John Dolva

a comment: it's hard to make clear statement, there are similarities and differences, perhaps this orientation helps?

Marcel, I wonder if you know when during the time that the shutter is open on Zapruders camera, how long from when the light hits the film it is registered as an image? I'm trying to find out if there is a lapse there to consider in working out how long the film during that 1/35 seconds is 'exposed'? JohnD

some further figures zf#......mph.......fr 282......9.1.......20 288......9.5.......22 294......8.3.......20 300......8.0.......23 304......7.8.......24 310......3.8.......17 316......5.7.......22 322......7.5.......23 328......7.5.......24 334......8.9.......24 again, this is viewing the difference in another way, a consistency is an even speed up to about frame 304 then a rapid deceleration followed by acceleration, and a consistent frame rate. this time the frame rate is an average of 22. I'm deducing that the consistencies indicate the overall idea is ok, some constant and/or the way of measuring is not right hence the variance of sets of results. Obviously the frame rate can't be 13 and 22, or the speed 9 and 11 mph. I think it would be good if someone else would figure out for themselves how to do it and produce a set of results to compare.In the meantime I'll plod on. I'm finding this intersting in an exercise in emipricism that my nature as 'artist' is not so suited for. My daughter did some maths homework with me yesterday, she said she prefers english lit because there's more room for imagination, I know what she means. I am slowly getting an idea of how to work out error margins. One of the difficult things is in choosing HOW one looks at the differences in 'blur' values. It seems to me there are 4 basic ways. Probably if I had an uncorrected, undeblurred (wonder if the government could act on a suggestion of defacement (smoothing, correcting, deblurring)of public property(zfilm)? Nah , prob not, just trying to think of ways to agitate for release of quality data.) set of images it would be easier. But primarily here, as I stated in the beginning of this exploration, my aim is to see if it's possible to take a single photograph and knowing the time the shutter is open and the dimensions of an object in the photo, hence know the dimensions of a pixel and from that work out relative speeds of objects in that photo. In the case of a series of still images that make up a film this could be used to work out frame rates, and possibly cross reference to other groups of photos, other films or individual photos. Unfortunately photographers have a tendency to discard 'poor shots' and look for cameras that have a high shutter speed and 'fast' films. But I'm sure there must be a pile of these discarded images around. (I wonder if an invention might be brewing here, ie a new, rough way of capturing data inexpensively without need for instruments to measure speeds. I find it hard to think I'm the first to think of that though. I did a search and could find no reference to it as yet.Perhaps a camera built to have precise longer shutter open time, with accurate media for use by people who want idea of speed of things, like bird watchers, sports photography, hmm...existing digital cameras with precisely known 'open speeds' married with appropriate interpreting software? motion detection?) Anyway that's a side issue.) Hmmm...if there has been a tendency to alter the 'known' images, perhaps among these discarded ones there would be more likely to be ones that have NOT been altered?

again and again there seem to be loose connections to the right in Norway. Nothing concrete, just circumstantial stuff. before berlin , norway was the last to fall from the occupied nazi countries. Olav apparently knew walker, he and his wife spent the war in washinton. There are large pockets of norwegians in texas, some near dallas. probably nothing there. just a thought.

Tim, I suspect that the noise of war was something that Castro by then was pretty used to, Kennedy's less decibel overtures of accommodation must have been like music to his ears. JohnD

Tom, this is good , I had noticed his brothers name and speculated on its roots, the info on Oswald's brigade is new to me. I agree that an understanding involves understanding the south, many generations back. Much of my reading is aimed at getting such an understanding, so any more of this is good I think. I've looked into some of the other names and there are trends back to early immigration and even into what those families experienced in the old world that may have motivated them to move, and once in america why they tended to over time end up where they were in '63. The reconstruction after the civil war seems in some cases encourage a 'retreat' to deeper south, perhaps explaining a concentration of the type of person in dominance in Dallas by the time of the assassination. JohnD

reading about the history of the junkie virus got me thinking about Angletons mirrors and his orchid interests. The junkie virus was distributed in a pirated game level that quickly spread around the world before it was decoded. one of the problems was that the virus had been encrypted, then that encryption had been encrypted and then a third time. angleton stopped talking about nosenko when oswald became the topic. he then firmly steered the conversation to orchids and kept it there during interviews at a number of locations. ::: Epstein "" Since Angleton's counterintelligence staff had the responsibility for evaluating information supplied by KGB defectors, I assumed that he would be in a position to clarify what Nosenko had been telling me about Oswald and the KGB. I had no idea then that Nosenko had been the subject of a bitter ten-year debate inside the CIA that had destroyed a half-dozen careers, and which helped precipitate the downfall of Angleton himself. Not knowing the mare's-nest of issues surrounding this case, I expected a simple answer when I asked him "Was there any problem with Nosenko's veracity?" Angleton answered, with a thin smile, suggesting a deliberate understatement, "Truth is always complicated when its comes to defectors". He then added that the case was "still sensitive" and he could not discuss it. With that, he abruptly cut off the conversation about Nosenko, and moved on to a subject of which I had no understanding at all: Orchids. Ordering another bottle of vintage wine, he went into elaborate detail about the pollinating conditions for Dendrobian, Phalaenopsis, Cattyleas, Cymbidian and other tribes of orchids, especially their deceptive qualities. He explained it had not been the fittest but the most deceptive orchid that had survived. The perpetuation of most species of orchids depend on their ability to misrepresent themselves to insects. Having no food to offer the insects, they had to deceive them into landing on them and carrying their pollen to another orchid in the tribe. Orchids are too dispersed in nature to depend on the wind to carry their pollen. To accomplish this deception, orchids use color, shape and odor to mimic something that attracts insects to their pods of pollen. Some orchids play on the sexual instincts of insects. The tricocerus orchid, for example, so perfectly mimics in three-dimensional the underside of a female fly, downs to the hairs and smell, that they trigger mating response from passing male flies. Seeing what he thinks is a female fly, the male fly swoops down on the orchid, and attempts to have sex with it-- a process called psuedo-copulation. In doing so, the motion causes the fly to hit the pollen pod, which attaches itself to his underside. The fly thus becomes an unwitting carrier. When the fly then passes another tricocerus orchid, and repeat the frustrating process, it pollinate that orchid. It gradually became clear that he was not only talking about an insect being manipulated through deception but an intelligence service being similarly duped, seduced, provoked, blinded, lured down false trails and used by an enemy. The last waitor was waiting for us to leave. It was almost 1 a.m. Angleton seemed drunk and I was disappointed. I had learned more than I ever wanted to know about botany but nothing about the subject at hand. As he got up to leave, I made a final try to get back to Nosenko. "But can Nosenko be believed about the assassination?" I asked. He was silent for a long moment, obviously disappointed that I had not grasped the meaning of his orchid discourse. "I told you I could not discuss cases," he said. "But you might want to buy orchids for your greenhouse..." "I don't have a greenhouse, but Nosenko..." He cut me off. Why don't you come with me to Kensington Orchids next time I go." The high humidity in Kensington Orchid house so fogged my glasses that I hardly see Angleton. He was examining a long, spiny orchid with a flash light. "See this oncidium orchid," he said, as I approached through the corridor of plants. "It has an almost exact replica of a bee's head on its petals." He meticulously traced the upside-down bee's head for me with his flashlight. "Here's the illusionary foe— the killer bee." Unable to distinguish the simulcrum from the real bee, the wasp is triggered to attack. When it plunges its stinger through the petal, the orchid's pollen pod adheres to it. The wasp then flies away and, if it sees another similar orchid, attacks again. But this time its stinger deposits the pollenate from the first orchid on the second. Angleton explains, " provocation is the means by which this species survives". Such deceptions work in nature, Angleton explains, because the deceived does not have the differentiate the real from the fake. I asked if the CIA possesses that ability. "It had counterintelligence," he said, speaking in the past tense. "So did they know if Nosenko was real or fake." Without answering, he proceeded on to a nearby odontoglossum orchid. He explained it blinded its carrier through deception. Its nectar odor lured moisquitos into its the coils of its fleshy tubes. When the moisquito pushes around a bend it runs into a spike of pollen pod, which jams into its eye. When it then back out of the tube, it is temporarily blinded. So it flies around until it smells a similar nectar and, again, following the trail of odor into a tube, it runs into another spike, which it willy-nilly pollinates with the pollen in its eye. "Did you come to buy orchids?" he asked. "I came to Washingtonton for a second interview with Nosenko, tomorrow?" Angleton drove me back to the Madison hotel in his silver Mercedes. On the way back, he played a cassette of an Israel violenist he said he had had privately recorded, Evidently, Angleton's private world extentend to even his music. After several brandies in the Madison bar, he asked me what I planned to ask Nosenko. "Any suggestions?" I replied. He then dictated, with precision I had never heard before from anyone, thirteen questions. (see Missing Pieces) They contained names and aliases I had never heard before— Rumyanstev, General Rodin, xxxxov, Colonel Semonov and Corevan, for example, as well as KGB units like the 13th Department of the First Chief Directorate (which was rumored to handle assassinations abroad). I wote them down and asked if he could further elaborate. "I can't do that. I would be revealing secrets. All you need to know-- and all I can tell you is that Nosenko never got his bona fides-- not while I was at the CIA." "" :::: there are various interpretations of what Angleton was trying to get across. Obviously he was a highly intelligent, well read person capable of subtle deceit. But assuming perhaps in this instance he is telling perhaps not who pulled the trigger but where, in which greenhouse to look? maybe just an other encryption? Using the 'triple encryption' as analogy, at the core is the conspiracy proper. For the conspiracy (assassins) to survive undetected it assumes the guise of the illusionary foe, the orchid. The wasp, the fly, and the mosquito are the diverse conspiracy theorists and any legitimate law enforcement attempts to nail the assassin. :: " provocation is the means by which this species (orchid, (assassins)) survives". "Such deceptions work in nature, Angleton explains, because the deceived does not have the (ability to) differentiate the real from the fake". These theorists and and law enforcement agencies are then manipulated to become the third, public layer. The conspiracy theory 'is' the conspiracy. Because I think this is how it might have worked, I keep on trying to return to the early days, before the conspiracy got a life of its own. Those first few minutes even, half hour or so when rumours and reports were flying all over the place. So, what use is this speculation? Assuming it's correct, I reason that to decode Angleton's orchid one needs to look past the 'smokescreen' to see the assassins. In other words, the assassins are what the smokescreen isn't. The smoke screen is the CIA, the Mob, the KGB, Oswald, Castro, anti-Castro, the FBI, JBS, KKK, Oil Barons, Johnson, Republicans, Democrats etc etc. These have in common a label, a grouping. Angleton alludes to a shifting, adapting quality when he describes different species of orchid. So also the 'smokescreen' shifts to accommodate various attacks by the fly, mosquito, wasp etc. I wonder if the assassins are to be found not in any of these groups but rather in a grouping that may have members in these groups. It seems to me that individuals involved in the JBS, KKK, DCC are likely as these groupings allow members from many groups that might otherwise be secular. JohnD

why fake the zfilm? I don't know. perhaps someone could tell me? I've read statements like ' if it can be shown to be fake then as it indicates a rear shot it would support a conspiracy.' As I don't see it indicating a rear head shot I don't agree with that statement. if the frame rate is faulty and /or parts are mutilated/missing then it would indicate attempts to cover up something, perhaps involvement of someone appearing in the film?(or as a result of mutilation , not appearing?) but still it would seem to me to be a pretty dodgy endeavour as there are so many other images available, as well as (supposedly) the original. anyway, I'm open to the idea of it being a fake, and I'm open to the idea of it being wholly genuine. whatever, any attempt to find out is worthwhile in my opinion. Gary? send me frame 313 please. for my purposes well meaning attempts to deblur, distortion correct, clean up,stabilise or in any way take the available data further away from the raw original may be one way the original has been 'mutilated'/'faked'. For other purposes it can be helpful. Still, its whats available.

hopefully if this technique can be refined and shown of value then it might go some way in indicating whether this or that film is faked/doctored/genuine. so far using this way of looking at differential 'blur' values on individual still images I am beginning to have a consistent result. latest is frame 276 of zfilm and its equivalent in the muchmore series of still images that makes up what is called 'the muchmore film'. frame 276 zf:11 mph, muchmore equivalent 14 mph, the error in the muchmore would be greater as I am using a far more grainy version (yet another reason for free access to quality material) in the images so far processed using this particular way of looking at the relative motions it seems that the limo travelled at a roughly even speed of 11 mph till about frame 300 when by 313 it had slowed to 7+ mph and then sped up again to 11 by zf 327 and 16mph by zf 241. during this time the frame rate seems to be about 13 + fps zfilm frame..............speed mph..............frame rate 276..................11........................... 300..................11.13.......................13 313..................7.35.........................13 327..................11............................14 341..................16.7.........................13 hmm this makes me think I should get on with some more of the zfilm panoramas to seek verification. also is it reasonable for the speed to be from 7.35 to 16.7 mph in 2 seconds. well thats another question as well.

testing, testing, 1 2 3, testing (this is just to see what happens to a reply in an older topic, I posted in another one with no followup indication that there was a new post there) edit:: ah, ok it worked. wonder why the other one didn't?

new bar estimate : bar 4.85" wide or 13 pixels ie 1 pixel is 0.37", 29 pixels travel between frame 315 and frame 316 (which is consistent with an increase of speed from 27 pixels frame 312 to 313) ie 10.82" travel. in frame 313 when the area on the ground is considered stationary the area on the bar has moved 22 pixels or 8.14" in 1/35 seconds or 284.9" in 1 second. or 7.91 yards. or 474.6 yards in 1 minute, or 28476 yards in one hour, or 16.2 miles per hour. 10.82 inches between frame 315 and frame 316. at 284.9" in one second. this is 26.3 frames per second. *if the speed was 8.3 mph this would be 146 inches in one seconds or frame rate of 13.4 fps. *if the frame rate was 18.3 fps then the travel would be 198 inches in one second or 11.25 mph. *if the frame rate was 16 fps then the travel would be 173.1 inches in one second which is a speed of 9.84 mph obviously further measurements are necessary, including error margin analysis. It's interesting to me that the figures I'm getting are sometimes roughly integer multiples/fractions of other estimates. It leads me to think that there is something to this approach, i have an idea of where the factor that is producing these results may be and will post more shortly. Thank you Robin for the diagram. It had two good results. I already had a slightly poorer resolution copy of that one, so it was good to get a better one. In studying it I found it to be riddled with apparent errors in scale so it set me searching again for another estimate of bar width, I found one at Don Robardeau's gold mine of data on the assassination. So with a new bar size I remeasured and recalculated and came up with the above, plus a thought of where the 'problem' might be. I'll get back on that one. Marcel, could you reaffirm the time the shutter is open? Also could you comment on the time between when photons hit the film surface and the time that this registers as an image? is this the speed of a film? ASA? Should this be fruitful, an 'open source' solution would be available to all who wish to use it. (If one was to regard the existence of previous studies/results as reason for not undertaking any or to short cirquit one then I suppose the Warren Commission Report would be it, or perhaps the KGB investigation, or perhaps the FBIs, Garrisons? hmmm Costella & co? whatever, if those who have studied the murder of JFK can do no more than use these alternative efforts as a means to advertise books I ... groan...whatever. Please release the material as a public document so that all those who feel a need to read it may do so.)

Thank you, most heartening. I was beginning to wonder if I was just talking to myself . I hope that if something concrete comes of it that it will be seen as an 'open source' project. If nothing else a further reason to argue a public release of best quality material to researchers. Also as a technique even if the zfilm is fake/dubious the technique need not be so, and could be applied to any single frame photo, perhaps the more blurred the better, which probably forms a large body of work otherwise ignored. mmmm yes, I can't help thinking that somewhere in the early images the assassin is caught in the lens, similarly in the names there at the time, in the documents of the DCC, CAA etc. John edit:: there are a few different ways to look at the relationship between the two 'blurs', (one on stationary background, one on moving Limo), I have gotten results of 24 mph (focusing on the 313 frame now), 16.7 mph, 6.2 mph and about 1 mph, the 16 and 6 indicate frame # inconsistency, the other 2 hmm wierd, 24 can be ruled out I think, 1 could indicate "almost" stopped. The thinking in which way to evaluate the difference of 'blur' (and angle diff. of blur) and and working out a way of maximising accuracy in a consistent way while keeping track of error margins are issues.

Hmm.. Good question Stephen, I believe that it is not faked. I don't know if it is faked (partly or wholly). Hopefully by continuing an evaluation of it I can say 'I know" at some point. I try to have an open mind. I find some of the results I'm getting startling but as I have not in place an error analysis, I don't know what it means. Some things I see are pushing me towards the view that with all its faults as a piece of plastic, it's genuine, some indicate possible attempt to deface in order to hide something, personally I find the idea of the whole thing being a fake pretty far out, but like I said I try to keep an open mind. Some things I'm discovering I'm very hesitant to reveal at this stage as the consequences are possibly far reaching, so I try to stick to the things that are less fanciful. If you were to start a thread on eywitness versus zfilm I'd consider that a very good thing and would hope to contribute. John D.

Stephen, I agree, it's a thread largely coloured by my input, there is little else posted here, my basic question as to whether or not speed of movement of objects in a single photo can be reliably determined by measuring characteristics of such movements on a single frame perhaps is not really about eyewitness statements. I understand that you may think I feel that you were deriding me, my ideas, but I don't. Thats understandable considering how readily I react to accusations that I feel are unfounded. But I learn from those experiences. it's all good, John D.

Stephen, I'm personally don't know whether as you say what is given more weight in a case. My personal interests have a lot to do with imagery, hence my somewhat fuzzy historical research, but thats just me. Others are very good at things like gathering information and presenting it logically as an essay for example, I'm not. My contribution , however significant it may be in the grand scheme of things, is more likely to be in graphics. Whatever the outcome of any of this may be, may or may not as you say butress other evidence. Part of my interests are to develop accepted standards, techniques (if possible) to use in photo analysis. It's likely to pursue threads of thought that may come to naught, but if I don't I wont know. Also though possibly irrelevant, it may spawn other threads that will be relevant. I think that a collective effort on a broad front is a good approach. This is "my kind of thing". Not higher, and in my opinion , not necessarily lower. John

Tim, BtW, I gather you are sympathetic of Angleton, I wonder what your take on his Orchid analogy might be, I understand John suggests Oswald might be the fly. John

Hmmm...dunno Tim, now that you point it out the best I can come up with at the moment is a difference between flights of fancy, incomplete and possibly totally unsupported thoughts, speculation perhaps is a hypothesis based on opinion derived from something more substantial. In a brainstorming environment it's not necessary to present correct supported logues, but rather off the cuff hopefully thought provoking statements that may or may not yield relevant results. John D. .... edit:: having said that, well argued researched arguments are of course essential in such a speculative environment, many of the posts in here seem to me to be quite informed , others, well ... er 'fluffy' is a good word. To me here, that in itself is not important. It brings to mind something I read recently about truth, and I believe that culturally the chinese for example are masters of this, often it is what is not said that is the message. It might have been in reading up on Angleton that I came across that, he certainly seems like a remarkable character. I can't help thinking he was a smug intellectual with a great deal of contempt for the world in general, I wonder how driven he was in trying to live down his debacle re Philby? Maybe the orchid thingy is an attempt to atone, perhaps yet further deceit. I get the impression though that he had a consistent credo, not to be mistaken for 'honesty'.

This is still not making sense to me , but at least it seems to not make sense in a consistent way. I've remeasured travels, plus arrived at a more precise bar width (hence pixel width) and keep coming up with speeds that indicate every other frame is missing, or speeds that are twice that of FBI estimate. So, I'll try to get to a mathematician at one of the unis around here and have a chat. Hopefully by this evening it'll be clearer to me and I'll post less confused results. Meantime my appeal for someone to analyse/verify/debunk all this stands. John

reading about the history of the junkie virus got me thinking about Angletons mirrors and his orchid interests. The junkie virus was distributed in a pirated game level that quickly spread around the world before it was decoded. one of the problems was that the virus had been encrypted, then that encryption had been encrypted and then a third time. angleton stopped talking about nosenko when oswald became the topic. he then firmly steered the conversation to orchids and kept it there during interviews at a number of locations. ::: Epstein "" Since Angleton's counterintelligence staff had the responsibility for evaluating information supplied by KGB defectors, I assumed that he would be in a position to clarify what Nosenko had been telling me about Oswald and the KGB. I had no idea then that Nosenko had been the subject of a bitter ten-year debate inside the CIA that had destroyed a half-dozen careers, and which helped precipitate the downfall of Angleton himself. Not knowing the mare's-nest of issues surrounding this case, I expected a simple answer when I asked him "Was there any problem with Nosenko's veracity?" Angleton answered, with a thin smile, suggesting a deliberate understatement, "Truth is always complicated when its comes to defectors". He then added that the case was "still sensitive" and he could not discuss it. With that, he abruptly cut off the conversation about Nosenko, and moved on to a subject of which I had no understanding at all: Orchids. Ordering another bottle of vintage wine, he went into elaborate detail about the pollinating conditions for Dendrobian, Phalaenopsis, Cattyleas, Cymbidian and other tribes of orchids, especially their deceptive qualities. He explained it had not been the fittest but the most deceptive orchid that had survived. The perpetuation of most species of orchids depend on their ability to misrepresent themselves to insects. Having no food to offer the insects, they had to deceive them into landing on them and carrying their pollen to another orchid in the tribe. Orchids are too dispersed in nature to depend on the wind to carry their pollen. To accomplish this deception, orchids use color, shape and odor to mimic something that attracts insects to their pods of pollen. Some orchids play on the sexual instincts of insects. The tricocerus orchid, for example, so perfectly mimics in three-dimensional the underside of a female fly, downs to the hairs and smell, that they trigger mating response from passing male flies. Seeing what he thinks is a female fly, the male fly swoops down on the orchid, and attempts to have sex with it-- a process called psuedo-copulation. In doing so, the motion causes the fly to hit the pollen pod, which attaches itself to his underside. The fly thus becomes an unwitting carrier. When the fly then passes another tricocerus orchid, and repeat the frustrating process, it pollinate that orchid. It gradually became clear that he was not only talking about an insect being manipulated through deception but an intelligence service being similarly duped, seduced, provoked, blinded, lured down false trails and used by an enemy. The last waitor was waiting for us to leave. It was almost 1 a.m. Angleton seemed drunk and I was disappointed. I had learned more than I ever wanted to know about botany but nothing about the subject at hand. As he got up to leave, I made a final try to get back to Nosenko. "But can Nosenko be believed about the assassination?" I asked. He was silent for a long moment, obviously disappointed that I had not grasped the meaning of his orchid discourse. "I told you I could not discuss cases," he said. "But you might want to buy orchids for your greenhouse..." "I don't have a greenhouse, but Nosenko..." He cut me off. Why don't you come with me to Kensington Orchids next time I go." The high humidity in Kensington Orchid house so fogged my glasses that I hardly see Angleton. He was examining a long, spiny orchid with a flash light. "See this oncidium orchid," he said, as I approached through the corridor of plants. "It has an almost exact replica of a bee's head on its petals." He meticulously traced the upside-down bee's head for me with his flashlight. "Here's the illusionary foe— the killer bee." Unable to distinguish the simulcrum from the real bee, the wasp is triggered to attack. When it plunges its stinger through the petal, the orchid's pollen pod adheres to it. The wasp then flies away and, if it sees another similar orchid, attacks again. But this time its stinger deposits the pollenate from the first orchid on the second. Angleton explains, " provocation is the means by which this species survives". Such deceptions work in nature, Angleton explains, because the deceived does not have the differentiate the real from the fake. I asked if the CIA possesses that ability. "It had counterintelligence," he said, speaking in the past tense. "So did they know if Nosenko was real or fake." Without answering, he proceeded on to a nearby odontoglossum orchid. He explained it blinded its carrier through deception. Its nectar odor lured moisquitos into its the coils of its fleshy tubes. When the moisquito pushes around a bend it runs into a spike of pollen pod, which jams into its eye. When it then back out of the tube, it is temporarily blinded. So it flies around until it smells a similar nectar and, again, following the trail of odor into a tube, it runs into another spike, which it willy-nilly pollinates with the pollen in its eye. "Did you come to buy orchids?" he asked. "I came to Washingtonton for a second interview with Nosenko, tomorrow?" Angleton drove me back to the Madison hotel in his silver Mercedes. On the way back, he played a cassette of an Israel violenist he said he had had privately recorded, Evidently, Angleton's private world extentend to even his music. After several brandies in the Madison bar, he asked me what I planned to ask Nosenko. "Any suggestions?" I replied. He then dictated, with precision I had never heard before from anyone, thirteen questions. (see Missing Pieces) They contained names and aliases I had never heard before— Rumyanstev, General Rodin, xxxxov, Colonel Semonov and Corevan, for example, as well as KGB units like the 13th Department of the First Chief Directorate (which was rumored to handle assassinations abroad). I wote them down and asked if he could further elaborate. "I can't do that. I would be revealing secrets. All you need to know-- and all I can tell you is that Nosenko never got his bona fides-- not while I was at the CIA." "" :::: there are various interpretations of what Angleton was trying to get across. Obviously he was a highly intelligent, well read person capable of subtle deceit. But assuming perhaps in this instance he is telling perhaps not who pulled the trigger but where, in which greenhouse to look? maybe just an other encryption? John D. edit:: using the 'triple encryption' as analogy, at the core is the conspiracy proper. For the conspiracy (assassins) to survive undetected it assumes the guise of the illusionary foe, the orchid. The wasp, the fly, and the mosquito are the diverse conspiracy theorists and any legitimate law enforcement attempts to nail the assassin. :: " provocation is the means by which this species (orchid, (assassins)) survives". "Such deceptions work in nature, Angleton explains, because the deceived does not have the (ability to) differentiate the real from the fake". These theorists and and law enforcement agencies are then manipulated to become the third, public layer. The conspiracy theory 'is' the conspiracy. Because I think this is how it might have worked, I keep on trying to return to the early days, before the conspiracy got a life of its own. Those first few minutes even, half hour or so when rumours and reports were flying all over the place. edit2:: so what use is this speculation? Assuming it's correct, I reason that to decode Angleton's orchid one needs to look past the 'smokescreen' to see the assassins. In other words, the assassins are what the smokescreen isn't. The smoke screen is the CIA, the Mob, the KGB, Oswald, Castro, anti-Castro, the FBI, JBS, KKK, Oil Barons, Johnson, Republicans, Democrats etc etc. These have in common a label, a grouping. Angleton alludes to a shifting, adapting quality when he describes different species of orchid. So also the 'smokescreen' shifts to accommodate various attacks by the fly, mosquito, wasp etc. I wonder if the assassins are to be found not in any of these groups but rather in a grouping that may have members in these groups. Perhaps one of these is 'the good 'ole boys', the southern Gentry? Some confederates even today do not accept defeat, the last battle of the civil war was after all won by the rebels in Texas. Reconstruction ensured a lingering bitterness. Guerilla war is after all covert. Maybe it was the latest in a hit and run strategy in a war continuing even today?? Pure speculation , of course. Is this the battle flag of the south? Apparently these students are representative of a sentiment still strong? 'I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender nor retreat." WILLIAM B. TRAVIS

Charlie, as you say, perhaps an 'off topic', but there was probably a shift in power at the JFK assassination which we now have to live with. So perhaps not so 'off'. Mother Theresa on leaving the US after a visit was asked by a reporter, rather smugly I suspect, what she thought of the USA, she said something to the effect that in all the world she has not been to a country that has more poor people. I wonder if she meant that for example someone who has 60 billion dollars and still wants more must be a very poor person indeed, especially as she would have seen satisfied smiles on child beggars in the slums of India. Certainly there are also genuinly poor and homeless in the US. The world market is driven by inequality, if everyone was satisfied, no body would want more than what they already have. Peace may be hazardous to economic growth according to some, 'divide and rule' is as true today as 2500 years ago. John

Post by Wim : "Within the confines of [Angleton’s] remarkable life were most of America’s secrets. “You know how I got to be in charge of counterintelligence? I agreed not to polygraph or require detailed background checks o­n Allen Dulles and 60 of his closest friends . . ." " Harry, do you know who these 60 friends might be? Also, did you know of Bookhout? John D edit::how would one go about finding out who directed the mail opening operation? in dallas 63?

John, Thank you for the kind words and your questions and scenario is somewhat feeding what I have been trying to get across for some time. As far as the links to my previous comments on ballistics, if you would do a search here and on Lancer you would see what I am referring to as I have been consistent throughout. What we need to keep in mind as far as internal wound ballistics is that fragmentation of the original projectile will greatly decrease sustained velocity within the penetrated cavity and therefore result in minimal disruption within through energy dispersion. Energy dispersion within the cavity is what causes the disruption within the cavity and allows for the blowout effect in the exit wound. A tangential impact strike would create a certain degree of yaw of the bullets true trajectory and stability and create considerable dispersion of energy within the cavity. However, this same tangential strike would not change the bullet's trajectory in an outward manner, as many would have you think, but would turn the bullet inward as the energy is absorbed through penetration. We see this in semi and hard resistent penetrations such as multi-layer resistant material and compressed layed resistant material in the latter as windshield glass. The skull is a shelved or multi-boned layed material and the energy is considerably absorbed through impact. The angled shot impact does not reflect, but turns inward. To maximize disruption within the cavity, one would seek a projectile compromised of total jacketing or bonded jacketing that would retain as much of its original compostion and shape with disruption of true flight trajectory as possible to create such yaw and keep it true flight path. The more weight and velocity it retains through penetration of the cavity while wavering or yawing through the same, the greater amount of consistent energy it disperses. A fragmenting projectile will disperse it's minimal energy quickly and not drive through the cavity. The lighter the fragment, the quicker is disperses and looses its energy and the less impact it has within the cavity. That is why I stand behind a shot trajectory of left of the target striking to the right front of the skull and exiting the right rear. Minimal matter left in the cavity with explosive results through trajectory within the skull cavity and explosive exit in the right rear as we see through 90+ percent of the wits after the shot. I have published with the Dealey Plaza Echo regarding this to a degree in March of 2001. Al <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Al, I've reread my question and realised I've mistakenly swapped two words : entry and exit. I meant to say "...not indicative of exit but of entry." John

Harry, did James W. Bookhout know H.L. Hunt. Do you know where one might find a membership list of the DCC or CCA.? Your availability for questions is very much appreciated, thank you. John D.

There is more of information in the films and photo's than one might think. For example in another topic there is indication that speeds of movements of objects can be derived by analysing blurs (Limousine stopped http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4280 ) and revolutions of wheels etc . Another approach recognises the 'film's within films', for example flipping the zfilm shows indistinct images of what may be going on outside the range of the frame. Here is a flipped/cropped part of zf313 showing what may be the s-e corner of Dealey plaza. See reflection in rear of limo.