Shanet Clark

The unknown comic, Gene-Gene the dancing machine, the GONG SHOW as a cover for dismal foreign assassinations............. Facts, anyone? Can anyone place CHUCK BARRIS in a foreign country when a political assassination occurred? I have read and discovered enough COLD WAR oddities to not discount anything without evidence, no matter how BIZARRE and apparently "ridiculous" it may seem at first..........

Myra Have you seen Pierre Salingers book John F. Kennedy Commander in Chief? The images, especially LBJ and JFK together tell quite a story -- shanet

International Friends and Colleagues: I recently completed work in the Middle East Center as a photo archive Egyptologist while doing research with the EI Woodruff Fellowship in US History at Georgia State....... I was also named to the board of architectural review known here in Dekalb County, Georgia as the Historic Preservation Commission. It is a monthly county board with agenda........also I have received a commission from the US Department of Education to review ten different one million dollar grant requests in the field of traditional american history........2007......... and how was your day? photo is from the set of "WE ARE MARSHALL"

A few years ago, topic thread KEYWORDS on this international education forum correllated with search engine responses and directed interested students to the site relative to the volume of our correspondence. This is no longer true and all manner of strange and petty citations appear before the true ED FORUM links....... Suspicious, but not suprising >>>,>>>,>>>

It seems reasonable to believe ALL the eyewitnesses... JFK went into the Texas Parkland Hospital and civilians saw the back of his head blown out from gunshots from the front, AND military doctors at the Maryland Bethesda Hospital officers saw a deep skull wound above the ear and the skull is shattered in the Xray ........ what is the problem ???

This sounds good>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is a great project John(s). Though I'm confused. John G. are you still looking for volunteers or are you doing the pages you listed on your own? I'm eager to take a shot at this. I have had one experience trying to get the propaganda on Hugo Chavez changed, and as a result I admit that I'm skeptical that they'll let us dilute their propaganda. But we still gotta try. Hm, perhaps we could keep building on this thread by posting the updates we submit, then the short and long term results. In addition to having copies of what we submit, as John S. advised, we'd have a journal of sorts. So for better or worse trends over time should become obvious. Go to the JFK related articles and change it as you see fit for better accuracy/

The nose and chin match up, as does his taste in eyewear, but who needed black glacier wraparound goggles in Texas?

Did he ever get his kids straightened out about where he was on 11/22/63? He testified that he had trouble convincing them that he wasn't in Dallas, when he had testified earlier that the kids were with him that day. I imagine this only confused the kids more than ever. Ron As you know, Mark Lane's PLAUSIBLE DENIAL tells the story in detail. Hunt claimed to sue the newspaper because the suggestion he was part of the Kennedy assassination was hurtful to his children, who saw him in Washington on 11/22/63....... but when put on the stand the kids said he was gone all weekend, so he had no alibi.......

The Miller Center is a highly respected School of American government in historic Charlottesville, Virginia at the Jefferson designed campus grounds of the University of Virginia. Numerous presidential and diplomatic scholars are in residence, in correspondence with or otherwise connected with the Miller school and they have similar national security issues publishing credentials as the National Security Archives affiliated with George Mason University.

The way I see it, "first round" testimony is the cleanest. Later testimony will always include something they read or heard in the news or from other testimonies. I believe that in situations like this, it is a human characteristic to want to give a thorough evaluation of what happened and the longer the time period between the event and the statement, the more 3rd party information it will include. That later testimony is kind of a realisation "Oh yeah, that's what happened". It may well be an accurate description of what actually took place, but it is not only what the witness saw, but it includes a little extra that makes sense to them. On another note, this makes the lack of a 1960's depostition by DCM and Umbrella man seem a little suspicious.... Absolutely. I researched the psychology journals and found that witnesses who lie actually forget the truth, the lying erodes their ability to remember accurately what they have lied about. This is first class evidence of tampering. Also interesting about the Bell and Moorman overlay (on another thread today)

The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came to a momentary halt, and about that time 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, and I guess it just didn't register with me. Mary was uh had gotten down on the ground and was pulling at my leg, saying "Get , get down, they're shooting, get down, they're shooting; and I didn't even realize it. And I just kept sitting there looking. And uh uh just about that time, well, of course, some of the motorcycles pulled away. And some of them pulled over to the side and started running up the bank; there's a hill on the other side (she is interrupted) Q: Yes, Maam. A: And the shots came from there. After they were momentarily stopped--after the first two shots--THEN they sped away REAL quickly.

Good thread. Convincing evidence of tampering. Moorman, Bell and Nix are mutually impossible.

The National Student Group for the Loyalty Oath? The first President of the Young Americans for Freedom? Howard Hunts' lawyer from Mullen, who got a call from Bernard Barkers' wife on June 17th 1972 in Washington? Billie Sol Estes last and greatest barrista? “From the safe I took a small money box and removed the $10,000 Liddy had given me for emergency use. I put $1,500 in my wallet and the remaining $8,500 in my coat pocket. The black attaché case containing McCord’s electronic equipment I placed in a safe drawer that held my operational notebook. Then I closed and locked the safe, turning the dial several times. The other two cases I left beside the safe, turned out the light and left my office, locking the door.” --E. Howard Hunt, Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent (Berkley, 1974) >>>>>great thread>>>>>>>>>>>>

I get it.

weak

FBI turns to broad new wiretap method By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com Published on ZDNet News: January 30, 2007, 4:00 AM PT The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed. Instead of recording only what a particular suspect is doing, agents conducting investigations appear to be assembling the activities of thousands of Internet users at a time into massive databases, according to current and former officials. That database can subsequently be queried for names, e-mail addresses or keywords. Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000. It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible. Call it the vacuum-cleaner approach. It's employed when police have obtained a court order and an Internet service provider can't "isolate the particular person or IP address" because of technical constraints, says Paul Ohm, a former trial attorney at the Justice Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. (An Internet Protocol address is a series of digits that can identify an individual computer.) That kind of full-pipe surveillance can record all Internet traffic, including Web browsing--or, optionally, only certain subsets such as all e-mail messages flowing through the network. Interception typically takes place inside an Internet provider's network at the junction point of a router or network switch. The technique came to light at the Search & Seizure in the Digital Age symposium held at Stanford University's law school on Friday. Ohm, who is now a law professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Richard Downing, a CCIPS assistant deputy chief, discussed it during the symposium. In a telephone conversation afterward, Ohm said that full-pipe recording has become federal agents' default method for Internet surveillance. "You collect wherever you can on the (network) segment," he said. "If it happens to be the segment that has a lot of IP addresses, you don't throw away the other IP addresses. You do that after the fact." "You intercept first and you use whatever filtering, data mining to get at the information about the person you're trying to monitor," he added. On Monday, a Justice Department representative would not immediately answer questions about this kind of surveillance technique. "What they're doing is even worse than Carnivore," said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who attended the Stanford event. "What they're doing is intercepting everyone and then choosing their targets." When the FBI announced two years ago it had abandoned Carnivore, news reports said that the bureau would increasingly rely on Internet providers to conduct the surveillance and reimburse them for costs. While Carnivore was the subject of congressional scrutiny and outside audits, the FBI's current Internet eavesdropping techniques have received little attention. Carnivore apparently did not perform full-pipe recording. A technical report (PDF: "Independent Technical Review of the Carnivore System") from December 2000 prepared for the Justice Department said that Carnivore "accumulates no data other than that which passes its filters" and that it saves packets "for later analysis only after they are positively linked by the filter settings to a target." One reason why the full-pipe technique raises novel legal questions is that under federal law, the FBI must perform what's called "minimization." Federal law says that agents must "minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception" and keep the supervising judge informed of what's happening. Minimization is designed to provide at least a modicum of privacy by limiting police eavesdropping on innocuous conversations. Prosecutors routinely hold presurveillance "minimization meetings" with investigators to discuss ground rules. Common investigatory rules permit agents to listen in on a phone call for two minutes at a time, with at least one minute elapsing between the spot-monitoring sessions. That section of federal law mentions only real-time interception--and does not explicitly authorize the creation of a database with information on thousands of innocent targets. But a nearby sentence adds: "In the event the intercepted communication is in a code or foreign language, and an expert in that foreign language or code is not reasonably available during the interception period, minimization may be accomplished as soon as practicable after such interception." Downing, the assistant deputy chief at the Justice Department's computer crime section, pointed to that language on Friday. Because digital communications amount to a foreign language or code, he said, federal agents are legally permitted to record everything and sort through it later. (Downing stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of the Justice Department.) "Take a look at the legislative history from the mid '90s," Downing said. "It's pretty clear from that that Congress very much intended it to apply to electronic types of wiretapping." EFF's Bankston disagrees. He said that the FBI is "collecting and apparently storing indefinitely the communications of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of innocent Americans in violation of the Wiretap Act and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution." Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., said a reasonable approach would be to require that federal agents only receive information that's explicitly permitted by the court order. "The obligation should be on both the (Internet provider) and the government to make sure that only the information responsive to the warrant is disclosed to the government," he said. Courts have been wrestling with minimization requirements for over a generation. In a 1978 Supreme Court decision, Scott v. United States, the justices upheld police wiretaps of people suspected of selling illegal drugs. But in his majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist said that broad monitoring to nab one suspect might go too far. "If the agents are permitted to tap a public telephone because one individual is thought to be placing bets over the phone, substantial doubts as to minimization may arise if the agents listen to every call which goes out over that phone regardless of who places the call," he wrote. Another unanswered question is whether a database of recorded Internet communications can legally be mined for information about unrelated criminal offenses such as drug use, copyright infringement or tax crimes. One 1978 case, U.S. v. Pine, said that investigators could continue to listen in on a telephone line when other illegal activities--not specified in the original wiretap order--were being discussed. Those discussions could then be used against a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Ohm, the former Justice Department attorney who presented a paper on the Fourth Amendment, said he has doubts about the constitutionality of full-pipe recording. "The question that's interesting, although I don't know whether it's so clear, is whether this is illegal, whether it's constitutional," he said. "Is Congress even aware they're doing this? I don't know the answers." YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Would anyone like to comment upon the substance of the thread? That Greer's head goes from looking back at JFK to eyes forward on the road in a quarter of a second?

Thanks Jack. Of course you are right. I am using the best images I can find........ I knew the one they call BILL MILLER would come roaring in with insults and personal abuse. Z 317 actually is a relatively stable frame, I meant to say 318 and 319 are severely blurred and then in 320 Greer is facing forward. So Z-316 to Z-320 shows a 90 degree head snap, in a quarter to a third of a second......... So who is the baby with the loaded gun now? Me, or "Bill Miller" with an internet connection???

In the fine frame by frame version available online http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ it is clear that the driver, Mr. Greer, is completely turned around facing the President in ZAP frames 312 / 313 / 314 / 315 and 316 then frames 317 and 318 are severely blurred, and then in frame 319 the driver is facing fully forward. This is a fast head snap, and indicates to me that something is wrong with this film sequence.

[quote name='Greg Parker' those type of books and titles are classic MOCKINGBIRD disinformation bullxxxx

I think alot of us have a problem with Hunt and Dallas. Structurally, we know he was intimately mixed with the Bay of Pigs veterans and CIA domestic activities and directly implicated in the characters of interest......... But many of us no longer think he was the "third tramp" despite our earlier interest in that angle, same with the KGB forgery of the LHO-EHH correspondence. Hunt either was a known JFK assassin who made Nixon xxxx his pants ........or maybe he wasn't........... neat counter intelligence case study , that old rascal and bohemian author who thought he was America's 007 EVERETTE HOWARD HUNT

Playboy editor and author. Fantastic writer and investigative journalist. Robert Anton Wilson should be remembered as a fantastic talent and cultural icon, one of my favorites ..............

He threatened to sue me in federal court for libel........ He wasted a lot of our time and energy and I am not interested in reading his long, boring and insipid postings about how the communists killed Kennedy. Beware...........

"Hide" and "Fidel" ........the two prime pre-occupations of US counter intelligence operatives in 1963....... ......................or am I just a smart aleck ????