In pursuit of one's own tale...

[Greg Burnham]

Greg - bravo and thanks. I personally think Salandria and Shotz were right, as are you. Strange isn't it, that 51 years have passed and we still haven't figured out that the only thing that matters is whether we can ever put this world right and bring Peace. I know I feel hopeless about this, and I know that was the point of the '60's assassinations. To some, this desire and hope for peace is just foolish idealism, not realistic. The world has never known peace for any length of time. But like you I am convinced that JFK wanted peace on earth and was earnestly trying to move the world in that direction, and that it was this that led to his death at the hands of the Masters of War. If we really want to honor his life and avenge his death we should work towards his vision. It's a tall order.

Paul,

I appreciate your feedback.

I ask that anyone who feels this thing--or even who has felt this thing--to remember why they feel it. Do they shed a tear for JFK because he was a beloved leader? Because he was a charismatic and affable President? Do we feel anguish because we lost his wit and his charm? Do we cry for the loss of his sense of humor during news conferences? Do we miss his qualities of compassion? Do we mourn the passing of one so young who possibly saved the world from nuclear holocaust?

Or is it more than that?

I want to know why we let die that which he was leading us to accomplish? I want to know who will stand up and refuse to allow his vision to remain in the grave with him? I want to know how it is that we were fooled into believing that what he stood for was assassinated with him the day he died?

The answers to those questions are far more important to me than is the answer to the question: "Who done it?"

His mission was to empower all of us to a better way. That he was killed was the price he paid to leave us with that legacy. But it is the human legacy, not the Kennedy legacy, with which he gifted us.

When shall we embrace it if not now?

Edited May 14, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Thomas Graves]

Greg - bravo and thanks. I personally think Salandria and Shotz were right, as are you. Strange isn't it, that 51 years have passed and we still haven't figured out that the only thing that matters is whether we can ever put this world right and bring Peace. I know I feel hopeless about this, and I know that was the point of the '60's assassinations. To some, this desire and hope for peace is just foolish idealism, not realistic. The world has never known peace for any length of time. But like you I am convinced that JFK wanted peace on earth and was earnestly trying to move the world in that direction, and that it was this that led to his death at the hands of the Masters of War. If we really want to honor his life and avenge his death we should work towards his vision. It's a tall order.

Paul,

I appreciate your feedback.

I ask that anyone who feels this thing--or even who has felt this thing--to remember why they feel it. Do they shed a tear for JFK because he was a beloved leader? Because he was a charismatic and affable President? Do we feel anguish because we lost his wit and his charm? Do we cry for the loss of his sense of humor during news conferences? Do we miss his qualities of compassion? Do we mourn the passing of one so young who possibly saved the world from nuclear holocaust?

Or is it more than that?

I want to know why we let die that which he was leading us to accomplish? I want to know who will stand up and refuse to allow his vision to remain in the grave with him? I want to know how it is that we were fooled into believing that what he stood for was assassinated with him the day he died?

The answers to those questions are far more important to me than is the answer to the question: "Who done it?"

His mission was to empower all of us to a better way. That he was killed was the price he paid to leave us with that legacy. But it is the human legacy, not the Kennedy legacy, with which he gifted us.

When shall we embrace it if not now?

You do good work, Greg.

It is appreciated here.

All I can say is that when I asked my (John Birch Society) Mother why she was standing and applauding that "pinko" JFK when he had concluded his speech at San Diego State College (a few months before he was assassinated), she said something I'll always remember.

"Because he's a great man."

R.I.P. both of them...

--Tommy

PS The word "College" above is not a typo. San Diego State didn't become a "University" until 1968 or so...

Edited May 14, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Burnham]

[Greg Burnham]

I would appreciate it if the contributors to this thread would consider the thrust of my presentation before posting.

In that presentation I submitted that we are playing into the hands of those who would obstruct justice when we, again, continue to rehash items of so-called "evidence," which more often than not is in conflict with other items of so-called "evidence." Researchers have, quite understandably, not given the same amount of weight to each item of so-called "evidence." Rather the value of each item is weighted according to the opinion of that researcher. And the opinion of each researcher is instructed, in part, by his or her education, critical thinking skills, personal bias and so forth.

And so round and round we go...again. Until we choose to stop.

Can we take a break from that exercise...just for now...just in this thread?

If we do, perhaps we will discover that there are items of equal or greater value to discuss other than the mountain of conflicting evidence that has been the subject of our effort for over a half century, but has led us nowhere.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[David Lifton]

Mr. Lifton,

I believe you are confusing the "controversy" over Altgen 6 with the more-recent discussion on this very forum on the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread. It's pretty much accepted that Oswald is NOT seen in Altgens 6. But there are other films that show another man in the corner BEHIND Lovelady, who is not visible in Altgens 6, who may--or may not--be Oswald.

Check out the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread and educate yourself on the issue. You may or may not believe it's Oswald back in the corner. But it's also not Lovelady, who IS the man seen in Altgens 6.

Mark,

Yes, I am aware of that thread, primarily because I am interested in the Darnell film, and because those exhibits show Officer Baker running towards the building and the steps into the building, while the focus of everyone else appears to be "down the street."

Many people are unaware that although Baker came up with an explanation that he ran into the building because he saw pigeons flying off the roof, that was not his "first day" explanation; in the very first draft of his statement, he said something to the effect (this is from memory) that he "thought" the shots came from an upstairs window, and that was his "explanation."

As to the image over on the left hand side, I realize there's an image there--and yes, I have looked at it--but its very indistinct, and certainly not of the quality necessary to make an identification. I notice that most of the posts on that thread do not cite the image in isolation, but rather as part of a wider argument using a process of elimination as to who it might be at that particular location.

It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. The only such "early" reports concern him being (possibly) in a nearby storage room, a minute or two following the shooting; and those reports are (historically and legally) far more important (and potent). As I recall, they were not properly followed up by the FBI investigation (or the Warren Commission, for that matter).

DSL

5/14/15 - 4 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

[David Andrews]

Where was Baker in the motorcade that he could see pigeons flying off the TSBD roof presumably at the moment shots were fired, while driving a motorcycle at near walking speed, while wearing a helmet with a visor and aviator shades?

[Bernie Laverick]

It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports.

Well that's that then! Of course, had there been any witnesses we would not all be congregating on here 50 years later would we? So we have no official police reports about how the supposed 6th floor assassin was also stood on the 1st floor doorway at the same time the shots rang out. All things considered, wouldn't that have put quite a spoiler on using him as the patsy?

Is it in any way possible that some employees did see him in that doorway but were robustly 'encouraged' to say otherwise? Are there any other examples in this case where witness testimony has been supressed, changed, or deleted because it didn't fit the required outcome? I think we all know the answer to that.

What is interesting is that there are NO reports of ANYONE being there on those steps. How odd. Even our friend Wesley Frazier, who was stood inches from PM, says he can't remember who it was. Surely someone must have seen this man. Apparently not, so we can only conclude that this image isn't even of a human being let alone LHO. Had it been LHO rest assured that the good old squeaky clean DPD would have gotten to the bottom of it, told the truth and provided a "report" that proves their patsy is innocent.

That they didn't do this proves it wasn't him?

Great logic!

[Greg Burnham]

[...] But refraining from picking at the details and theories leaves us with doing little more than acknowledging the horror and the crime, with a vague intention of picking up the torch that JFK had carried. What does that mean? Beyond staring down government edifices and insisting on new official investigations? I cannot find the specific alternative in your post.

To be sure, JFK's global vision is nowhere to be found in the machinations of government today. But that's not something that can easily be regained, in my opinion. And certainly not by fewer than 100 online forum members who can't even agree on the simplest of issues. [...]

I think that we do ourselves a disservice when we treat this crime as a "simple" homicide instead of viewing it as a political assassination. If this were a "simple" homicide perpetrated by one man against another man the main loss suffered would have resided in the death of the individual victim, followed by the loss to his immediate family, then followed by the loss to his extended family and friends, and finally, followed by the loss to the community at large. Insomuch as the "average Joe" may have a relatively minor contribution to the community at large, the loss is barely felt or even noticed on that level.

Not so in the case of John F. Kennedy.

In this case the degree of loss suffered and its attendant tragic result is manifest most severely by its effect on the (global) community at large.

It is not a case of one man killing another in order to steal his wallet. Nor was it a crime of passion. So micro-inspecting the elements of the crime, such as, motive, means and opportunity--as would be appropriate if this were a "simple" homicide--fail to address the most important clue of all: The outcome.

I submit that the outcome is dynamic. It is ongoing. It is not over. It continues to evolve over time. The conspirators' successors are still operationally engaged to this day, managing the message, running the show.

This is not a cover-up designed by RONCO, where you can: "Set it and forget it!"

It is in need of constant maintenance. It takes an ever growing amount of energy to preserve itself.

This thing is alive.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Cliff Varnell]

[...] But refraining from picking at the details and theories leaves us with doing little more than acknowledging the horror and the crime, with a vague intention of picking up the torch that JFK had carried. What does that mean? Beyond staring down government edifices and insisting on new official investigations? I cannot find the specific alternative in your post.

To be sure, JFK's global vision is nowhere to be found in the machinations of government today. But that's not something that can easily be regained, in my opinion. And certainly not by fewer than 100 online forum members who can't even agree on the simplest of issues. [...]

I think that we do ourselves a disservice when we treat this crime as a "simple" homicide instead of viewing it as a political assassination. If this were a "simple" homicide perpetrated by one man against another man the main loss suffered would have resided in the death of the individual victim, followed by the loss to his immediate family, then followed by the loss to his extended family and friends, and finally, followed by the loss to the community at large. Insomuch as the "average Joe" may have a relatively minor contribution to the community at large, the loss is barely felt or even noticed on that level.

Not so in the case of John F. Kennedy.

In this case the degree of loss suffered and its attendant tragic result is manifest most severely by its effect on the (global) community at large.

It is not a case of one man killing another in order to steal his wallet. Nor was it a crime of passion. So micro-inspecting the elements of the crime, such as, motive, means and opportunity--as would be appropriate if this were a "simple" homicide--fail to address the most important clue of all: The outcome.

I submit that the outcome is dynamic. It is ongoing. It is not over. It continues to evolve over time. The conspirators' successors are still operationally engaged to this day, managing the message, running the show.

This is not a cover-up designed by RONCO, where you can: "Set it and forget it!"

It is in need of constant maintenance. It takes an ever growing amount of energy to preserve itself.

This thing is alive.

Greg, did you realize how many "respected" researchers put JFK's back wound at the back base of his neck -- in spite of the overwhelming evidence of a wound at T3?

The physical evidence in the case -- the clothing evidence, which Salandria, Fonzi & Schotz have advocated to deaf ears -- is regarded with studied indifference at CTKA, outright hostility at ROKC, and goes over the head of Charles Drago.

Yes, the JFK cover-up is alive and well and has the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community as an adjunct.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Burnham]

I think that we do ourselves a disservice when we treat this crime as a "simple" homicide instead of viewing it as a political assassination. If this were a "simple" homicide perpetrated by one man against another man the main loss suffered would have resided in the death of the individual victim, followed by the loss to his immediate family, then followed by the loss to his extended family and friends, and finally, followed by the loss to the community at large. Insomuch as the "average Joe" may have a relatively minor contribution to the community at large, the loss is barely felt or even noticed on that level.

Not so in the case of John F. Kennedy.

In this case the degree of loss suffered and its attendant tragic result is manifest most severely by its effect on the (global) community at large.

It is not a case of one man killing another in order to steal his wallet. Nor was it a crime of passion. So micro-inspecting the elements of the crime, such as, motive, means and opportunity--as would be appropriate if this were a "simple" homicide--fail to address the most important clue of all: The outcome.

I submit that the outcome is dynamic. It is ongoing. It is not over. It continues to evolve over time. The conspirators' successors are still operationally engaged to this day, managing the message, running the show.

This is not a cover-up designed by RONCO, where you can: "Set it and forget it!"

It is in need of constant maintenance. It takes an ever growing amount of energy to preserve itself.

This thing is alive.

Greg, did you realize how many "respected" researchers put JFK's back wound at the back base of his neck -- in spite of the overwhelming evidence of a wound at T3?

The physical evidence in the case -- the clothing evidence, which Salandria, Fonzi & Schotz have advocated to deaf ears -- is regarded with studied indifference at CTKA, outright hostility at ROKC, and goes over the head of Charles Drago.

Yes, the JFK cover-up is alive and well and has the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community as an adjunct.

Not to be redundant, but as I said previously [with emphasis now added]:

I would appreciate it if the contributors to this thread would consider the thrust of my presentation before posting.

In that presentation I submitted that we are playing into the hands of those who would obstruct justice when we, again, continue to rehash items of so-called "evidence," which more often than not is in conflict with other items of so-called "evidence." Researchers have, quite understandably, not given the same amount of weight to each item of so-called "evidence." Rather the value of each item is weighted according to the opinion of that researcher. And the opinion of each researcher is instructed, in part, by his or her education, critical thinking skills, personal bias and so forth.

And so round and round we go...again. Until we choose to stop.

Can we take a break from that exercise...just for now...just in this thread?

If we do, perhaps we will discover that there are items of equal or greater value to discuss other than the mountain of conflicting evidence that has been the subject of our effort for over a half century, but has led us nowhere.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. The only such "early" reports concern him being (possibly) in a nearby storage room, a minute or two following the shooting; and those reports are (historically and legally) far more important (and potent). As I recall, they were not properly followed up by the FBI investigation (or the Warren Commission, for that matter).

DSL

5/14/15 - 4 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Greetings David:

I am surprised to read that you do not believe that Prayer Man is Lee Oswald. It corroborates your thesis in Best Evidence.

As Sean Murphy posted on that thread, Fritz testified

Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement...

This testimony is supported by Fritz's notes, which records Oswald saying he was "out with Bill Shelley in front."

It is not corroborated by the FBI agents only because, I believe, they had not yet arrived when Lee made this statement.

The only time he could have been out with Shelley in front was just prior to and when JFK passed the building.

Prayer Man's position in the corner of the entrance is not a particularly good vantage point to watch the parade, so

it is unlikely that a stranger would choose it as a vantage point. As pointed out on the original Prayer Man thread

all 14 of the TSBD employees who were on the steps testified that there were no strangers on the steps, everyone was

a TSBD employee. Only one other employee bore a resemblance to Lee Oswald, and BIllie Lovelady is eliminated

as a candidate for Prayer Man by films and by his own testimony.

The images from the Darnell film may not be the best, but I submit no reasonable person can dispute that Prayer Man

does resemble Lee Oswald. Given that resemblance, given the evidence that everyone on the steps was a TSBD

employee; given the fact that no other employee except Lee Oswald qualifes as Prayer Man, and given the fundamental

rule that the burden of proof is on Lee Oswald's accusers, then I respectfully submit that he told Fritz the literal truth

when he said he had lunch out front with Bill Shelley and other employees, and saw all the excitement.

If it wasn't Lee Oswald, then who was it?

That is the question Lee Oswald's accusers now have to answer. After almost 2 years I have not heard a plausible

alternative.

You say that if he was there some employee would surely remember. As experiments and our own experience tell us,

human memory is highly fallible. As RIchard Hocking pointed out on the Prayer Man thread:

What do Joe Molina, Carl Edward Jones, Roy Edward Lewis, and Prayer Man all have in common?

No one else in the "Step Group" testified these individuals were on the steps.

[Cliff Varnell]

I think that we do ourselves a disservice when we treat this crime as a "simple" homicide instead of viewing it as a political assassination. If this were a "simple" homicide perpetrated by one man against another man the main loss suffered would have resided in the death of the individual victim, followed by the loss to his immediate family, then followed by the loss to his extended family and friends, and finally, followed by the loss to the community at large. Insomuch as the "average Joe" may have a relatively minor contribution to the community at large, the loss is barely felt or even noticed on that level.

Not so in the case of John F. Kennedy.

In this case the degree of loss suffered and its attendant tragic result is manifest most severely by its effect on the (global) community at large.

It is not a case of one man killing another in order to steal his wallet. Nor was it a crime of passion. So micro-inspecting the elements of the crime, such as, motive, means and opportunity--as would be appropriate if this were a "simple" homicide--fail to address the most important clue of all: The outcome.

I submit that the outcome is dynamic. It is ongoing. It is not over. It continues to evolve over time. The conspirators' successors are still operationally engaged to this day, managing the message, running the show.

This is not a cover-up designed by RONCO, where you can: "Set it and forget it!"

It is in need of constant maintenance. It takes an ever growing amount of energy to preserve itself.

This thing is alive.

Greg, did you realize how many "respected" researchers put JFK's back wound at the back base of his neck -- in spite of the overwhelming evidence of a wound at T3?

The physical evidence in the case -- the clothing evidence, which Salandria, Fonzi & Schotz have advocated to deaf ears -- is regarded with studied indifference at CTKA, outright hostility at ROKC, and goes over the head of Charles Drago.

Yes, the JFK cover-up is alive and well and has the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community as an adjunct.

Not to be redundant, but as I said previously [with emphasis now added]:

I would appreciate it if the contributors to this thread would consider the thrust of my presentation before posting.

In that presentation I submitted that we are playing into the hands of those who would obstruct justice when we, again, continue to rehash items of so-called "evidence," which more often than not is in conflict with other items of so-called "evidence." Researchers have, quite understandably, not given the same amount of weight to each item of so-called "evidence." Rather the value of each item is weighted according to the opinion of that researcher. And the opinion of each researcher is instructed, in part, by his or her education, critical thinking skills, personal bias and so forth.

And so round and round we go...again. Until we choose to stop.

Can we take a break from that exercise...just for now...just in this thread?

If we do, perhaps we will discover that there are items of equal or greater value to discuss other than the mountain of conflicting evidence that has been the subject of our effort for over a half century, but has led us nowhere.

What mean "us"?

I don't think this applies to Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi, or E.Martin Schotz.

I cite the physical evidence and you counter with "a mountain of conflicting evidence"?

Nonsense.

It is not my opinion that physical evidence is given paramount weight in a murder case.

It is not my opinion that the autopsists the night of the autopsy with the body in front of them considered it possible JFK was struck with high tech weaponry.

Such a scenario takes one to the gates of Ft. Detrick, Maryland.

Of course this "simple" murder case is "political."

Never mind the bollocks.

[Greg Burnham]

Cliff,

You are still attempting to persuade the unpersuadable that there was a conspiracy by virtue of a proper interpretation of the physical evidence. Those who obstinately cling to the lone nut position have long had sufficient evidence, physical and otherwise, to become enlightened.

Your endless quest to persuade others to appreciate what it is fails to address what it means.

There are only fan blades spinning on the distant horizon, Don Quixote. What you're missing is the significance of the electricity they produce beneath the surface.

[Mark Knight]

Greg,

To be fair to some of the folks who have posted on this topic, the "why" of the assassination, and the "what it means" part, are sometimes twisted around our interpretations of the details. Our minds are all but numbed by 50+ years of dealing with the details, as if we can arrive at the "why" and "what it means" by figuring out who did what and how they did it.

Unfortunately, I'm going out on a limb here and saying that the human mind works in such a way that we think we need to understand the details before we can fully appreciate the "why" and the "what it means" part. Most of us are simply responding to the way that our schools taught us to think. Remember math class? Getting the right answer wasn't sufficient; we had to show that we understood the details that led to the answer.

That's MY theory as to why we are still bogged down by the details, and can't see the big picture clearly.

[Thomas Graves]

Mr. Lifton,

I believe you are confusing the "controversy" over Altgen 6 with the more-recent discussion on this very forum on the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread. It's pretty much accepted that Oswald is NOT seen in Altgens 6. But there are other films that show another man in the corner BEHIND Lovelady, who is not visible in Altgens 6, who may--or may not--be Oswald.

Check out the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread and educate yourself on the issue. You may or may not believe it's Oswald back in the corner. But it's also not Lovelady, who IS the man seen in Altgens 6.

Mark,

Yes, I am aware of that thread, primarily because I am interested in the Darnell film, and because those exhibits show Officer Baker running towards the building and the steps into the building, while the focus of everyone else appears to be "down the street."

Many people are unaware that although Baker came up with an explanation that he ran into the building because he saw pigeons flying off the roof, that was not his "first day" explanation; in the very first draft of his statement, he said something to the effect (this is from memory) that he "thought" the shots came from an upstairs window, and that was his "explanation."

As to the image over on the left hand side, I realize there's an image there--and yes, I have looked at it--but its very indistinct, and certainly not of the quality necessary to make an identification. I notice that most of the posts on that thread do not cite the image in isolation, but rather as part of a wider argument using a process of elimination as to who it might be at that particular location.

It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. The only such "early" reports concern him being (possibly) in a nearby storage room, a minute or two following the shooting; and those reports are (historically and legally) far more important (and potent). As I recall, they were not properly followed up by the FBI investigation (or the Warren Commission, for that matter).

DSL

5/14/15 - 4 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

An obvious explanation for all the interest "down the street" while Baker or some other policeman is running towards the TSBD front door: that's where JFK's limo was when the shots rang out and people hit the ground and others started yelling or screaming. Due to the confusing acoustics of Dealy Plaza, most who realized that Kennedy had been shot (or shot at) would have naturally assumed that the shooter was down there somewhere, too.

--Tommy

Edited May 16, 2015 by Thomas Graves