Shanet Clark

I agree with Geraharty, Anthony Summers is the king of working writers. Epstein and Hougan I've been rereading. Epstein is great on Nosenko and DEMORENSCHIDT........ Blakey, he was the late 1970's House Committee lead counsel, had a limited hang-out fall back position (since Oswald was lost) the mafia and now we know what Roselli really was...no I don't think Blakey wants to defend the strange evidentiary interpretations he had, they were almost as bad as the Warren Commission, worse in many ways, because they had ten years of leads to dispose of.....

Thanks Denis its worth reading, I couldn't read it all...like a bad microfilm.

RON way to go, PFC Eugene Dinkin code operator via FRANCE that's the french connection, a lead anyway, FOIA that State cable......

Jim Root is absolutely correct, the Fletcher Prouty material and approach would place Maxwell Taylor in the position of ordering the stand-down, I believe. Perhaps Tosh can comment on the likelihood of a stand down order circulating through the Texas based Federal defense agencies in 1963? the 111th? What am I saying, Tosh knows there were self protecting institutional abort orders at the civilian agency because of what was going on at the military-industrial () It is widely rumored and difficult to establish if true, but TAYLOR would have been the man on the spot there. Taylor, along with cabinet secretary GOP finacier DILLON., if there was incapacity, a loss of clearance and the sense of the VP and the Cabinet were in favor of the sanction, it would be legal. The PR guys and the attorneys like to say "That falls under the dot dot dot treaty or law. Read the twentyfifth amendment circa 1965-1967, and this removal is in the first clause, I don't make this stuff up, I couldn't, even in a novel about Caligula and Commodus................................

Shanet: I stopped downloading those LA Free Press sites; they took too long and were too non-descript. What is the passage that raises questions about Moorman's "evidentiary provenance?" Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They shook the girls down over at the police station and held onto the polaroid for a few hours while they leaned on them, hard to tell how long, couple of hours of illegal detention, snapshot in the other room...quite a bad day for Moorman and Jean Hill........thats my take on the article in the LA Free Press 1968. Who knows? It should show Classic Marksman Figure but a ganzfeld is there instead.............

Jim Root...... Nosenko was the Domestic Russian KGB, thirteenth division, working defectors, blackmail; a foreign assassinations case officer for the KGB. Before sent to Geneva for a non routine security job (for him) in 1962 he was in charge of Tourist and Embassy contacts with US and other possible defectors. He came over right after Dallas. Through Germany by car. Spy coming in from cold. Oswald was in USSR two and a half years, 1959-1962. Married Marina. When Oswald went back to the Soviets in Mexico City in October 1963, he became a full triple agent, or low level asset. He was looking for the 13th division case officer. 1959 attempted suicide in order to stay in Soviet Union. He was allowed to express in and express out of Soviet Union, very unusual. Helms and McCone expressly let Nosenko defect in. AT debriefing, NOSENKO said he was officer in charge and was sure Oswald was not KGB. Imprisoned and tortured for lying, in unprecedented CIA house arrest, Nosenko languished, after defecting to America. John, Jim, Tim, Tosh, I've never seen Oswald as an agent. Ive seen him as a program, a low level Marine Intelligence File, an unfortunate fellow that has been sent here (Atsugi) sent there (Moscow/Minsk) squired there (Dallas) asked to do this (Hands off Cuba/Fair Play For Cuba) that (espouse Marxism) and the other (work here).....for what? I don't call that an agent ...I call that some low level asset you can use up when you need to .... a burn card. A patsy option. A counter-intelligence conditioned 'false man' ?? But did the Russians get to him and flip him, and get Oswald to write the suspicious diary, did KGB USSR program Lee Oswald?/? Not even Richard Helms and J. Jesus Angleton knew the answer to that question, but he was in place with his curtain rods and book boxes when the parade came thru town........so Nosenko got grilled and grilled. Shanet

Tim: Regarding the absence of a Nix established feature missing from the Polaroid: It certainly would not have been impossible to take a high resolution Leica 4x5 black and white transparency of the Moorman snapshot, carefully grey code it and retouch over the classic marksman figure seen in the Nix film, then project the transparency onto a screen just large enough to...you guessed it, take a polaroid snapshot of the projected image, presto new Moorman instant polaroid snapshot, with no troublesome figures on the grassy knoll ...........the Army, Air and Central agencies, not to mention Howard Hughes film labs and the Robert R. Mullen Company were capable of this, in less than one day..............a speculative explanation. The LA press story certainly compromises its evidentiary provenance......

John Another word for divergent is "contrarian" -- We question authority, the State's and each others, and we take 'contrary' positions. As I told Tim Carroll, I have worked hard to break free of "INDOCTRINATION, SOCIALIZATION and BEHAVIOURAL CONDITIONING." I am willing to put up with quite a bit of anarchy to associate with others of like mind. However, the sniping, intimidation and ugly remarks serve no purpose; I noticed both your threads on rules, (really only suggested guidelines) bogged down into puerile hypotheticals and baseless accusations. Shame on them. I look at this FORUM like it is a graduate seminar or legal team's research, really, like an investigative committee. We "virtually" hand evidence around the table asking the others "What do you think of this?" Then the array of responses from various "divergent" or "contrarian" sources is absolutely priceless. Our common sense is worth more than ten billion dollars of government "spin," and there are always going to people who constitutionally can not question authority. Their are tangible benefits to toeing the line (Arlen Spector and Bob Bennett are in the Senate, Gerald Ford was made President, Posner and Rather are famous...) But we are breaking ground and solving this thing, at least to my satisfaction, because we are so much farther along in understanding the assassination than when we started. STAY FOCUSED PEOPLE!

Thanks Al, Very helpful insight. Braking is the instinct, accelerating is the training. You confirmed my premise, while adding important context. My email is posted, so you can send me attachments. Shanet

Members: Dr. Mantik's paper gains further support and clarification by Wim's collection of autopsy photos on JFKMurderSolved................ PLEASE read Dr. Mantik's paper, and then look at our colleague Wim's photos.

Al I just posted a very similar scenario on the Moorman thread. JFK was looking to his left, it is hard to imagine a bullet coming in from the right, from the north knoll, entering his right temple and then blowing out the occipital right rear of his skull. Much more likely that shot came from the south knoll, where Tosh said it did.... (((I know its hard to imagine that the 1963 Secret Service would brake during an ambush, but the David Wimp demonstration on C-Span was pretty convincing))) shanet

Thanks Tim--this is typical of what I've seen. Huge fingerprint, no discernible figures at wall or fence. Did you read Denis's LA paper (above)? Why people would think this photo is credible evidence of a gunman WHILE DISCREDITING the NIX figure is totally beyond me. One thing, though, look at how Kennedy is poised here--maybe one second before the fatal headshot. I have a hard time seeing how a gunman off to the right, (CLASSIC, BADGEMAN or FILES) could blow out his right rear occipital/parietal with a shot from the fence/wall. Looks like the overpass position is the only one that could supply that trajectory........John J. McCloy seemed to entertain the possibility of an overpass shooter in his letter posted on Wim's site. Also, do you see Zapruder and Sitzman? I think I do but they look too big. Do you see the Car Hood? There is something there, just over the wall. There is a white space where the marksman is in NIX ! This might be a Polaroid of a Polaroid with the original Moorman retouched, then re-photo'd and then destroyed....not much evidentiary value, really crappy photo. Wasn't Jean Hill (article) a victim of "natural causes"? Moorman didn't testify and the polaroid wasn't in the Warren Commission, what does that tell you about the investigation? Thanks for the NIX download--Shanet

Its worth it for the text--but the graphics are not good (scan of old newpaper). Who has a good quality MOORMAN photo they can post?

No problem, my friend. Sounds like I was "warm."

Witnesses not only stick to the story and appear to believe it, they really cannot recall the facts when they want to. They don't really believe that all their lies were true, but they no longer can access the truthful version--it has become corrupted. They were busy thinking up a lie and didn't preserve the memory the way honest witnesses did. Repetition makes this worse. Thanks for the feedback, I think these type of psych studies have been done for years by the agencies and kept classified, it is only now that publicly available studies like this are coming out........it has a big impact on understanding things like the testimony of Braden, Files, Arce, Greer, the medical forensics witnesses, and the various accused "tramps"........ Holt, Abrams, Hunt, Sturgis and Harrelson. Marina Oswald is another one who needs to be observed through this analytical lens. Shanet

Recently I wrote a short paper about research into lying witnesses, and whether lying hurts the ability to tell the truth later. I posted some of it on the Chauncey Holt thread. This has a little technical language, but the theme is clear: scripted and lying witnesses degrade their own ability to accurately remember the truth. With so many false witnesses, scripted stories and "changes of heart" I thought this outline of Dr. Pickel's MEMORY article would help us to understand the psychology of lying witnesses, and their ability to tell the truth later. Based on the article- When a Lie Becomes the Truth: The Effects of Self-Generated Misinformation on Eyewitness Testimony By Keri Pickel, Memory, January 2004 “Presumably it is more difficult to fabricate a plausible and convincing lie that is consistent with everything the individual knows … than it is to tell the truth” Summary of Abstract Review of Literature Key Terms: Misinformation Effect, Source Monitoring Errors Retrieval Blocking Hypothesis: Lying Blocks or Corrupts the Accurate Memory of an Event’s Details Methodology of 1st Experiment 123 Psychology Students, Mainly White Females 4 Conditions: 1) Truth. 2) No Rehearsal. 3) Lies about Clerk. 4) Lies about Assailant. All Shown a Security Film, Immediately Pre-tested (by Condition, some Lie) for Recall Post-tested Again One Week Later for Accurate Recall of Details from Film Results of 1st Experiment Truth Group-Most Correct Details, Fewest Incorrect Details Lied About Assailant Group- Fewest Correct Details, Most Incorrect Details Moderating Variable Groups, (No Rehearsal and Lied about Clerk), Fell Between Extremes The question remains, is there a difference between self-generated misinformation and prompted or scripted misinformation in the subsequent accuracy of recall? Methodology of 2nd Experiment 112 Psychology Students, Mainly White Females 3 Conditions: 1) Truth. 2) Lies about Assailant 3) Lies about Assailant Using A Script Same basic protocol, Film, Pre-Test, Post-Test One Week Later for Accurate Recall Results of 2nd Experiment Truth Group– Recalled the Most Correct Details & Fewest Incorrect Details Scripted Misinformation Group– Least Correct Details, Most Incorrect Details Self Generated Misinformation Group– Similar to Scripted Group, Slightly Better Recall Results and Discussion: Hypothesis Supported Emphasis on Source Monitoring Errors, Retrieval Blocking, Misinformation Effect Experiment Two Control Group – Told the Truth in Both the Pre-Test and the Post-Test Fabrication Group -- Generated False Misinformation in the Pre-Test Attempted to Tell Details Accurately In the Post-Test Given One Week Later Prepared Fabrication Group – Followed False Script In Pre-Test Attempted to Tell Details Accurately In Post-Test One Week Later Main Results of Experiment Two: Both the Scripted and Self-Generated Misinformation Groups Reported Fewer Correct and More Incorrect Details Than the Truth (Control) Group General Conclusions: Inventing a False Description or Relying on a Scripted False Description of an Event Will Decrease a Witnesses Ability to Remember Accurate Details about that Event Why? The Retrieval Blocking Hypothesis Would Indicate that the Act of Generating False Information Interferes Later With the Ability to Access Correct Data The Lack of Rehearsal Time Immediately after the Event is a Factor Source Monitoring Error, Where the Source of A Memory is Recalled, Is a Factor Source Monitoring Has Been Shown To Be a Hasty and Imperfect Process In Real Life, The Author Believes this Recall Difficulty is Magnified: One, The Criminal Is Likely to Be Highly Motivated to Lie Two, The Criminal Has Time to Create More Realistic Details, Details Which Have Been Shown To Be More Readily Confused With the Actual Details Three, In a Police Interrogation Situation, The Act of Repeating False Details Makes Retrieval of Accurate Details Later Even Less Likely Real Life Applications: Criminal Justice, Police and National Security Efforts Juvenile Courts, Assistant Principals, Counselors and Teachers Overall, The Study Establishes that Lying Corrupts Memory and Some False Details Will Subsequently Be Believed to be True, Making Even Repentant Liars Poor Witnesses

Tim and other interested researchers: I recently ran ARCH MOORE, the former Republican West Virginia Governor (c. 1968-1974), and convicted felon, ($40,000 bribe) through the namebase.org software. The only matches that came up (his associates) were Robert Dole, J. Dowdy, C. Gallagher, F. Clark, Benny Binion, Moe Dalitz, Hank Greenspun and Meyer Lansky. Now that is one dirty Governor! Anyone got anything on ARCH MOORE, Dowdy, Gallagher or Clark, or know of why Nixon's man in West Virginia would be associated with LANSKY, DALITZ or GREENSPUN? (Not specifically JFK related, but I think it may lead to Nixon/Caribbean shenanigans.) Shanet [digging through the underworld of 1960s politics]

After reading Anthony Summers, and since the real name is "locked up" I would say you could fill in the blank there with Meyer Lansky and not be too far off......................

Didn't someone find and release the raw materials used in the Oswald backyard photos? I seem to remember seeing background photos, with silhouettes cut, overlays, etc. They may have been a re-creation, but it seems to me they were the original paste-up components. Does anyone else know to what I am referring?

At the risk of antagonizing Wim, I must say that that post really does bring serious doubt to that part of the Jimmy Files story.

Thanks Al, you are a gentleman and a scholar. One more question: Both the Zapruder film and the Nix film show Jackie chasing some material (skull or brains) back onto the rear car hood, while the limousine is moving at less than 10 miles an hour. Is there any way that this could have happened if the shots all came from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository?

I just spent about an hour watching a video (pixilated) version of the NIX film, that Tim Carroll sent me via email. 1. Very slow limousine, with motorcycles dropping back to safety. Walking speed during the ambush. Either criminally negligent, negligently criminal or both. 2. Nix shows the headshot. A white mass (brain and bone) is visible in a frame or two...this material is tracked by Jacqueline Kennedy and she follows it back, like in Zapruder. Agent Hill appears to catch or scoop this object as he runs and jumps aboard. If Kennedy was shot from behind, why does his skull material fly back onto the rear hood? 3. Classic gunman is visible throughout, tracking the limo. There is a slight brightness at the headshot frames, apparently a subdued muzzle-flash. 4. Zapruder and his assistant are visible. 5. The classic gunman and the carhood are visible throughout, well-lit with a dark background behind them under the tree. Both the marksman and the vehicle are close to the wall. They are not back in the shadows, but up near the retaining wall. 6. The gunman is really in classic stance, with elbows up, head down. This is not a shadow on the wall. Mainly white, but fleshtones are also seen. 7. Only after the headshot is delivered does the 1963 Secret Service limousine accelarate. Slowly, so Hill can catch up and mount the rear bumper. How fast would you be driving if someone could catch you from behind like that? 8. Nix, for some reason, returns to the gunman (and car) and continues filming this spot after the limousine rolls off to the left. The marksman is now looking to his right.

Americans routinely entered the service as seniors in high school, age 17.

Oh, yes, I agree that the scale is normal, and by that I mean that the classic gunman, fairly close to the wall is normal size. If he was way back in the parking lot, then, yes he would have been a giant. But he is close to the wall. You were too far to the right in your re-enactment to be where the Nix classic gunman was. We have been talking about some pictures without enough clarification, and I don't have them...could you clarify which is which? Is the highlighted figure (cutout) in Moorman?Which one is the Bell photo? I know we have limited graphics allotments, but I think you would seriously improve your argument by laying out the photos with identification...I'm confused and I have been following all this closely. Bill Miller thinks the classic gunman is light and shadow (like the HSAC 1977 conclusions) and Jack White thinks the classic gunman is "sunspots and retouching" but I think the photo evidence shows a marksman, especially Nix--and the two blow-ups, but I don't know their origin (Bell? Moorman?) Sorry, just looking for clarification. Also where did you get the facing right profile? Finally, I think the car is closer in to the wall, the man and the car look to be close together, I know you separate them, but my point is yes, the gunman is at the wall, and the car is close in behind him, if that was physically possible... glad you're still with us Shanet ...........(where is Roberdeau?)........

Yes, I believe George Herbert Walker was Bush I's maternal grandfather. Jim's statement probably would make more sense if it read "Draper joined what would become the Bush team" although the Bushes from Ohio had built up their industrial interests and links to Harriman/Union Pacific by this time. I am not too familiar with the generations previous to Senator Prescott Bush, but they were wealthy industrialists back to the 1880s, I believe. By 1900 there was a Harriman/Bush link. ((not much help, we'll have to look it up)) John, further comment on the above: Individuals with no personal motives? They may have just been following orders. You apparently are growing more convinced with the Haley/Barr McClellan thesis, where #2 eliminates #1 to become #1. I don't think that happened, because #3, #4, #5 and #6 wouldn't go along with such a personal and naked power grab. My thesis is that MI/CIA ranking officials (Maxwell Taylor, McCone, McCloy, Dulles) went to #3 (treasury secretary Dillon) and described Kennedy's "incapacity, " and demanded a loss of security clearance eligibility, and this logically became the rationale for removal. It was based on intelligence on JFK's personal behavior. Marshall Carter, head of NSA, may have gone along. In this way, #2 (Johnson) benefitted but did not initiate, he was handed the sanction as a 'fait accompli' by his Joint Chief and Cabinet leader. (taylor and c.d.dillon) A large and reciprocally compromising effort stemmed from this, where many different elements were employed with the knowledge that the FBI and other authorities would not prosecute them. In other words #3 (dillon) #4 (taylor) #5 (McCone) #6 (lovett) #7 (anderson) #8 (hoover) protected #2 (johnson) when #1 was stripped of his clearances and suffered executive sanction. I never would have come to this conclusion without reading the 25th amendment, which seems to authorize just such an effort and say "its okay, but next time we'll do it this way, ie, no blood" Shanet: Can you help out with the above question. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}>