Myra Bronstein

Per Sid:

"Best Witness, with an Intro by Mark Lane, is also available as a free download via

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/pipermel.pdf"

More e-books:

"Farewell America"

http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell00.html

"George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography"

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm#Table

"SURVIVOR’S GUILT: THE SECRET SERVICE AND THE FAILURE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT"

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html

...

Another website said that that US corporate Law is based on the British model...

...

Of course it is.

As is the US Federal Reserve system and the US "intelligence" agencies.

Independence Day is a joke.

Yes, I read through those threads also and I agree it was not Michael Piper's greatest moment.

On the other hand, I thought his treatment was, in general, shameful - and I've said so before. Before he arrived and had a chance to speak for himself, he was viciously attacked. I'm unaware that any other author invited to the forum has been treated with equivalent rudeness. It's behaviour to which he had already been sensitized. He blew his top. I think members might like to reflect on how long other authors would stay around on the forum if they were insulted in like fashion. What choice retorts might they make before making their exit?

You and I, Myra, were not members of the forum at that time, so we need feel no personal responsibility.

I gather Piper gave away copies of Final Judgment 6th edition to participants in the debate, friend or foe. A nice touch.

A pity his fine example is not more often emulated, IMO....

I think your characterization of that Forum episode is accurate Sid. During those exchanges, I told Piper I had read the 2nd edition and asked him what new material he had included in the 6th edition. He responded by promptly sending me not only Final Judgement, but three or four other books he had written.

Seriously???

I wonder if it's too late to get a piece of that.

What did you think of the other books he'd written?

Were they also on the assassination?

Thanks for the summary Sid. I'll get it from the library.

I saw Piper's brief sojourn on the forum a few weeks back when I originally got curious about his premise.

I got so turned off by his preemptive belligerence (not his theory, his behavior on the forum) that I backed off.

But I want to judge the material not the man so I'll read the book eventually.

Myra, make sure you read the Sixth Edition which was copyrighted in 2004. Even if one chooses to disagree with Piper's opinions and final conclusions, Final Judgement contains a lot of very good information on President Kennedy's murder, and the footnotes and documentation are quite sound.

Thanks Mike. I wouldn't have known the difference between editions if you hadn't mentioned it.

Also thanks for the thumbs up on the footnotes. You're a far better judge of that than I.

The question that occurs to me seeing/listening to Veciana is: Would I buy a used car from this man?

Apparently Gaeton Fonzi would....

Fonzi spends considerable time discussing Veciana in his benchmark book, The Last Investigation. He excoriates the HSCA for dismissing Veciana's accounts without adequately investigating them. Fonzi makes a strong case for Veciana's credibility. Fonzi spent a lot of time with Veciana, even visiting him at his home on many occasions.

Even Fonzi can be wrong. Didn't he say he thought DeMohrenschildt committed suicide? Now we hear a tape with a burglar alarm going off before the fatal shot.

Sid, Mark,

If I were to know nothing about this angle but wanted to learn, would Final Judgment be the book to read?

Is there an alternative or is Piper the only author willing to take this on?

Also, does Piper discuss Joseph Milteer in his book?

I'm especially interested in him since it's obvious that he was plugged into the plan, and I think he was photographed in Dealey. Plaza.

So as I was snooping around for details on him I found this:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/joseph_milteer.htm

"After the assassination, Milteer told the same informant, William Somersett, that it was a Jewish conspiracy that sponsored Kennedy’s murder. In fact, Milteer referred to the person in charge as "the big Jew." According to an FBI report, Milteer told Somersett that Martin Luther King and Attorney General Kennedy were now unimportant, but the next move would be against "the big Jew." Milteer described the assassination as "a Communist conspiracy by Jews to overthrow the United States government."(9)

This information is extremely important because Milteer was clearly a man with prior knowledge about the assassination. Despite his extremist politics, Milteer was a person to be taken seriously. His comment about Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and "the big Jew" tells us three things. First, his reference to "the big Jew" corroborates my thesis that one Jewish individual—likely Louis Bloomfield—ran the coup against Kennedy. Second, it reveals that right-wing extre

There are two references to mists broke ranks with the Jewish-led coup immediately after the assassination. Apparently, Milteer and his associates had made a pact with Bloomfield to support the coup but secretly plotted to kill him—Bloomfield—upon completion of the deed. Third, it suggests that contingency plans were in place in 1963—by the right-wing extremists—to kill Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy."

More questions:

Does this information jibe with what you know/believe?

Who is Louis Bloomfield?

Thanks.

Myra,

IMO (Mark can speak very capably for himself) it is worth reading Final Judgment. Very much so.

If you want to get it, you have a number of options including an ebook version that has the advantage of being a searchable PDF file. However, you can't take it to bed, unless you sleep with your computer.

Piper's radio show also deals, from time to time, with the JFK assassination. His show is archived at the RBN website. Free downloads. In the USA, you could listen live on shortwave, I guess, as well as via the web. It's a call in show. Ring him up!

Piper is not an academic or mainstream journalist. He describes himself is a "hack writer with opinions". I think that is excessivly modest, and doesn't do him justice, but readers, especially on the left, need to bear in mind cultural adjustments needed to bridge the gap between populist and liberal discourse (using liberal in the American sense).

From the first publication of Final Judgment in the mid 90s, he was either ignored or savaged by 'mainstream' JFK assassination investigators, both pro- and anti-conspiracy. Deborah Conway, I understand, offered to join a JDL picket to keep him out of a particular event.

In response to attacks, of which he has experienced many, Piper can get rather cross. There is, of course, a quintessential example of this process at work on this forum - see the threads about (mainly attacking) Piper during his brief sojourn on the forum.

...

Thanks for the summary Sid. I'll get it from the library.

I saw Piper's brief sojourn on the forum a few weeks back when I originally got curious about his premise.

I got so turned off by his preemptive belligerence (not his theory, his behavior on the forum) that I backed off.

But I want to judge the material not the man so I'll read the book eventually.

Myra,

jfkmontreal.com is an absolutely disgraveful website. It is run by someone called Salvador Astucia. He used to post on this forum until he was banned. He labelled John Simkin and Andy Walker as Zionist propagandists on the site, see here, http://www.jfkmontreal.com/ngfl/edforum.htm

The site is thoroughly unreliable. Another page on the site claims that Israel triggered the Tsunami in Asia.

John

About that jfkmontreal.com site. You can tell he's anti-semitic. He also has material on the death of John Lennon. How reliable is that? I've heard from another person to not believe a word he says. Did Jose Perdomo, aka San Genis, a survivor of the Bay of Pigs incident, have something to do with Lennon's killing, as he was the guard that night? Also his description of the Dakota -- is it laid out the way he said it was?

Kathy

Well I won't rule out gov't complicity in the Lennon murder, but I will rule out the jfkmontreal website.

Thanks Kathy. I appreciate the input.

Myra,

jfkmontreal.com is an absolutely disgraveful website. It is run by someone called Salvador Astucia. He used to post on this forum until he was banned. He labelled John Simkin and Andy Walker as Zionist propagandists on the site, see here, http://www.jfkmontreal.com/ngfl/edforum.htm

The site is thoroughly unreliable. Another page on the site claims that Israel triggered the Tsunami in Asia.

John

Ok, good to know.

Won't waste my time there.

Thanks John.

I don't know for sure if this is legit, but if it is then Milteer was just scapegoating jews 'cause he hated them along with blacks:

"Q: Even though Oswald spent 3 years supposedly or allegedly in Russia, he still believes that this is not a plot...

(BREAKS IN) - from Russia, no. He said that it was not, but that we had to now impress on the people of the United States that this was a Communist Zionist Jew Conspiracy to kill the President, but he said we know it isn't, but that is what we have got to get into the hands of the people now, that this man was murdered by the Jewish Zionist Communist, of course the pamphlet is coming to be scattered all over the United States."

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_051-075/doc0062e.html

It's a long interview, and it's repeatedly made clear that Milteer and the KKK et al wanted to set up jews as patsies.

Don't know if Piper's book overlaps with this or not since I haven't read it.

Sid, Mark,

If I were to know nothing about this angle but wanted to learn, would Final Judgment be the book to read?

Is there an alternative or is Piper the only author willing to take this on?

Also, does Piper discuss Joseph Milteer in his book?

I'm especially interested in him since it's obvious that he was plugged into the plan, and I think he was photographed in Dealey. Plaza.

So as I was snooping around for details on him I found this:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/joseph_milteer.htm

"After the assassination, Milteer told the same informant, William Somersett, that it was a Jewish conspiracy that sponsored Kennedy’s murder. In fact, Milteer referred to the person in charge as "the big Jew." According to an FBI report, Milteer told Somersett that Martin Luther King and Attorney General Kennedy were now unimportant, but the next move would be against "the big Jew." Milteer described the assassination as "a Communist conspiracy by Jews to overthrow the United States government."(9)

This information is extremely important because Milteer was clearly a man with prior knowledge about the assassination. Despite his extremist politics, Milteer was a person to be taken seriously. His comment about Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and "the big Jew" tells us three things. First, his reference to "the big Jew" corroborates my thesis that one Jewish individual—likely Louis Bloomfield—ran the coup against Kennedy. Second, it reveals that right-wing extremists broke ranks with the Jewish-led coup immediately after the assassination. Apparently, Milteer and his associates had made a pact with Bloomfield to support the coup but secretly plotted to kill him—Bloomfield—upon completion of the deed. Third, it suggests that contingency plans were in place in 1963—by the right-wing extremists—to kill Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy."

More questions:

Does this information jibe with what you know/believe?

Who is Louis Bloomfield?

Thanks.

Thanks for that Gil.

Does anyone know any NLP? What little I've read indicates that an eye movement from center to upper right is a "created" memory. Vecianan seems to be doing this when he mentions Oswald and Dallas.

I've read the opposite, eye movement up and to the left is created scenarios (lies).

I don't know if it matters if the person is right or left handed.

Either way I wouldn't consider it particularly reliable.

Though I would try not to look up and to the left if I was in a big meeting with my boss or something.

...

The Stemmons Freeway sign, the earliest I have read is that it was removed within 30 minutes but I doubt that imo, but what do I know.?

.....However in Weisberg there is information by the groundskeeper, who stated that it was gone by Spring,

Penn Jones also states that when they went back the next Spring the sign had been replaced...but no one knew when exactly.

...

One more thing Bernice, James, all--

Are there any photos of the bullet hole in the Stemmons Freeway sign?

Thanks Kathy it is segment 3.....great...appreciated.

Myra: I have to say it girl, you have a long, long way to go, and are a beggar for punishment....in finding destroyed

evidence, like have you got say the next ten years anyway or so... to try to run it down...well good.....and a

tremendous amount of reading time, along the way......there is only so much

on the web, most of all is within the books...and then what is real and was and what was not.. is another question...

Certainly not meaning to throw any cold water on your enterprise , please do so, and keep it going....But with your site

and all, you are busy with......it just hit me as funny, like biting off, 3/4rs of a cake...and all at the same time,

but I certainly wish you the best of luck with your compilation....you go to it....girl..

...

Thanks Bernice. I know it's a lot, but I'm finding my niche as a generalist not a specialist.

I want a detailed big picture. Just enough info to string things together but, ideally, not so much that I bog down.

I just want an overview on most things. I'm not literally trying to find the scrubbed evidence, just trying to summarize

and demonstrate that it was scrubbed. If that makes any sense.

Making sure something is credible and deciding which version to believe when accounts contradict is proving vexing though.

One example is the history I read by Fletcher Prouty, which does not jibe with what I read anywhere else. So does that mean he isn't as good a source as I thought? Or does he just have such inside knowledge that other's don't share it?

Anyway, it helps when you point me to specific books. I can start piecing things together with web info but ultimately I need to confirm it with good ol' fashioned quaint books. I'm reading as fast as I can... But as you say I got a long ways to go, even

as a mere aspiring generalist.

I realize I'm sort of prying here, but how long did it take you to accumulate your knowledge on this subject?

It's quite vast.

Your welcome..

I came to correct my error on which Tape on TMWKK..unfortunately Doug Weldon is on the final chapter which is not available for

purchase..

The Smoking Guns....the last of that video series..... though I am wondering if it is on one of the sites such

as Gil Jesus and John has been enabling for us...?

Doug is finally writing a book, on this subject......when it shall be out I have no idea. Hopefully soon..He has been researching this subject

since 78 thereabouts,

I believe and it is the study of the SS + the Limo....and what shenanigans occurred surrounding it..

...

That's exactly how I discovered that website Bernice (Pamela's?); I'm documenting, among other things, the destruction of evidence so I was searching for details on the scrubbed limo and the laundered clothes.

That would be great to see a thorough book on the subject.

Palamara documented the SS antics.

Lifton documented the corruption of the tampering with the President's body.

But not enough written on the limo and clothes and other destroyed evidence.

For example the "repaired"/removed curb that Jim Tague's bullet hit, the replaced freeway sign a bullet hit...

I don't care how many books there are now on this crime, there still aren't enough.

Spot on, Myra. Note too that Talbot's book currently having a bigger impact than Bug's with the general public (based on Amazon and similar bookseller lists) is possibly due to many, many people having just witnessed first-hand the consequences of the 'me first/screw everyone else' attitude in political life pushed to its ultimate conclusion in recent years, and probably feeling that perhaps enough is enough. I'd link this back to Bush Sr's snappy denunciation of those pesky conspiracy theorists at Ford's funeral, given that much of the public has had evidence of conspiracy upon government conspiracy rammed down their throats for the past several years, but with the mainstream media still shrugging and grinning like Alfred E.Newman and doing little to counter it. The message of Bug's book is, go back to sleep, America. Talbot's book is an urge for everyone to wake up. I suspect Talbot's book will have the greatest impact for those very reasons. Loved your Amazon review, BTW.

Thanks Anthony.

...

Hey, how do you know which one is mine? I don't use my real name on Amazon.

Hi Myra:

Re the below information on the Limo that you have brought forth, from Pamela's site...........to get up to date.....within the studies of that area the

SS & the 100..X...

There is much further information, re the Limo and the "windshield" investigation in particular, by Doug Weldon.....within Dr.Fetzers books.......see "Murder In Dealey Plaza"...as well as the other two in the series...

Also in the Videos TMWKK, though I believe it could be in "The Guilty Men"..not sure right now, perhaps someone will know positively......?

There is newer,research by Mr.Weldon that has been done.....if you are leaning in that direction..I believe by your post..

FYI..

""The WHITE HOUSE GARAGE kept logs for two days after the assassination, because SS-100-X and SS-679-X had been given a security detail. The logs were used to record the entry and exit of those who did not have White House Garage credentials. Those who did have credentials, such as SS agents, and FMC Liaison Vaughn Ferguson did not have to log in. According to the White House Garage Logs which consist of two pages that go together sideways the windshield was replaced by two men from the Arlington Glass Company on 11/26/63. This is verified by DC Ford Employee and White House Garage liaison F Vaughn Ferguson who was present when the windshield was replaced.

Check out pages one and two of the fascinating12/18/63 internal Ford Company memo of Vaughn Ferguson (from the Ford Motor Company Washington, DC office, NARA RIF 180-10105-10086), to R.W. Markley, the White House contact. This memo was originally sent to me by NARA by mistake, as its status was 'postponed'. On realizing this error, it was then released, minus the date of December 18, 1963. This memo is valuable in that it places the limo in the White House Garage following the assassination. It, along with statements by Rowley, Taylor, Kinney and Hoover give insight into what happened to 100-X after it was returned to DC; that it was cleaned, windshield replaced, back carpeting replaced and ready for the road by early December, 1963. The "Ferguson Memo" was also the catalyst for the January 6, 1964 letter from Chief Rowley (CD-80) to the Warren Commission.Page One two three fourfive (Support documents to be added soon). .."

Some of the SS Agents from that time period......originally from the Anthony Marsh collection...

Clint Hill was presented with an award for "Extraordinary courage and heroic effort in the face of maximum danger."

Gif by Mr.Aqbat...(spelling...sorry?)....Zapruder & Nix film comparisons..

Thanks...all.......B

Thank you very much Bernice. I just stumbled across that site, I don't know who Pamela is or if the site is still being updated.

But I was very impressed with it.

I appreciate the pointers to related information.

Myra

That would be beautiful to watch Bug implode when it's exposed that he didn't even do the writing.

Not that the media would report it.

Interesting comparison BK, thanks.

Hard not to notice that Bug's denouement is about himself while David's close is about Bobby Kennedy and Americans and the nature of hope.

Well let's follow fellow historian Peter Dale Scott's example instead.

Scott is not a historian in the professional sense. He is an English professor, described on his own website as "a poet, writer, and researcher." That said, Scott certainly stands head and shoulders over the "historian" Dallek.

John Simkin is an example of a historian worthy of the name. Though "historians" like Dallek may not be expected to be experts on human anatomy, it shouldn't be asking too much of them to know the difference between the human neck and back (and what a difference it makes in the JFK case).

You've forced me to the dictionary Ron:

"Main Entry: his·to·ri·an

Pronunciation: hi-'stor-E-&n, -'stär-

Function: noun

1 : a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis

2 : a writer or compiler of a chronicle"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sour...mp;va=historian

I know what you're saying though; Scott is an English prof. Valid point and I appreciate the info.

But I have no problem calling anyone on this forum ('cept the CIA propagandists) a "historian."

We're as devoted to real history as any group of people I've ever known.

And I refuse to use the frame that propagandists have wielded as a weapon so effectively for decades to discredit us.

" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' - I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."

-- William Kelly

How shall we know ourselves?

Conspiracy Realists

Agreed?

Charles

HISTORIANS.

Myra,

s

Of course. But I'm concerned with countering the negative connotations inherent in the use of "conspiracy theorist" in general, and in particular when applied to those of us who research the JFK assassination.

Conspiracy is reality in this case.

The "theory" is no more.

Hence we confront the name-callers head on by succinctly expressing the truth whenever we describe ourselves as JFK "conspiracy realists."

Charles

And Charles I'm a strong proponent of the George Lakoff strategy of reframing. Do not accept the enemy's frame. As Lakoff stresses, negating a frame only reinforces it.

For example, interviewer asks why "conspiracy theorists" don't move on. Best comeback is to ignore the phrase and say:

"As a historian I..." Because, if you respond: "Conspiracy theorists know that it's critical to understand what happened...,"

then the listener just hears: "Conspiracy theorists bla bla bla Ginger..."

Negating a frame evokes the frame.

You can NOT win by negating their frame.

You must REFRAME.

If you absolutely insist on letting the enemy frame the discourse and put words in your mouth then there are a couple of comebacks that may be effective:

-I understand what you're doing with "conspiracy realist," but it still uses that loaded word "conspiracy" which otherwise reasonable people recoil from. The propagandists have succeeded in sullying the word to the point were people are downright irrational about it. They seem to be more afraid of being called a "conspiracy theorist" than they are of being ruled by fascists. At least in this country.

-David Talbot has labeled RFK "the first conspiracy theorist." IMO he is aggressively trying to take back the term and I admire it. Of course I wouldn't try to speak for him, and would like to know his thoughts on this. In fact I asked in another thread but he didn't answer.

-Greg Palast often notes that conspirators love to dismiss "conspiracy theorists."

However, I strongly believe that you can NOT win by negating a frame.

Negating a frame evokes the frame.

Don't think of an elephant!

...

What are you thinking about?

...

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects.../simple_framing

(Historian.)

... Except that historians, like journalists, consider themselves to be a breed apart and not just a little better than most other people, especially when viewing something that happened longer than, say, a moment ago. They would take umbrage at unwashed masses as ourselves laying claim to such a high calling!

The problem with historians vis-a-vis the JFK assassination is that, unlike us, they have no interest and/or do no research in it.

How else can you explain, for example, the distinguished historian Robert Dallek stating, in his biography of JFK, that JFK was shot by Oswald "in the back of the neck." That's a lie, and either Dallek knows it's a lie and is knowingly repeating it, or else he simply doesn't know the simple facts. In either case he does not deserve to be called a historian. His apparent ignorance of the subject he is writing about is appalling.

Well let's follow fellow historian Peter Dale Scott's example instead.

" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' - I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."

-- William Kelly

How shall we know ourselves?

Conspiracy Realists

Agreed?

Charles

HISTORIANS.

... Except that historians, like journalists, consider themselves to be a breed apart and not just a little better than most other people, especially when viewing something that happened longer than, say, a moment ago. They would take umbrage at unwashed masses as ourselves laying claim to such a high calling!

(Journalists, incidentally, are qualified to cover everything equally in depth, with or without expertise, using simple words the rest of us can understand. A journalist's writing can most easily be recognized by their ability to keep people informed throughout their work, such as noting in an article about the Department of Homeland Security that "the agency was formed in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, when two airliners flew into the World Trade Center buildings." Otherwise, how would we know when or why DHS came into existance, or what happened on September 11?)

Duke, why would I care if some elite snob doesn't want me in their elite club? I, and many others here, spend hours every day studying history, real history not the lies in text books. I won't be intimidated out of accurately describing myself as a historian. And I won't accept the snide framing of "conspiracy theorist" or even worse "buff" that conspirators strategically use to discredit us.

IMO, as armchair commentator : The consequences of acceleration and some sharp weaving (which the souped up engine was very capable of even though the Limo was very heavy) is that the targets are shaken about and displaced and the shooters more exposed as they take more desperate action. Kellerman should have shouted "FLOOR IT" and clambered over anything in his way to cover Kennedy at the first sign of a problem. This would have drawn the Queen Mary into action and they could then disperse armed personnel at any point. Instead there was inaction and steady speeds.

Again:

"The President's car was a Lincoln with a souped-up engine specially designed for rapid accelerations..."

http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell14.html

Again again, in 1962 a similar ambush on De Gaulle's car failed because the drive accelerated. I would hope (wrongly perhaps) that secret service organizations and bodyguards would take note of that incident and have it fresh in their minds that immediate acceleration is the proper response to an ambush:

"Another Colonel, the Frenchman Bastien Thiry, attempted in 1962 to avenge the honor of the French Army by assassinating General De Gaulle. He set up an ambush using submachine guns at an intersection in the suburbs of Paris one evening when the General's car was due to pass on the way to the airport. The car, an ordinary Citroen, was going about 40 miles an hour. On a signal from the Colonel (a brandished newspaper), the gunmen fired more than 100 rounds, but neither the General nor his wife nor the driver nor the security agent accompanying them was hit. The tires were shot out, but the driver accelerated immediately, and the General disappeared over the horizon."

http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell15.html

And I have to note that the complicity of the secret service did not end with President Kennedy's life.

They suddenly became aggressive and energetic and intimidating when it came to illegally stealing the president's body at gunpoint from Parkland hospital, laundering John Connelly's clothing to erase evidence, and washing then rebuilding the presidential limo--aka the crime scene--thus eliminating critical evidence:

http://in-broad-daylight.com/

" What happened to the limo once it reached Parkland Hospital? Was it put on a flatbed or covered with a tarp until a forensic exam could be conducted by the DPD? No; instead the plexiglass top with a cloth cover were quickly put in place. Take a look at this Stoughton photo. Notice the pail of water next to the driver's door and the towel in the hands of the well-dressed man, SS Agent Kinney. Who are those Dallas policemen? Why isn't the area cordoned off? The water was used to at least wash the areas where the grommets of the roof and cover were attached to the car. The trunk was probably also washed to some extent, so that it could be lifted without the men's hands getting bloodied. This was all contamination of the crime scene.

Then, even before JFK was pronounced dead, the car was wisked away from Parkland Hospital to Love Field, where it was quickly driven onboard a C-130 for the flight back to DC. While onboard, according to one of the Air Force crew members, the SS started sifting through the debris, looking for evidence. The plane sat on the tarmac for about an hour and a half after Air Force One and did not leave until 3:30 in the afternoon, arriving at Andrews Air Force Base at 8 p.m. EST. Why was the C-130 carrying 100X and 679X sitting on the ground for so long? What was done during that time? Once 100X and 679X arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, escorts of the US Park Police accompanied the limo and backup car to the White House Garage

At 9 p.m., upon its return to the White House Garage, agents searched the car once more, finding two bullet fragments in the 'front seat' area -- CE 567 and CE 569. Both of these fragments had evidentiary value; that is, they were large enough to provide information linking them to the "Magic Bullet", CE 399, and, therefore, to Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. These were turned over to the FBI for testing in the famous FBI Crime Lab, one floor of the huge Justice Building, where J. Edgar Hoover and his colleague Deke DeLoach anxiously waited for evidence to be delivered so it could be tested by the lab's teams of experts. A piece of skull was also found in the car, and this was taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital and delivered to the doctors performing the autopsy on JFK. However, during all the time the SS had had possession of SS-100-X -- about twelve hours -- they took no photographs of it, made no notes about its condition, and drew no diagrams. Nothing of evidentiary value was left in the car for the FBI to find. In fact, the three tiny fragments the FBI did find were too tiny for testing; also the "smear" from inside the windshield was relatively insignificant. There was ample time for the SS to put 100-X into whatever condition they considered appropriate prior to turning it over to the FBI. The SS had completed their agenda of effectively 'sanitizing' the primary crime scene.

During the night and early morning of 11/23/63, from 1-4:30 a.m. SA Robert Frazier of the FBI and four of his men formally examined and photographed the car. This was the only forensic exam of the limo, and took place 12 hours after the assassination. These photos, called 'FBI Bulky photos', from the 1200 pages of documents used to create the FBI Summary Report, 62-109060 Bulky-8307X (Box 115, Folder 134), show the condition of the car that night. ...

The WHITE HOUSE GARAGE kept logs for two days after the assassination, because SS-100-X and SS-679-X had been given a security detail. The logs were used to record the entry and exit of those who did not have White House Garage credentials. Those who did have credentials, such as SS agents, and FMC Liaison Vaughn Ferguson did not have to log in. According to the White House Garage Logs which consist of two pages that go together sideways the windshield was replaced by two men from the Arlington Glass Company on 11/26/63. This is verified by DC Ford Employee and White House Garage liaison F Vaughn Ferguson who was present when the windshield was replaced.

Check out pages one and two of the fascinating12/18/63 internal Ford Company memo of Vaughn Ferguson (from the Ford Motor Company Washington, DC office, NARA RIF 180-10105-10086), to R.W. Markley, the White House contact. This memo was originally sent to me by NARA by mistake, as its status was 'postponed'. On realizing this error, it was then released, minus the date of December 18, 1963. This memo is valuable in that it places the limo in the White House Garage following the assassination. It, along with statements by Rowley, Taylor, Kinney and Hoover give insight into what happened to 100-X after it was returned to DC; that it was cleaned, windshield replaced, back carpeting replaced and ready for the road by early December, 1963. The "Ferguson Memo" was also the catalyst for the January 6, 1964 letter from Chief Rowley (CD-80) to the Warren Commission.Page One two three fourfive (Support documents to be added soon). .."

This site has extensive photos of the limo.

It has all sort of good info and even advice:

"Unfortunately, in many of the forums, and occasionally even at the level of a presentation, there will be information given where the person has not done their homework, gets backed into a corner, and through sheer ignorance puts forth theories that are bizarre. This is part of the environment and the possibility needs to be acknowledged. In some cases even *serious* researchers have been taken in by the persuasive but unfounded claims of someone able to present well. In addition, especially in the newsgroups and forums, you may find those who, for one reason or another, will attack you and whatever you put forth. It is no surprise that after 40 years there are so few answers -- there are some who seem to make it their business, whether for pay or as a vicious hobby, to do little more than try to stop the process cold. Also, there will be instances where you will see different schools of "the opposite of research" -- one being the "na na boo" school, where one person will be lording it over another; in a second, there is the "peek a boo" school, where a person shows bits and pieces of uncited documents and attempts to lure you into reacting as though it were valid research. In the third, there can be ongoing endless ad hominem and strawmen posts, where the person deliberately and repeatedly attacks a researcher, distorts their position, deliberately twist their words and repeatedly refuse to acknowledge what they are doing -- in other words 'pure barf'. Unfortunately, it's all part of the environment. The only hope is to at times define the environment or just step away from the group for a while."

One of the selling points of Bugliosi's book was that he was a

straightforward and honest guy who put that maniac Charles Manson

behind bars. His reputation was unquestioned, his judgement seemed

solid.

Now we find out that this rock of an American, who presented his

latest tome as the work of his own pen, farmed out chapters of the

book to other writers and failed to mention their contributions to his

work, presenting their writings as his own.

Len Osanic interviewed David Lifton who says that he was told by someone at Bugliosi's publisher, Norton, that the book was ghostwritten and different chapters were written by different authors.

http://www.blackopradio.com/black323a.ram

This should be investigated further. I know if I had bought a book

that he had presented as his own and it was written by someone else,

I'd be asking for my money back.

If it ends up being factual, Bugliosi deceived his publisher, Norton as well as the public.

Good find Gil!

We should post this in a review on amazon.

...

" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' - I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."

-- William Kelly

How shall we know ourselves?

Conspiracy Realists

Agreed?

Charles

HISTORIANS.