Brian Smith

I make no apologies for my association with GG. I organized several of his tours.You can conjecture he was possed by the develor some other similar rubbish but he certainly didn't worship the devil, he only worshipped himself. I take back what I said about Allin. He was not a Satanic freak. He was a self absorbed piece of garbage acting as an agent of social degeneration. I wonder what entities and organizations are really behind this agenda to overthrow the norms and mores of civilized society. Call me a wild eyed conspiracy theorist, but it looks for all the world to be of the devil to me, and I am an agnostic when it comes to religion.

The obvious difference is Bevel was raping his daughter while he was running with LaRouche and had been doing so for several years but there is no evidence he did this sort of thing during his association with King who was assassinated 24 years earlier. A normal person would shy from choosing someone who lived in a secluded compound as his running mate but since LaRouche did himself this didn't set off any warning bells. You obviously started this thread to try to “slander” me because I live in the same country (Pop: 170 million and larger than the 48 states) as a US diplomat who had sex with teenage girls. He was hardly my guru, when I thought he was full of $#!t or himself or that one of his records or shows sucked I had no qualms about telling him so. Not everything he said was to be taken seriously, he also said he’d kill himself on stage on Halloween but as his brother and I noted he always managed to be in jail or prison in late October. I don’t know of him ever forcing himself on anyone on or offstage, obviously if he’d raped someone during a show (all of which were videotaped) he would have been arrested. People who came to his shows especially those who stayed close to the stage knew what to expect and often baited him. C'mon Len, GG Allin promoted rape and perversion as a matter of "lifestyle". Now you're saying that he was just full of Sh#t? That you were only kidding? Have you ever eaten any of GG Allin's s#it? Look at the video I posted, this is entertainment for you? You should be jailed just for your role in this GG Allin operation. And it is an operation. It's funny you can condemn Lyndon LaRouche by association but you're own actions (and pleasures) in spreading the perversion of the Punk Rock "suicide" culture is to be dismissed out of hand? I dont know any of the specifics regarding James Bevel and his recent conviction. I do know that political opponents are often targeted in this country by their enemies. You'll notice that they prosecuted Bevel in Virginia where there is no time limitations for the crime of rape. This could be another case of "venue" shopping by political opponents in a rigged criminal trial. These alleged rapes took place 15 years ago? Certainly it took quite a while to bring James Bevel to trial. LaRouche was in federal prison in Rochester MN during his 1992 campaign with James Bevel. Bevel was not the only former MLK civil rights leader to support Lyndon LaRouche. Amelia Boyton Robinson(sp) who first brought Martin Luther King to Selma Alabama in the 1950's had been a long time collaborator of LaRouche. It is likely her influence with Bevel that resulted in his meeting Lyndon LaRouche, along with his decision to run on the 1992 ticket. But you should know all this Len. The ADL still brief their agents don't they? Still Nazi hunting in Brazil? I'm not sure if I missed something, but are you saying that Len Colby had some kind of connection to this Satanic freak Allin? I wouldn't want my name even associated with such a piece of trash.

Being in disagreement with conspiracy theories etc. is, in and of itself, not problematic for many, if not all, members. I would suggest it is the semantic battles which take the place of reasoned debate. The unnecessary compulsion to make others dot i's, cross t's and jump through a singular, peer reviewed hoop, before acceptance of a piece of data - usually not particularly relevant to the core sentiment of the original post, anyway. Of course that is my sideways look at the problems - for which there will be no citations forthcoming. In far too many topics reasonable speculation is necessary - certain Government reports throughout the years have undoubtedly created their own facts and removed all traces of actual truths. Therefore anything presented to contradict this view of events is naturally and to varying degrees speculative. Len's signature has a statement from some senator or other, that he believes "[our] government was partly at fault by engaging in polices that inspired it," with respect to 911. Now if this signature posts reflects Len's opinion, which it does - compare and contrast with his (to paraphrase) Russia started the Georgian conflict, view. This is precisely the duplicitous policy that both inspired attacks on both 911 and Len I've been following this thread since it's inception and would now like to chime in with my two cents. I don't want to say that I am totally convinced of the assertions against "Colby", but I have had the same suspicions about a debunker poster on another forum related to the JFK assassination. This poster would respond to any post critical of the lone gunman fiction literally within a few minutes with long, detailed responses. I started to wonder if this "poster" was not actually several people using the same internet persona. "He" would make these long and elaborate posts at all hours of the day and night. As to the reason for creating a fictional internet forum persona, employing the input of several people, it would be to create the impression in lurkers minds that this "poster" is at the top of the game and that he has all the facts at his fingertips and can cite them within moments. This will lead many to marvel at his research skills and seemingly wide range of knowledge. I am not saying that I am completely convinced that this is the case with "Colby", but I wouldn't be shocked if it were. A few years ago Monsanto got caught hiring a public relations firm (Bivings Group) to insert posters posing as ordinary citizens into internet forums where Monsanto was being discussed in a negative light. The purpose was to counter criticism of the company. Unwary forum members thought they were just conversing with disinterested parties, not knowing that they were planted there by a public relations firm. That these kinds of things do happen is my point.

If you are correct in your analysis, then what was in building six that was so important for the plotters to destroy? Could the goal have been to create chaos in the securities and financial markets by destroying tons of files and documents relating to, or having bearing with, covert activities? Building 7 also housed thousands of financial records. It gets stranger, the more you think about it. Strange isn't even an adequate word.

Building 6 was adjacent to the North Tower. In fact, it looks like it was blocked from the South Tower by it - Could the collapse of the South Tower have thrown enough debris to cause the damage to Building 6 in Mr White's photo? It looks like you are correct that the photo was taken before the North Tower collapse, as there doesn't seem to be antwhere near enough debris lying around.

Perhaps because that was the side closest to the ignition source. If the fires were mostly on that one side than why did the building come straight down? Why was the collapse symetrical? It should have been a lot more messy, with the structure toppling more to the side. Don't buy it.

I guess you're right about the breeze. It was strong enough to blow the smoke away from the towers. I didn't know that there was a main chimney for drawing smoke out of the building on the south face. I still find it very difficult to believe the official story of collapse, given the manner of the collapse, Silverstein's "pull it" statement, and last but not least, the BBC reporting the collapse twenty minutes before it happened. I also find it funny that the live feed from New York, with WTC 7 still standing behind BBC reporter Jane Standley, was suddenly interupted by static as she was speaking. Just another coincidence, I'm sure. ps Your book "Six Seconds In Dallas" is one of the first books I read dealing with the JFK case (amazing that O.P. Wright recalled a pointed tip bullet). My mother was and is an inveterate JFK assassination book reader, and it rubbed off on me. It is one of the books that got me interested in the case. As far asbuilding 7 and 9/11 go, I must respectfully disagree. There are just too many strange and suspicious things to be accounted for by chance.

I have always thought it a little odd that one side of the building was covered with smoke, while the other side only had a few floors emitting visible flames with accompanying smoke. How do you explain all the smoke on one side and only a relatively small amount on the other, if it was all emanating from inside the same building? It was a windless day, with what was at most a gentle breeze.

I did a web study of the use of the term “to pull” a couple of years ago. Without going back and digging up the references and links, the following is a summation of what I found. The term “to pull” has been used even by experts in conjunction with controlled demolition, even though it is not technically correct. In almost all cases, demolitions people quoted as using “pull” are referring to pulling down buildings with cables (or possibly other means). But in the Pacific Palisades description the term “to pull” is expressly used in describing controlled demolition: “The weight of the structure will begin to pull the building down in a controlled direction.” There is also a “pull” quote about cables being used inside during a controlled demolition (“to pull the structure in on itself in the implosion”). This shows that the term can be loosely used (incorrectly used, if you will) in reference to controlled demolition even within the demolition industry. IMO this reinforces the likelihood that Silverstein loosely or “incorrectly” used the term in reference to controlled demolition. Silverstein is a real estate mogul, not a demolitions man, but given his line of work I'm sure he may have heard the term "pull" used in demolishing buildings. So Silverstein may have used the term incorrectly, but the indisputable fact is that he used it. And he did not use it as in "pull them," "pull them out," or "pull them from the building," if that was his intent, but he said "pull IT." His statement also gives the impression that the building came down right after the decision was made to "pull it." We know from the witness statements that the firefighters were pulled (oops, I said pulled!) from the building hours before it collapsed. But regardless of the time frame, the meaning of Silverstein's statement seems clear to me. He quoted himself as saying, “We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” Then he said, “And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” To me that can clearly be translated as "They made that decision to pull and then we watched the result of that decision" (i.e. they made the building collapse). I couldn't have said it better. If Silverstein intended to say that he thought it would be best to remove the firefighters, then he would have said - "Maybe the smartest thing to do would be pull them" or - "...pull them out". And he certainly seems to be saying that the building collapsed as a direct result of their decision to "pull it". Why would Silverstein or officials of the NYFD expect (correctly, if the official explanation is true) the building to collapse due to removing the firefighters? I have heard that the building was "creaking" or otherwise showing signs of having it's structural integrity severely compromised. I can recall only one or two witnesses making this claim. If this was in fact the case, it is incumbent on the NIST and FEMA teams to provide adequate verification. It all looks extremely suspicious to me. I also can't shake the impression that Silverstein was deliberately ambiguous in his video statement. It's almost as if he wants to admit that they intentionally brought the building down, while leaving it open to interpretation that the building fell because they pulled the fire fighters out. If he only mean't to say that they made the decision to remove the fire fighters, then why use such a vague term as "pull it", and why use that term in such a way that suggests that the building collapsed as a result of the decision to "pull it"? It's all very odd to say the least.

I will check it out more thoroughly this weekend when I have more time. From my initial perusal, it looks like a lot of intentional framing of debate through distortion and omission. Quite a bit of ad hominem too.

How did they correctly guess that Building 7 would collapse when other buildings sustained more damage and had more intense fires and didn't collapse? What are the odds that the BBC would announce that the building had already fallen, twenty minutes before it did, if it really did fall due to random events? And, it is hard to believe that the building was designed to collapse just like a demolition if one of it's collumn's load bearing capacity was compromised. Why did it take the NIST team almost seven years to make this astonishing discovery if it were so self evident? I am no engineer, but it sounds like bull to me.

In previous posts it has been suggested that he could be some type of mole who was planted in the CT research community, but, on second thought, without really knowing the man myself, and without proof to substantiate such a claim, I think it is best to give him the benefit of the doubt. To someone like me who has not read much of his work and is not acquainted with him personally, his sudden change of opinion just seemed a little suspect. These things do happen occasionally. Maybe he will see the light once again and realize his recent error in judgement.

I am hesitant to say it but I have a hunch this is in fact the case. Can't prove it, but it does seem to add up.

"Bugliosi's book is EXTREMELY long on arguments, and incredibly short on facts." That seems to be the style of almost all the Lone-Nutters I have seen on internet forums. They go on and on about how logical their position is, all the while completely ignoring glaring inconsistencies in the evidence. Arguments without sound factual foundation are weak, and only waste ones time. I still wonder what facts caused Palamara to change over to the lone gunman side. Probably what you said - slick arguments that sound persuasive but are skinny on actual facts. A good lawyer could make Mother Theresa look like a villain while making Jeffrey Dahmer look like a misunderstood genius.

Money? Threats? Brain Tumor? Alzheimers? 'Sleeper' Mockingbird Traitor?.....no logic of the case would change any-one's mind from against the official mythology, to for it! I don't want to cast aspersions on the man, but it does seem a bit fishy to be completely honest. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but I think it is necessary to back up those beliefs with some substance. Nowhere in his You Tube video does he state what specific facts caused him to change his mind. Maybe Bugliosi does indeed offer some revelatory information that was previously unknown to doubters of the lone gunman theory. If so, what are these facts?

I would like to know how he was suddenly struck, like the Apostle Paul, with this revelation of Oswald doing it all alone. Point by point - what made him all the sudden "see the light?" I'm sure it will be the same timeworn lone nutter rationale: "So much evidence points to Oswald that he must have done it; How could all those people be involved in something like that and no one spilling the beans; It is not logical to believe in this conspiracy; The lone gunman explanation is the most logical; Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation......and so on and so forth. What other reasons could he have for changing his mind? What facts did Bugliosi present in his book, that we don't already know about, that caused this dramatic conversion?

I haven't seen one of them actually deal with Mantik's findings. What did that one guy say? The bullet didn't hit the spine - "Because it didn't hit the spine %^*wipe!" Gee what a convincing rebutal. Those guys remind me of the scene in Cool Hand Luke where Luke wins the pot in a poker game by bluffing that he has a good hand. The George Kennedy character beamingly intones his admiration by refering to a boxing match in which Luke refused to give up, even after being badly beaten by the burly giant - "He just kept coming right back at me.......with nothin!" Kinda reminds me of those guys. All bluster and bluff backed up by.....nothin.

as always, Tom.... you're well ahead of most of us on specifics.... its apparent, you're NOT defending the WCR its apparent, you're NOT defending the WCR Was it that obvious? just a tad The fact remains that the bullet entry wound in the back of the head, that the autopsists put near the hairline, could not possibly have exited anywhere near the top of the head. That is why the entry wound was moved 4 inches higher. Also, Kennedy's head is not leaning forward in a horizontal position at the time of the head shot in the Zapruder film. Didn't the Rydberg drawing that the Warren Commission had drawn up try to create this false impression? I also believe that the massive wound to the right front part of JFK's head - the so-called "blob" - was added onto the Zapruder film to create the impression that a bullet entered the back of the head and exited the front. There are several frames that seem to show Kennedy's entire right frontal face missing, where you can see Jackie's shoulder at the spot you should see Kennedy's face. Not a single witness to the wounds described any such damage to Kennedy's face, nor do the official autopsy photos show any such damage. I believe the film was extensively altered along with some, if not all of, the autopsy photos. The fact remains that the bullet entry wound in the back of the head, that the autopsists put near the hairline, could not possibly have exited anywhere near the top of the head. Quite correct so far! That is why the entry wound was moved 4 inches higher. Not exactly correct! The HSCA Medical Panel "moved" nothing! The merely reported what they could determine based on the available medical evidence which clearly demonstrates an apparant bullet entrance to the skull in the cowlick region (anterior/posterior X-ray), as well as a scalp penetration in the cowlick area (autopsy photograph). Furthermore, this exact same conclusion had been reached by the Clark Panel some years prior, and, along with the indications of fracture and fragmentation of the right transverse process of a vertebrae (C7 or T1), began the rumblings of the items which were missed during the course of the autopsy. Also, Kennedy's head is not leaning forward in a horizontal position at the time of the head shot in the Zapruder film. Didn't the Rydberg drawing that the Warren Commission had drawn up try to create this false impression? Yes!, Which should tell the prudent person something, along with the WHY? that the autopsy X-rays and photo's were not admitted into evidence during the WC. First off, had these X-rays and photo's been admitted into evidence, then the conflicts would have come out into the open immediately, in early 1964, when all persons and all evidence was still readily available to have ultimately resolved these conflicts. Thus, do not admit them into evidence and keep them hidden for as long as possible. Secondly, you are absolutely correct in the drawing, as what was apparantly done is that someone more or less "bracketed"/aka split the difference between the Cowlick Entry position and the EOP entry position. By making a drawing which showed JFK's head leaned forward slightly more than it is in the actual film at time of the Z313 impact, as well as making an entry point which was more or less in between the cowlick and EOP entry, the WC was able to pass off it's cartoon character drawings as if they represented something factual. This alone demonstrates some "prior knowledge" as to the position of JFK's head down in front of Altgens Position at the time of the third/last/final shot impact, which the US Secret Service as well as the FBI clearly accepted and had platted/plotted on their assassination re-enactment plats. And, since the FBI (as well as SS) had members present at the autopsy who clearly observed the penetration location at the rear of the head in the lower edge of the hairline, as well as the fact that no bullets and/or fragments had exited in any location other than the top and frontal lobes of JFK's skull, then the FBI knew that they could not make this shot disappear with the true knowledge of the pathological damage to JFK. That is of course why the FBI, when they began to attempt to cover up a few items, knew that the third shot impact had to stay, and thereafter attempted to make the Z313 impact disappear. Which could not be done either as far too many had already observed the Z-film and it's impact point with the yellow curb mark in the background. To inclulde of course the Time/Life Survey Plat and the SS's own assassination re-enactment and survey plat. This placed Specter, Hoover, & Company in the position of having to make the third/last/final shot be the one to have to disappear. And thusly: Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear! "Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!" That is certainly true. If only they could make the prime time television shows, the national debt and inflation disappear, then they would be doing something worthwhile!

as always, Tom.... you're well ahead of most of us on specifics.... its apparent, you're NOT defending the WCR its apparent, you're NOT defending the WCR Was it that obvious? just a tad The fact remains that the bullet entry wound in the back of the head, that the autopsists put near the hairline, could not possibly have exited anywhere near the top of the head. That is why the entry wound was moved 4 inches higher. Also, Kennedy's head is not leaning forward in a horizontal position at the time of the head shot in the Zapruder film. Didn't the Rydberg drawing that the Warren Commission had drawn up try to create this false impression? I also believe that the massive wound to the right front part of JFK's head - the so-called "blob" - was added onto the Zapruder film to create the impression that a bullet entered the back of the head and exited the front. There are several frames that seem to show Kennedy's entire right frontal face missing, where you can see Jackie's shoulder at the spot you should see Kennedy's face. Not a single witness to the wounds described any such damage to Kennedy's face, nor do the official autopsy photos show any such damage. I believe the film was extensively altered along with some, if not all of, the autopsy photos.

I see the usual trolls are still up to their hi-jinks on that forum. All they can offer is the same pseudo explanations generously mixed with tired juvenile insults. Ad hominem attacks and endless obfuscation are the last resort of a person who doesn't have the facts on his side. They try to bury you in a pile of irrelevant minutiae and then say you are too unintelligent to understand what they are saying. Like Holmes said - when all is said and done, the facts remain unchanged. If they are in fact being paid to do this nonsense, then whatever they are earning is too much.

Von Pinhead was hawking Bugliosi's book a year before it was published on various forums on the web. He is a subscriber of the official version and like Bugliosi, refers to and considers anyone who disagrees with him a "kook", often referring to them as "Mr. Kook". Not only is Von Pein in complete denial even when presented with evidence of a conspiracy, he has suffered the misfortune of being thrown off reputable forums like JFK Lancer. In newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, one can see that a typical Von Pein post may include links to previous Von Pein posts. In other words, he posts opinion, then uses it as a factual reference in a later post. I've never seen anything so ridiculous: using oneself as a source. Of course, when you have nothing else, I suppose, you dock at any port in a storm. In Von Pein's world, there is no such thing as tampering with evidence. There is no such thing as altering affidavits. There is no such thing as evidence substitution. There is no such thing as staged police lineups. There is no such thing as coerced witnesses. In Von Pein's world, 80 % or more of the public, who believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, are simply "kooks". For Von Pein's sake, I hope Bugliosi doesn't stop short one day. I've been following the antics of the lone nut shills over at the alt.conspiracy.jfk site for several months now. Do Von Pein and those other people really think they are fooling anybody? Anyone who has to hurl insults, in lieu of actual fact based arguments, has already lost the debate. I haven't read Bugliosi's book, and don't intend to (no need to waste my time on a book arguing the thesis that the world is flat) but from what I have heard, he stoops to the same level of name calling that the lone nut internet forum brigade engages in as a regular routine. At this late date, with all the new revelations from the ARRB added on to what was previously known, anyone seriously arguing the Warren Commission line is either in a severe state of denial, or is a paid shill of the establishment. Pathetic. Brian: I, like you, have not bought nor read Bugliosi's "cinder block" book. And I also have no intention of doing so. I have the WC 26 volumes on CD-ROM and I've read Case Closed (then threw it in the trash), so for me, the-same-old-same-old is just a waste of time and money. The purpose of the childishness of the McAdams-sent trolls at a.c.j. is to distract the discussion away from evidence and testimony and away from exposure of the truth by using off-topic postings that have nothing to do with the JFK assassination but instead serve to sidetrack everyone. As you know, more often than not, the ones who hurl the first insults are those on the LN side. Many times, Cters (myself included) fall for their tactics and retaliate. But I'm learning not to fall into their trap. Trolls don't care about the case. They just care about being a-holes to whomever. Many don't like the Kennedys. Many more don't like people who believe in conspiracies. So this case draws quite a few "nut jobs" from all over the map. Some of whom wish to please their master, who has vowed to destroy a.c.j. http://www.prouty.org/mcadams I find it funny that those who ridicule conspiracies are, in fact, part of a conspiracy to destroy a newsgroup. Yes, they are bad characters. I've seen them on every single internet forum where the JFK conspiracy is being discussed. Von Pein got kicked off the JFK Lancer forum with some other lone nut stooge allegedly named "Nick Kendrick" a couple of years ago for engaging in xxxxx tactics. They now hang out on the Internet Movie Data Base forum for the JFK movie. It's amusing to watch them post with all these different sock puppet accounts. Apparently they can't get enough real converts to their side, so they have to create phony supporters on other accounts. I don't even bother posting on there anymore, but pop n every now and again to see what they're up to. They just keep repeating the same bull over and over again. It's almost as if someone (McAdams?) is training them in sophisticated disinfo tactics. Anyway, I am delighted that Bugliosi's book tanked. The American public as a whole is not dumb enough to be fooled by such a ploy, or maybe I should say that anyone dumb enough to be taken in by the Warren Commission official story isn't likely to be an inveterate reader anyway. Anyone naive enough to believe it isn't even likely to read an entire one of their ridiculous posts either. They are clearly wasting their time, just like Bugliosi did, even though he got his paycheck for his efforts.

Von Pinhead was hawking Bugliosi's book a year before it was published on various forums on the web. He is a subscriber of the official version and like Bugliosi, refers to and considers anyone who disagrees with him a "kook", often referring to them as "Mr. Kook". Not only is Von Pein in complete denial even when presented with evidence of a conspiracy, he has suffered the misfortune of being thrown off reputable forums like JFK Lancer. In newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, one can see that a typical Von Pein post may include links to previous Von Pein posts. In other words, he posts opinion, then uses it as a factual reference in a later post. I've never seen anything so ridiculous: using oneself as a source. Of course, when you have nothing else, I suppose, you dock at any port in a storm. In Von Pein's world, there is no such thing as tampering with evidence. There is no such thing as altering affidavits. There is no such thing as evidence substitution. There is no such thing as staged police lineups. There is no such thing as coerced witnesses. In Von Pein's world, 80 % or more of the public, who believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, are simply "kooks". For Von Pein's sake, I hope Bugliosi doesn't stop short one day. I've been following the antics of the lone nut shills over at the alt.conspiracy.jfk site for several months now. Do Von Pein and those other people really think they are fooling anybody? Anyone who has to hurl insults, in lieu of actual fact based arguments, has already lost the debate. I haven't read Bugliosi's book, and don't intend to (no need to waste my time on a book arguing the thesis that the world is flat) but from what I have heard, he stoops to the same level of name calling that the lone nut internet forum brigade engages in as a regular routine. At this late date, with all the new revelations from the ARRB added on to what was previously known, anyone seriously arguing the Warren Commission line is either in a severe state of denial, or is a paid shill of the establishment. Pathetic.

Bradford was one of the first exiles from the DellaRosa forum because every posting referred to Jack White in a derogatory manner as above. He was ordered numerous times to cease the personal attacks and did not. He was booted off the forum. I guess that is why T. Folsom called me his NEMESIS...because if Folsom IS Bradford, he blames me for his exile. Jack Yes, it is pretty obvious it is the same guy. Doesn't say too much for his crediblility to have to resort to such underhanded tactics does it? These guys almost seem to be following a script with their predictable tactics. It's almost like they have had some kind of training on how to disrupt serious discussion where conspiracies are be dealt with. They use every dishonest and underhanded tactic in the book.

This is from a post by "Clint Bradford" from 2004 - "....I have completely disclosed my identity. Can I ask for the names of these alleged photographic experts without being personally attacked?" Clint Bradford This is from the very next post in that thread, written by "T. Folsom" - "As I stated in an earlier post...my private life is...well...my private life. I have never met such a paranoid group of individuals. What difference could my first name make to this forum? I will continue to go by my first initial and my last name(T. Folsom) until the same individuals behind the assassination of Kennedy also shoot me with invisible bullets, alter my x-rays, change by autopsy photographs, digitally enhance my family photographs, and surgically alter my mortal remains. Until then, everyone please relax, uncircle the wagons, climb out from under the bed, and let's move onward. T. Folsom is me and I am T. Folsom. Geeeez. Now, as I said, who are these "experts" that have agreed with that nut Jack White? THAT is the issue at hand. It is quite obvious that these two identities are actually one and the same person. One of the most obnoxious and relentless lone nutters (trolls) I have ever seen just made the same faux pas on the IMDb forum for the Oliver Stone film JFK a few weeks ago. This could maybe even be the same guy. I really do believe that these guys are paid disinformation agents. Either that, or they are certifiable goofballs for spending so much time on every JFK assassination forum defending the indefensible lone gunman position. You will find these characters on literally every internet forum where conspiracies are being discussed.

I don't believe James Tague was hit by a fragment of the JFK head shot, nor do I believe he nicked himself shaving before going to Dealey Plaza that day. And I also don't believe that anyone (at least not a substantial percentage of the public) will naturally awaken from the lies they have had rammed down their throats, all their lives, by the lying mainstream news media. As long as a priveledged elite controls the modes of information, the masses will continue to be dumbed down. That is why Tony Blair is calling for the end of the internet in Great Britain. He says it is a threat to the powers that be. Damn right. I am reminded of that line from Stone's JFK - "..Individual human beings have to create justice, because the truth often poses a threat to power..." It is not in the best interests of the powers that be for the average person to be politically savvy. Hence, you have so many people not knowing on what year 9/11 happened.