Myra Bronstein

Jack, but we all REALLy love you! (And Ashton has more than his share of provocateurs).

Dawn

Very true. Love and revere I might add. C'mon now Jack, group... handshake.

Bush the Elder breaks down and cries while talking about son Jeb. This is not the first time I have seen Bush cry when talking about his family. I remember seeing him do it on some TV interview show. What does this mean? According to all that's been written here and elsewhere about this former CIA director and VP, he is a totally ruthless, unscruplous individual who may have even had a hand in the JFK assassination. Could his crying be some manifestation of guilt that really has nothing to do with his loveable sons? Are there any psychologists here?

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/12/05/State/Go...ad_gets_t.shtml

Good thread on DU--How crying has helped Bush to murder people before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ddress=385x8713

But... ah prairie-xxxx I can't stay annoyed with you. You're articulate and entertaining and make boffo graphics and fake French like nobody. Come here mon chéri; group hug.

Aw, vous dites cela à tous les garçons.

Hugs back, kiddo.

Ashton

Woo hoo! Group kiss! Gettin' there gettin' there, now...

If I may break-in on this little tete-a-tete.....

Doh!

I think there is merit in Ashton's case and in the more standard model of the assassination. Most of what we 'saw' and 'see' and analyze was/is as 'real' as any magic trick....ie an illusion to divert attention from the real work at hand. Granted. And clever they were...but they did slip up on a few things....LHO winding up alive [talking] in jail and a few others.....and from these slip-ups we can gain clues. They loaded the Plaza with multiple teams and players - most who had no function but to forever confuse.

That's very true. I agree that the tactic of diversion was well utilized. I have a hard time remembering sources 'cause of the volume of reading, but I think it was Larry who wrote about a gun barrel coming out of the TSBD floor six window and speculated it was diversionary.

The oft repeated "smoke and mirrors" applies.

Of course, there were real teams and players who did real things there and other who planned before and covered-up [and killed] after. I have been reading the [i hope] better JFK tomes and state-of-the-art research for many a decade now and I find that some things discovered rather quickly by some very perceptive souls [Jones, Garrison, White, Weisburg, some witnesses, and others] have stood the test of time. Other ideas have slowly been moulded into a clearer and clearer picture [at least in my mind]. I think we are very close to seeing the structure and the fine details are of interest, but not so important...

Agreed. Tho' some things merit analysis IMO 'cause they'll be referenced by the uninformed and gullible. For example people will throw the Zapruder film around and say something couldn't have occured 'cause the film doesn't show it. I think it's helpful to be able to quickly demonstrate why that film is suspect.

if you can prove conspiracy with a capital C and that it came from inside the National Security Beast you really don't need to know the bullet numbers and angles, etc. But they add to the proof. We each have our areas of expertise and interest [and sometimes obsession]. Some like to look at minutia and players, others to stand back and look at the 'big picture' and puppet masters. Fine.

There are many idiots, fakes, finks, and disinformation persons on this...but many others [whatever their persuasion] mean well [to find the Truth and make the vital change back to democracy and rule of law, justice, etc. through information].

Well I'm a big picture kinda person myself. Though I think any area of study by someone with sincere interest is of merit and there is enough mystery to go around. My particular interest is linking President Kennedy's murder with subsequent and current events and the emergence of the US as a fascist country. But if people hadn't discredited the official stories then we'd have nothing to build on to illustrate the bigger picture.

My only problem with a focus on the details is the possibility of getting bogged down in nothing but them, which we do need to guard against.

Let's not fight, but rather try to have some synergy of purpose and deed toward our goal.

Oh, gotta take issue with that big guy. We fight then we make up! See?

Group... whatever.

...

Why would the power elite want to kill RFK and Wallace (tho' that only crippled him) to get Nixon in office while setting him up for removal? Huh?

I have often wondered how that came about, as the seeds of Nixon's removal (the Watergate break in) occurred just weeks prior to his re-election. Perhaps it was due to Nixon's embracing of Red China and rejection of Taiwan? This deeply upset a lot of the far right wing folks.

Hm, this is a viable theory. On one hand I'd think his reaching out to China (as President Kennedy reached out to Russia?) would rub the cold war profiteers the wrong way. On the other hand China is such a big market for predatory capitalists.... Hm, interesting.

There was also the SS meeting with the DPD the night before, in which the SS changed the DPD's motorcycle plan, in effect removing all motorcycles from in front of and beside the limo. This action is not speculation and had nothing to do with mind control or putting something in drinks. It was security stripping pure and simple.

There was? Woah. If you could point me to a source on that I'd appreciate it Ron. (Palamara?)

...

But on this specific issue, if you are going to keep attempting to require me to become an endorsing member of the Craig Roberts Fan Club, do us both a favor and just quit pulling the Ashton Gray lever. It ain't going to happen.

...

No, just want you to be logical and fair, and dismissing someone's words because they wrote a book is neither.

But... ah prairie-xxxx I can't stay annoyed with you. You're articulate and entertaining and make boffo graphics and fake French like nobody. Come here mon chéri; group hug.

The night before/morning of JFK's assassination I read in

Jim Marrs' book that President Kennedy's Secret Service detail

had been drinking heavily (Pure Everclear alcohol).

Is it possible there was more than just alcohol involved?

Could there have been mind altering drugs administered somewhere

sometime during this drinking bout?

More sinisterly could there have been hypnosis or auto-suggestion techniques involved?

What if the Secret Service Detail had been manipulated?

For example the simple suggestion ' If you hear any sound such as gunshots or firecrackers - simply ignore them.

These are not important.' could have been

suggested.

This may seem outlandish or unreal.

But what better way to lay the groundwork for the assassination of the

President than to 'get at' his security detail?

Does anyone know how many and who of the Secret Service

assigned with the task of protecting the president had been

drinking or out at that bar - whose name is mentioned in Marrs' book?

Was the Secret Service agent Clint Hill there? I read also in Marrs that he was a last minute

addition because Jackie had wanted him there. Could this account for

his quick relexes ( the fact that he had not been out the night before)?

Could the slow and almost non-existent reactions of the others be evidence

of the fact that they had been out - and perhaps manipulated?

Does anyone have any information on this?

EBC

Hi Eugene,

Vincent Palamara names the SS agents known to have been out drinking the night before in his online book "Survivor's Guilt," which is devoted entirely to the Secret Service and their role in the assassination:

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

Clint Hill was one of the four agents known to have gone out that night. [Editorial aside: He's also known to have claimed he felt guilt over his inability to save President Kennedy. IMO his guilt was well-placed. He knew what he was doing the night before, and how it effected his work performance.]

However, Larry Hancock, in "Someone Would Have Talked," 2nd edition, has this to say on page 386:

"The evening before the assassination, the majority of the Secret service detail stayed out at a club until the early morning hours -- 2 to 3 AM and later. Although only a few members admitted to drinking alcohol, at a minimum, their effectiveness was reduced by the late hours and lack of sleep.... Although the drinking incident was investigated by the Secret Service, no disciplinary action was taken and the details (and people) invoved in the genesis of the incident are cloudy at best....Hill's comments suggest that more of the agents were actually drinking than is reflected in the internal Secret Service report on the incident."

I think you make a really interesting observation that it's possible there was more than alcohol in the drinks. Very possible... Not at all outlandandish. (Seems too brief a period for good ol' mind control, but hey, all possible.)

In my opinion , that idea is not too far fetched , considering that ten Secret Service Agents, including Kellerman and Greer in the Presidential Limousine and eight more Agents in the follow up car did nothing during the heart of the shooting. How anyone could act that way , is beyond me , and the most disturbing aspect of this tragedy.

The secret service's abandonment of President Kennedy is one of the most disturbing aspects to me. Larry Hancock makes clear that the President knew about the threats on his life, but totally trusted his secret service to protect him....

Those "agents" are just disgusting. They went out drinking, got zero or little sleep, did not secure Dealey Plaza, just stood around watching him die, yet nobody was disciplined or fired. Bastards.

I am told that in the early morning hours of today, Robert Duncan was interviewed on the international radio show Coasttocoastam. In answer to a question about John Kennedy, he stated that a week before his death JFK spoke at Columbia University. During the course of his speech, according to Duncan, JFK said that he had uncovered an immense plot and was determined to tell the American people about it before he left office.

Has anyone in the Forum ever heard of such a statement by JFK and, if so, is any more information available about it?

Below is the link that summarizes Duncan’s fascinating interview on the radio program:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/12/05.html#recap

...He added that he intended to remove corruption from government....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6250

John, Is that information from the Lincoln book "Kennedy and Johnson"?

John,

What an amazing story? This is the first time I have ever heard about the Columbia University speech.

This is what the Kennedy Library has to say about this alleged speech:

"President Kennedy's supposed speech at Columbia University, November, 1963.

Many references to this fictitious speech exist in assassination theorist material. Supposedly, the President was discussing changes in the Federal Reserve and the gold standard, and this topic was somehow linked to his assassination. Others also claim he said, "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy American freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." But the simple fact is that President John F. Kennedy did not speak at Columbia University in November of 1963.

Those who believe in the "fact" of President Kennedy having made such a speech, either at Columbia or some other place, will simply deny this denial. At best, they will say that because "all or most records" have been destroyed, we simply don't know the truth; at worst, they will claim that there is a conspiracy to keep this issue silent. If someone chooses to believe in the existence of this speech, he or she does so as a matter of faith, which is fine, as long as that person realizes that it is religion and not history in which he or she is dealing."

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...sity+Speech.htm

Steve Thomas

What a great quote. "Religion and not history." Thanks Steve.

Because he did!!!!

Richard you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps there are those on the forum who will be interested in debating you. Is it necessary to start so many threads? Perhaps we could have one thread where those interested in the LN-CT debate can participate, endlessly debating the single-bullet theory, etc. Or perhaps you would be more confortable over at alt.assassination.jfk

His posts do push the real discussions off the front page, possibly through design.

Oh well, we're used to digging for info on this subject.

What's left Ashton?

Why, Myra: I haven't taken any of your toys away from you. You and Ditto have everything you've had for the past 43 years.

I've merely made my own observations about some parts of it that I consider garbage, and have said why. I haven't asked you or anyone to agree.

You still have all the "testimony" and "experts" and "evidence" that you and the world have had available for 43 years. I wouldn't dream of taking even the tiniest scintilla or mote of it away from you.

In fact, my lay advice is for you and Ditto to stick with it completely, ignore the films completely, and ignore every image and word I have posted in this forum. I think you'll both feel better generally.

Ashton

Well I'm not surprised that you shift the focus to generalities Ashton. When the discussion get's specific, i.e., the words of expert marksman Craig Roberts, you seem unable to deal with it in a logical and open-minded manner. Instead you dismiss the evidence, or dismiss the people presenting the evidence.

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

Might I recommend that all take the time to review Mr. Shinley's work.

Although he may not have made ALL of the interconnections, he is no doubt

getting closer than most.

By the way Jerry, just may want to check out the "family tree" of

former New Orleans FBI Agent (& attorney) Robert Rainold.

I do believe that you will find some "Phelps" in the limbs.

Which may help explain why other FBI agents got the "finger" pointed

at them.

I've never heard about Shinley 'til now, but I (admitedly) briefly checkout out the link, and he comes off as a Garrison basher. That's one of the species that most arrouses my suspicion, so maybe I'm hypersensitive. Also, some of it could be true, but I gotta wonder why he's going after Jim Garrison so vigerously:

Garrison Helps LBJ Pay Campaign Debt

Garrison Lies about Banister's Files

Garrison's Case Against Shaw Destroyed

Garrison Accused of Perjury

I also wonder why I don't see any positive info about Garrison to balance out the (rather niggling IMO) attacks. WTF?

I think it is fair to say that Shinley does not hold Garrison's case in high regard. But he has helped many a researcher, without regard to whether or nor he agrees with them.

And most important, I have absorbed and checked much of his material, and it all checks out. Most significant are his posts regarding material from the New Orleans newspaper archives, a treasure trove of contemporaneous information.

I often get interesting leads from people with whom I disagree, and I would urge people interested in NO to check out Jerry Shinley's material, and take from it what they will.

I'd be careful of red-flagging people. The research community is still somewhat conflicted about Garrison's case. Some support it completely, some support only parts of it, some think the conspiracy was elsewhere.

I myself have been critical of parts of it, where I think it conflicts with other records. The objective in this case has always been to establish what is true and what isn't true. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks Stephen. I'll keep that in mind. Don't want to miss out on a good resource.

Myra, you make ME puke.

Sincerely,

Stan Hayes

Now Sincere Stan, this isn't a forum for the squeamish. If you have nausea problem with mere rhetoric, then that doesn't bode well for your ability to face the many bloody murders of the Bush Crime Family.

Just to desensitize you, I've included some links dealing with a mere fraction of their crimes:

http://www.thelawparty.org/kennedycloseupshot.jpg

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...ficial%26sa%3DN

But since rhetoric seems to bother you more than reality, let's substitute a warm fuzzy soothing word for anything that might remotely offend your delicate sensibilities:

In January 2003 a small volunteer team started methodically counting all non-combatants reported muffined in the invasion and military occupation of Iraq. Not even the most pessimistic of us predicted that nearly four years later we would still be adding the muffins and muffiny to our database on a daily basis.

And:

Unless they include someone blowing Jeb's muffin off and muffining his family, Godfather Bush should just spare us the hypocricy go back to muffining on people.

All better?

glib sociopaths do better.

Yeah, but Clinton cries too - or at least pretends to. (I always get emotional too when I see him bite his widdle lip.)

Clinton usually doesn't bite his lip to fight off tears, he does it because it's sexy. And it's no wonder it's wasted on you; you're not the target audience ...Ron.

Myra, Do you mean Clinton is trying to seduce the entire female population and it is lost on those of us of a male persuasion? lol

Hope you don't feel slighted Peter. President Clinton is attractive, but he's a traditional kinda guy.

President Clinton is part that faction that believes in abortions, tree hugging, global warming ,homosexals ! Compare the the deaths in Irag, compared to those committed by the left wing killers through abortion! And while you are at it,go back and look at the coup in 1960 when JFK stoled the election from Richard Nixon! Wake up Myra,you are one of those sheeple!!!!!!!!!

Ya know what Richard, people actually present evidence in a research forum. You know, links, documents, pictures, books. Show us some genuine evidence of your claims or continue to be ignored.

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

Might I recommend that all take the time to review Mr. Shinley's work.

Although he may not have made ALL of the interconnections, he is no doubt

getting closer than most.

By the way Jerry, just may want to check out the "family tree" of

former New Orleans FBI Agent (& attorney) Robert Rainold.

I do believe that you will find some "Phelps" in the limbs.

Which may help explain why other FBI agents got the "finger" pointed

at them.

I've never heard about Shinley 'til now, but I (admitedly) briefly checkout out the link, and he comes off as a Garrison basher. That's one of the species that most arrouses my suspicion, so maybe I'm hypersensitive. Also, some of it could be true, but I gotta wonder why he's going after Jim Garrison so vigerously:

Garrison Helps LBJ Pay Campaign Debt

Garrison Lies about Banister's Files

Garrison's Case Against Shaw Destroyed

Garrison Accused of Perjury

I also wonder why I don't see any positive info about Garrison to balance out the (rather niggling IMO) attacks. WTF?

My opinion strictly!

However, considering the effort that Mr. Shinley has placed in searching around amongst the "Garrison" crowd, I would assume that he just may have recognized the circles which it leads in, with no end.

He certainly should have recognized the "smoke" of the Garrison trial, and that it served no purpose other than misdirection and discrediting honest efforts to get to the facts.

Ok... well I consider Garrison bashing one of the biggest red flags. Often when people trash him it's 'cause they don't want to see the truth revealed. IMO and all.

Myra, thanks very much for the kind words - one of the advantages of doing the first generation of the book as essentially a giant research paper was that it gave the publisher and I both the opportunity to step back and take another look at what we could do to improve the focus and readability, both major issues with any work which attempts to pull in as many elements to provide a historical context. I know it could still be better but I think the combination of the format plus what is being done to support it with an interactive web site offers a lot of potential for this type of work.

As to your question on Nixon, I don't really see him personally involved or even having foreknowledge, although I suspect a few of his long time friends and supporters with organized crime associations may have. He may also have heard some of the gossip after the fact from these same associates.

I have a different interpretation of his Bay of Pigs reference than many, I actually belive that he was well aware that the initial planning (which he participated in) called for elimination of left wing elements of any new government in Cuba, even if that meant a "black list" of leftist exiles. And he knew that senior CIA officers were aware of that - you can imagine what that would have done to the Agency in the Church Committee era; acknowledging that the US government and the CIA were supporting assassination of elements of the exile community and had elimination black lists would put us in the same light as what the Soviets had done throughout Eastern Europe (whether or not Nixon knew CIA had developed black lists and assassination plans for Guatemala is another question). So, you can imagine the leverage that would have given Nixon over the CIA, and possibly over other individuals (especially the senior congressmen who had held intelligence committee oversight).

I suspect that if one were to probe for individuals at higher levels, beyond those called out in the book, that the right direction is to pursue the direction pointed out in the last appendix - a dedicated "cadre" (to use Angleton's term) of devout anti-Communists within the Agency - and some fellow travelers - including the folks who saw ample opportunity to make money on side deals for weapons and drugs. The sort of weapons deals that Underhill was tracking can't all be made with hard Yankee dollars, which brings up other mediums of exchange with that offer even higher margins, ala Iran-Contra. All for a good cause of course. And then John's Mockingbird people have to cover that up too.

-- Larry

Thank you Larry. It's just that Nixon's presence in Dallas on Nov 22 was so...convenient. And he was Kennedy's losing opponent, and Prescott's boy.

I can see where you think bay of pigs meant "bay of pigs." I hope I'm paraphrasing you correctly. After all, it was a genuine scandal, crime, failure, and so on. And with many of the same folks involved in Watergate and Bay of Pigs, quite the hot potato. I'm still struggling with Watergate. It could seem like a setup to get rid of Nixon, or an attempt of Nixon's to get something on the CIA. I just don't know.

Myra, the evil Nelson theory makes sense on paper, but not when you look at Nelson as a man. The grandsons of billionaire entrepreneurs tend to be less ambitious than their predecessors. It's important to remember that, believe it or not, Rockefeller was looked at as a dangerous liberal by much of the Republican party. No liberal would vote for Nixon anyhow. Therefore, Rockefeller would not have helped Nixon get elected in 68 or 72. No, the real threat to Nixon came from Wallace, which helps explain why Agnew was selected. The other explanation is $$$. Much of the US money spent fostering the military coup in Greece was filtered back into the Nixon campaign, presumably on the condition Nixon pick Agnew, the most prominent right-wing Greek in the US, for VP.

Well I don't think the theory every indicated that Rockefeller ever helped Nixon get elected Pat, just that he wanted the vacated VP slot and clearly the presidency from there.

And sure, Wallace was a threat to Nixon's chances of election; he broke up the right wing loony vote. And he was dealt with just as Bobby Kennedy was. I don't understand what that has to do with the premise I posted either.

I suspect that the choice of Ford was forced onto Nixon. The plan was to remove Nixon from the beginning, but Agnew had to go first. Some suspect that Nixon chose Agnew for just this reason. Agnew was so repugnant that Nixon would be isolated and protected. Nothing at all like the current POTUS and VP.

Why would the power elite want to kill RFK and Wallace (tho' that only crippled him) to get Nixon in office while setting him up for removal? Huh?

glib sociopaths do better.

Yeah, but Clinton cries too - or at least pretends to. (I always get emotional too when I see him bite his widdle lip.)

Clinton usually doesn't bite his lip to fight off tears, he does it because it's sexy. And it's no wonder it's wasted on you; you're not the target audience ...Ron.

Myra, Do you mean Clinton is trying to seduce the entire female population and it is lost on those of us of a male persuasion? lol

Hope you don't feel slighted Peter. President Clinton is attractive, but he's a traditional kinda guy.

Did Oswald really say "it will all come out at my trial"? Could you please point me to a source for that? It's rather significant if he said it.

What he did say and seems the significance has been lost on most is, "Now everyone will know who I am!" [enter Ruby stage right as proxy for the plotters to make sure no one finds out who he really was. Exit stage left American Constitutional Democracy......]

Right. That I recall; I think Mae Brussel listed it in Oswald's final words. It's a pretty significant quote. Thanks for the reminder Peter.

Good Day....

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/lifes...-artslife-today

<QUOTE>

Castro, Kennedy and the hero who apparently linked the two

Liz Smith

Last Saturday was a big day in Cuba for the ailing Fidel Castro and for his Lt. Cmdr. Juan Almeida, head of the army and famed hero of the revolution. It was the last day of Fidel's 80th birthday celebration, also the anniversary of the start of the Cuban revolution. (Fidel was actually born Aug. 13, 1926.)

The Cubans are now frantically at work erecting a top-secret mausoleum for Castro. With brother Raul in charge, the question is whether Fidel will ever resume control of his government.

I wrote on Sept. 22 about Almeida, who has been revealed as a CIA agent in direct contact with JFK/RFK people in 1963. They were trying to overthrow Castro just before President Kennedy was assassinated. Castro evidently forgave Almeida. Cubans in Florida are very interested in the commander, but the official press in Cuba keeps silent about Almeida's secret work for the U.S.

After my story appeared, Gen. Fabian Escalante, once head of Cuban State Security, responded: "This information must be an active measure of the CIA. It's a dirty trick. There is no degree of certainty in this. I thought this book would have better arguments."

The book he refers to is by writer Lamar Waldron. It is titled Ultimate Sacrifice and gives us explosive new FBI information about the confession of Louisiana godfather Carlos Marcello, the man behind JFK's assassination.

Personally, I find Waldron's arguments excellent. It's the CIA, the FBI and the Cuban government that have dummied up. Neither Waldron nor I work for any government agency as the Cuban General suggests. And it is journalist Waldron who brings all this to public attention after spending more than 18 years researching and writing his story.

Waldron has hot info fresh from the National Archives. It tells us that mob boss Marcello met with Lee Harvey Oswald and that he set up Jack Ruby in the Dallas nightclub business. Congress determined back in 1979 that Marcello had the motive and means to have the president killed. The FBI files reveal hundreds of hours of Marcello speaking from prison. They taped his cell. These tapes haven't been released and are unknown to historians and journalists, until now.

An informant who knew Marcello in prison told the FBI this: "Marcello seemed to be very upset about the Kennedys. ... He told me and my friend about a meeting with Oswald." Although Marcello denied to the FBI that he knew either Oswald or Ruby, he told his prison friend something quite different.

Marcello said Ruby was "good to have around to report to me." And he indicated he could get away with whatever he wanted in Dallas.

The FBI had much information on Marcello, but it was author John Davis who named Marcello's involvement in JFK's death. The FBI, however, seemed determined to keep Marcello's confessions suppressed. Bobby Kennedy certainly knew Marcello had killed his brother, but he could not act because that would have exposed the secret U.S. plan with Almeida to overthrow Castro. By the spring of 1968, Bobby Kennedy was beginning to work with journalists on exposing Marcello. He was then assassinated.

The JFK-Almeida coup plan, called AMWorld, was first written about in this very column. But, hey, it's all so complicated, maybe nobody cares anymore who or why the Kennedys were killed and why the FBI dragged its feet and that the Castro government today protects a military man who was closely involved in all of it.

[Tribune Media Services]

<END QUOTE>

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly

ROSEMARY WILLIS Ultrafast Headsnap Westward Towards the "Grassy Knoll"

Dealey Plaza Professionally Surveyed Map of JFK, Photographers, Witnesses, Suspected Trajectories, Evidence, and Important Information

WILMA BOND Photos Do Not Timestamp GORDON ARNOLD

Don Roberdeau AOL Homepage

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

You and John both scampered to the forum with this interesting article:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5360&st=195

I recall reading that Liz Smith was a gov't mouthpiece who's mentor was the bizarre Walter Winchell. But I can't find the source right now, so take that with a grain of salt.

Very good John! You might well have found an example of how Mockingbird activities can KILL more than just a story about the truth!......Where is Pincus now? An old Yalie...likely a Bones man. Sad these men think themselves 'patriots' when they only support the oligarchs, not the constitution nor what the Nation is supposed to stand for...and they can 'murder' with distant actions/inactions and control of information....individuals and start whole wars and all in between.

In consider the case of J.H. Hatfield, author of "Fortunate Son," to be similar to the incredibly sad Webb case. Tho' Hatfield appears to have been set up by Rove, then trashed in the media, then had his book withdrawn. They killed him whether they murdered him or not.

(The odd thing is that Fortunate Son was so mild. It was almost kind to Dim Son.)

Meanwhile, on this web page is a motion picture of a man very graphically getting the right front part of his skull blown outward—over and over and over and over and over. Go look, with your eyeballs. Go observe for yourself without listening to the cacophony of ten thousand contradictory voices telling you that what you see is not what you see. Then come back and tell me that you see the back of his head being blown out. I want to hear you say it, right here, in this thread.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Thanks for waiting Ashton. What I saw at that link is the Zapruder film, which I don't trust at all because I'm convinced it's altered. See the current Zapruder thread for details.

You don't have any "ballistic or medical information" that isn't contradictory! Go look with your eyeballs at the link I just gave you, and tell me what you see! Do you need some "expert" <SPIT!> to grant you a license to observe what is right before your eyes?

What's right before our eyes is, in my view, an altered film that is not credible evidence.

Well, do you? If so, why do you? Have you ever seen, with your own eyes any slightest physical evidence of any such thing?

You demand that someone see things with their own eyes to consider it valid (tho' few of us, if any, were in Dealey Plaza that day). Yet when someone has seen something with their own eyes, you dismiss it as you did Craig Roberts' input. What's left Ashton?

FWIW, I think I'm inclined to stay with the fence location--for the moment.

I certainly wouldn't want to lure anyone from it, and I respect anyone's independent assessment and analysis of supportable fact.

There's a good chance both this and the County Records Building were shooting locations.

I've yet to explore the County Records building, per se, but I've just completed a rather involved exercise that took some time of setting up views from every window in the County Courts building. Once I can export jpegs of the view from each window, I think I'm going to post it in a separate thread.

It's true that the fence is a more exposed location for the shooters than a secured section of the CRB but it's more probable that the plotters decided to trade this off for a sure bet on the kill shot, IMO.

Could be. But I sure hope that "sure bet on the kill shot" wasn't supposed to come from the "Badge Man" location. Either that, or I hope that my model has some pretty significant elevation problems that I can get corrected. Because here's the "Badge Man" view of the "sure bet on the kill shot" the way it looks to me in the model at the moment:

I'm actually hoping someone can provide some photographic evidence that would demonstrate that that's not the way it is, which would help me find flaws in the model's elevations. That's all I can conceive it to be, because the locations of landmarks are according to the Dealey Plaza schematics in circulation.

Craig Roberts' statements posted by Myra are persuasive

That's very interesting to hear. I thought they read like spy fiction. I much prefer a quote that Mr. Roberts has at the top his own web site, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." I found the passage Myra quoted to be 99 and 99 one hundredths pure theory without a single substantive fact in view, and mused that Mr. Roberts could do worse than to follow the advice on his web site. Then again, I don't have books to sell, so I may be biased.

Mr Roberts is essentially an expert witness who is testifying as such. That kind of testimony is acceptable in a court of law, but is not acceptable to you Ashton? You seem quite dismissive of a viewpoint that doesn't agree with your own, while not stating a logical argument against it.

I found Roberts' statements persuasive too, and was wondering how you would address them. If the best you can come up with is that he's just trying to peddle a book, then your logic would imply that the input of anyone who has written a book is worthless.

Let's all make sure we never write a book folks, lest we be instantly discredited.

Hello Ashton:

I posted the wrong County Courts photo last evening...this below show all..dated 11-14-64.

I doubt that anyone has made up their mind completely, in anything let alone where the shots came from, many have

done great research in the areas of where the possibilities could be..we trudge along.

Nothing is written in stone, in the JFK assassination..as we never know what tomorrow may unveil, then

must be researched further to come to a finding of whether true or false..neverendingstory..

I have been looking at your Badge man location, your wall, I am thinking is too high ?, I will show

the possible why below.. one is taken when the old fence still remained..the other is newer, but

perhaps you will see what I mean.......

Also some time, in later years through heavy rains, the knoll suffered damage

and suffered a mud slide of sorts, and all had to be repaired...and rebuilt, in some areas. I think it very

possible that at that time that area could have been enforced, shifted to some degree higher ? and perhaps this could be the reason.

I believe Gerry Dealey could inform you of all, I believe he was the man who informed me, some time ago.

I enjoy your research, as you make us think.......about the many possibilities, and imo

that should never end. As you may recall I also wonder of the possibility of a shot from the

corner of the fence, nearest the underpass..?

I am also posting a scan, from where now ?? of a possible shot scenario, one being from the County Courts

it may help in some way...in perspective.....

I have run out of photo space, will return with the area where Sam Holland believed the smoke came

from.....will delete some...

Please continue...

B

Mighty fine pix Bernice, thank you.

NOTE: I spent hours attempting to respond to this post from Cliff Varnell last night, and the quoting function becomes utterly broken after the first four quotes, which then disables all the quotes in the message. I reported this in the appropriate forum, and my answer was "Use the Reply button," which I always do anyway and have never had anything even resembling such trouble before. So I now have to resort to color codes to be able to respond at all. Sorry, but I proved to my own satisfaction by lengthy tests last night that it's being caused by something in the forum software, and have reported it, and that's all I can do. —Ashton

Ashton

Ah hah! So I'm not the only one who's had that problem. Most frustrating. Well I suppose we can just break up long answers into separate posts as a workaround.

Don Edwards, a former FBI agent, was one of the few Congressmen who questioned the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.

As chairman of the Constitutional Rights Sub-Committee he interviewed key figures in the FBI involved in the investigation of the assassination of JFK. He discovered that Gordon Shanklin had ordered FBI agent, James Hosty, to destroy the letter written by Lee Harvey Oswald. He also found out that the FBI had been in contact with Jack Ruby at least seven times between a visit to Cuba in 1959 and the events in Dallas in 1963.

In 1976 Edwards told a group of Congressmen that: "There's not much question that both the FBI and CIA are somewhere behind this cover-up. I hate to think what it is they are covering-up - or who they are covering for."

Edwards retired from Congress in 1995 but I believe he is still alive in California.

"There's not much question that both the FBI and CIA are somewhere behind this cover-up. I hate to think what it is they are covering-up - or who they are covering for."

That is an excellent quote. Thank you John.

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

Might I recommend that all take the time to review Mr. Shinley's work.

Although he may not have made ALL of the interconnections, he is no doubt

getting closer than most.

By the way Jerry, just may want to check out the "family tree" of

former New Orleans FBI Agent (& attorney) Robert Rainold.

I do believe that you will find some "Phelps" in the limbs.

Which may help explain why other FBI agents got the "finger" pointed

at them.

I've never heard about Shinley 'til now, but I (admitedly) briefly checkout out the link, and he comes off as a Garrison basher. That's one of the species that most arrouses my suspicion, so maybe I'm hypersensitive. Also, some of it could be true, but I gotta wonder why he's going after Jim Garrison so vigerously:

Garrison Helps LBJ Pay Campaign Debt

Garrison Lies about Banister's Files

Garrison's Case Against Shaw Destroyed

Garrison Accused of Perjury

I also wonder why I don't see any positive info about Garrison to balance out the (rather niggling IMO) attacks. WTF?