogent argument. Pin registration on 8 mm or Super 8, which is what I worked with in one class, is very loose in those cameras compared to say an Arri.

Jack, as I warned earlier, the idea that Zavada is some kind of disinfo agent will not fly anymore since he has now been seen in public and talked and answered questions. He just does not have those qualities about him. He is very open and candid and he answers questions as directly as he can. And he tells you what he bases the answers on, and he even qualifies his answer by telling you how hard the data is he is using. He then gave me his business card after so I could call him if I had any other questions.

This is why I think Horne made a mistake in his book by characterizing him as a pathological xxxx and CIA agent. He does not come off as that at all. He really believes in what he is saying.

I saw Zavada present at JFK Lancer and I thought he was a very credible guy and a straight shooter. I think the Zapruder Film is not a fake or alteration. At the most it was spliced and a few key frames knocked out, but we have those key frames back. So I am pretty firmly (for now) in the Zavada/Robert Groden camp that the Zapruder film is legitimate and a very useful tool for studying the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

Well Robert you also claim that LBJ is a pyschopathic serial killer

And, Dean, you *don't* think Lyndon Johnson was a psychotic serial killer? You don't think LBJ was murdering people down in Texas and perhaps elsewhere to cover up his gargantuan corruption? A lot of the JFK researchers I know think Lyndon Johnson was a psychotic killer. Btw, I saw James Tague 2 weeks ago out at Dealey Plaza, standing where that stray bullet almost hit him. We interviewed him about his 11/22/63 experiences. Then I asked him to describe Lyndon Johnson and the first words out of his mouth was "He was a psycho."

Edited November 25, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[David Von Pein]

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jesse-ventura.html

A few thoughts about Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" JFK program:

Many of the same old myths, long ago debunked, were dragged out by Ventura for his "TruTV" program (embedded at the bottom of the webpage linked above), such as the nonsense about Lee Harvey Oswald not being able to pull off the shooting of JFK in the time that was allotted him.

Ventura, however, for some reason didn't stick to the oft-used myth of LHO having only 5.6 seconds to get off his three shots with his Mannlicher-Carcano. Instead, Jesse pulled a different figure out of thin air: 6.3 seconds.

So, I will give Ventura credit for adding seven-tenths of a second to the timing myth, although I have no idea where he came up with his "6.3 seconds" figure.

The Warren Commission, of course, was never boxing itself in to accepting a shooting timeline of only 5.6 seconds (or even 6.3), and Page #117 of the Warren Report easily disproves the often-repeated "5.6 seconds" myth, with the Commission stating, plain as day, that if either the FIRST or the THIRD shot was the shot that missed President Kennedy (which the Commission certainly did not rule out), then the time for the entire shooting would therefore increase accordingly, up to a possible 7.9 seconds, per the Warren Commission's investigation:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

Ventura himself made three attempts (on camera) to duplicate Oswald's shooting performance (which Jesse said was 6.3 seconds). On his first attempt, Jesse did everything he could to make firing his Carcano seem like it was more difficult than building the Pyramids, and as a result of this obvious stretched-out fakery, Jesse's first time was a ridiculous 11.17 seconds.

He then did get better on his second and third attempts, scoring times of 8.84 seconds and 8.79 seconds for three shots (while, as he admitted, achieving multiple "hits" on the target below him, including a "head shot" too).

Now, when we examine the truth regarding the actual amount of time that Lee Harvey Oswald had on 11/22/63 to get off his three shots at the President from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, which was very likely a total time of approximately 8.4 seconds, and then compare that figure with the last two attempts made by ex-Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, we can see that Jesse came very close to Oswald's time -- missing LHO's 8.4-second time by only about 0.4 seconds.

And Jesse said that his three attempts at duplicating Oswald's feat were "nowhere near" Oswald's time. Ventura also said: "This is xxxxing impossible".

Bullxxxx, Jesse. And you (unintentionally) proved that Oswald's feat was not impossible when you got off three shots (with some hits) in only 8.84 and 8.79 seconds. And that even INCLUDES Jesse's sluggishness with the Carcano bolt-action rifle he was using.

And it doesn't really matter whether Jesse was merely pretending to have trouble with the gun, or whether he was, in fact, legitimately having a difficult time working the bolt, the results are still the same -- Ventura fired three REAL, LIVE bullets with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in just about exactly the same amount of time that Lee Oswald did on November 22, 1963.

This old "it's impossible" trick reminds me of a similar goof in Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which contains a scene that has Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) and one of his assistants making the claim that Oswald could not have done the shooting in under 6 seconds. But when actor Jay Sanders actually performed his shooting test with the camera rolling, what happened? He dry-fired three shots with a Carcano in 5.5 seconds! Ya gotta love it.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oliver-stone-blunder.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/five-point-six-seconds-myth.html

Ventura also resurrects the "Three Tramps" myth, pretending that the tramps were somehow involved in Kennedy's murder in some way, all the while ignoring the fact that the arrest records for the three tramps were discovered years ago, with the tramps turning out to be just that -- tramps.

And then there's the crap about George H.W. Bush possibly being photographed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

And we're also treated to a guest appearance by conspiracy quack Jim Marrs, who wants Ventura's audience to swallow the notion that Lee Oswald went to the Texas Theater to meet a "contact" on November 22nd, and then the rug was pulled out from under "patsy" Oswald in the theater as some unnamed co-plotter called the cops and had Oswald picked up.

Naturally, Marrs and Ventura will completely ignore the truth regarding Oswald's arrest. With the truth being: ordinary civilian witnesses Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal were the people who were directly responsible for Oswald being arrested in the Texas Theater, with Postal being the one who called the police shortly after Oswald sneaked into the theater without paying.

I think it's time to call "Mythbusters" after watching this Ventura propaganda piece.

Still More Crap:

Ventura decides to ignore the multiple witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit, with Jesse wondering why Oswald would have thrown down the shell casings at the Tippit murder scene. It was just "too pat", "too easy", and "too perfect", according to crack investigator Ventura, even though witnesses at the scene saw Oswald, HIMSELF, dumping the shells from his own gun as he fled the scene.

But it's best to ignore the best evidence if you're a conspiracy theorist like Jesse Ventura. And, as usual, Ventura does just that. He ignores all of the best evidence, in favor of rumor, speculation, and the conspiracy theories of people like Jim Marrs and James Fetzer. (God help Ventura's audience.)

And, of course, the proverbial "back and to the left" stuff is dragged out of the closet again too, with Ventura totally ignoring the fact that JFK's head initially moved FORWARD at the moment of the bullet's impact. Naturally, though, his audience is never told that fact.

In summary, Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" episode on the JFK assassination is one great-big steaming pile of recycled and rehashed conspiracy-flavored garbage.

David Von Pein

November 25, 2010

Edited November 25, 2010 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

Yea, it's a shame that Ventura doesn't bother dealing with the real evidence of conspiracy, and who was actually behind the assassination.

I thought because Dick Russell helped write Ventura's book that Dick would steer him towards the good stuff.

Instead, he deals with Prof. Fetzer, Jim Marrs and Judyth.

BK

http://JFK-Archives....se-ventura.html

A few thoughts about Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" JFK program:

Many of the same old myths, long ago debunked, were dragged out by Ventura for his "TruTV" program (embedded at the bottom of the webpage linked above), such as the nonsense about Lee Harvey Oswald not being able to pull off the shooting of JFK in the time that was allotted him.

Ventura, however, for some reason didn't stick to the oft-used myth of LHO having only 5.6 seconds to get off his three shots with his Mannlicher-Carcano. Instead, Jesse pulled a different figure out of thin air: 6.3 seconds.

So, I will give Ventura credit for adding seven-tenths of a second to the timing myth, although I have no idea where he came up with his "6.3 seconds" figure.

The Warren Commission, of course, was never boxing itself in to accepting a shooting timeline of only 5.6 seconds (or even 6.3), and Page #117 of the Warren Report easily disproves the often-repeated "5.6 seconds" myth, with the Commission stating, plain as day, that if either the FIRST or the THIRD shot was the shot that missed President Kennedy (which the Commission certainly did not rule out), then the time for the entire shooting would therefore increase accordingly, up to a possible 7.9 seconds, per the Warren Commission's investigation:

http://history-matte...eport_0071a.htm

Ventura himself made three attempts (on camera) to duplicate Oswald's shooting performance (which Jesse said was 6.3 seconds). On his first attempt, Jesse did everything he could to make firing his Carcano seem like it was more difficult than building the Pyramids, and as a result of this obvious stretched-out fakery, Jesse's first time was a ridiculous 11.17 seconds.

He then did get better on his second and third attempts, scoring times of 8.84 seconds and 8.79 seconds for three shots (while, as he admitted, achieving multiple "hits" on the target below him, including a "head shot" too).

Now, when we examine the truth regarding the actual amount of time that Lee Harvey Oswald had on 11/22/63 to get off his three shots at the President from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, which was very likely a total time of approximately 8.4 seconds, and then compare that figure with the last two attempts made by ex-Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, we can see that Jesse came very close to Oswald's time -- missing LHO's 8.4-second time by only about 0.4 seconds.

And Jesse said that his three attempts at duplicating Oswald's feat were "nowhere near" Oswald's time. Ventura also said: "This is xxxxing impossible".

Bullxxxx, Jesse. And you (unintentionally) proved that Oswald's feat was not impossible when you got off three shots (with some hits) in only 8.84 and 8.79 seconds. And that even INCLUDES Jesse's sluggishness with the Carcano bolt-action rifle he was using.

And it doesn't really matter whether Jesse was merely pretending to have trouble with the gun, or whether he was, in fact, legitimately having a difficult time working the bolt, the results are still the same -- Ventura fired three REAL, LIVE bullets with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in just about exactly the same amount of time that Lee Oswald did on November 22, 1963.

This old "it's impossible" trick reminds me of a similar goof in Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which contains a scene that has Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) and one of his assistants making the claim that Oswald could not have done the shooting in under 6 seconds. But when actor Jay Sanders actually performed his shooting test with the camera rolling, what happened? He dry-fired three shots with a Carcano in 5.5 seconds! Ya gotta love it.

http://JFK-Archives....ne-blunder.html

http://JFK-Archives....conds-myth.html

Ventura also resurrects the "Three Tramps" myth, pretending that the tramps were somehow involved in Kennedy's murder in some way, all the while ignoring the fact that the arrest records for the three tramps were discovered years ago, with the tramps turning out to be just that -- tramps.

And then there's the crap about George H.W. Bush possibly being photographed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

And we're also treated to a guest appearance by conspiracy quack Jim Marrs, who wants Ventura's audience to swallow the notion that Lee Oswald went to the Texas Theater to meet a "contact" on November 22nd, and then the rug was pulled out from under "patsy" Oswald in the theater as some unnamed co-plotter called the cops and had Oswald picked up.

Naturally, Marrs and Ventura will completely ignore the truth regarding Oswald's arrest. With the truth being: ordinary civilian witnesses Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal were the people who were directly responsible for Oswald being arrested in the Texas Theater, with Postal being the one who called the police shortly after Oswald sneaked into the theater without paying.

I think it's time to call "Mythbusters" after watching this Ventura propaganda piece.

Still More Crap:

Ventura decides to ignore the multiple witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit, with Jesse wondering why Oswald would have thrown down the shell casings at the Tippit murder scene. It was just "too pat", "too easy", and "too perfect", according to crack investigator Ventura, even though witnesses at the scene saw Oswald, HIMSELF, dumping the shells from his own gun as he fled the scene.

But it's best to ignore the best evidence if you're a conspiracy theorist like Jesse Ventura. And, as usual, Ventura does just that. He ignores all of the best evidence, in favor of rumor, speculation, and the conspiracy theories of people like Jim Marrs and James Fetzer. (God help Ventura's audience.)

And, of course, the proverbial "back and to the left" stuff is dragged out of the closet again too, with Ventura totally ignoring the fact that JFK's head initially moved FORWARD at the moment of the bullet's impact. Naturally, though, his audience is never told that fact.

In summary, Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" episode on the JFK assassination is one great-big steaming pile of recycled and rehashed conspiracy-flavored garbage.

David Von Pein

November 25, 2010