Myra Bronstein

Hey Ashton, Whaddya think about this thread? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4970 Excerpt: Despite what many may think, the "mission" was an engineered and "designed failure". There were some twenty old B-26 Invaders pulled from stock and sold to the CIA front organization "Intermountain Aviation" for use. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/a26-27.html The pilot were, as most are aware, ready to go in on the attack. But were denied the authority. Some who ignored the order died!"

Thanks Lee. And thanks for the article. Ah, the TSBD, not Dal-Tex. Ok, then it's not what I thought. It's just that I have a philosphy that the closer we can get to the first word on the street, the more truth it'll contain. Pre-scrubbed.

Sacre Blue! Alright listen up! I already explained about the delay from the fake SS guys. And you acknowledged it. Please don't make me repeat myself, and don't make me resort to actual quoting. That's work. They're blowing smoke up our... they're blowing smoke! Fascinatin' premise. Yer thinking outside the box there, or the plaza. I need to find a study photos and schematics. Woah, I followed the links and did in fact find something so jaw-dropping, so utterly incredible, so beyond comprehension that I am now the almost speechless one: Ashton Gray, the prophet of pithiness. Lordy lordy. Anyway, your premise is intruiging. And Lee Bowers did say he saw something in the parking lot, like an explosion; he didn't call it gunfire. And he did die a prompt and sinister death.

The researcher of some repute should feel free to PM me. I would welcome it.

I provided the sources when I made my original posting on this subject: ... Yet you didn't link to the original posting, or give the name of the thread until someone asked for it.

I would go so far as to say that the authors might be mockingbirds. Just speculation on my part, but they're certainly promoting the CIA party line with their mob dunnit scenario. I do not think it is helpful to describe fellow researchers as "disinformation agents" because you disagree with their theories. I have met Lamar and liked him a lot. He has spent 17 years on the research and made many personal sacrifices to produce "Ultimate Sacrifice". As long-time members will no, I believe the "mob did it" theory was put out by the CIA in 1967. However, I have no reason to doubt that Lamar is completely genuine in his own theories of what happened. I do not think it is helpful, John, to use quotation marks to attribute a phrase I never used to me. I used a phrase that means the same thing, but quotation marks mean something specific, and you misused them. They mean that you are repeating an exact passage in someones' own words. Those are not my words. We can certainly discuss what I did say, but not as long as you're making up "quotes" and attributing them to me.

Of course, it is necessary to do deals in order to get elected. The point is, how far do you go? You also have to consider the consequences if you have no intention of keeping these promises. For example, JFK had meetings with Richard Bissell and Allen Dulles before he was elected. JFK promised to take a hard-line on Cuba. In fact, during the presidential election, he attacked the Eisenhower and Nixon for being soft on communism in regards to Cuba. In return, JFK was told about the plans to arrange for anti-Castro exiles to invade Cuba. I suspect he was also told about the plans to assassinate Castro just before the invasion. Even though the CIA have always denied this was part of the plan, it does not make much sense without combining the two actions. JFK also did deals with the Texas oil industry, promising to leave their “oil depletion allowance” alone. JFK also sent RFK down to the Deep South to promise no legislation on civil rights. Maybe, his father even made promises on his behalf to the Mafia. The problem about making promises is that if you break them you will be punished, either by the electorate or by the pressure groups you have let down. One also has to look at the record of the JFK administration. JFK did go along with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Nor did he make principled decisions about civil rights. As RFK explained, JFK sacked Harris Wofford, chairman of the Subcabinet Group on Civil Rights (1960-1962), because he was too passionate about the subject of civil rights legislation. Most importantly, JFK and RFK put Martin Luther King under a lot of pressure to call of his civil rights demonstrations. The same tactic was used against the leaders of the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) who were causing bad publicity for the Democratic Party in the Deep South with their Freedom Rides. Thank goodness they took no notice of JFK. The truth is that the main reason black civil rights were achieved was because of the actions of people like Martin Luther King, James Farmer and Bayard Rustin and not because of the views of so-called liberal white politicians. As the people of Iraq are currently finding out, you have to fight to get freedom and democracy. It is not something that you can have imposed on you. John, it sure would help if you could provide some sources. I'm not trying to sound snarky here. I'd like to look into some of this, but I don't know where your information comes from. I looked at the Spartacus site for President Kennedy and don't see what you're talking about with the oil industry for exampe. Do you have that info in a link under someone's name? It would be a better and more informed discussion if you would cite sources for your statements.

This is astounding information John. Is there a book or other source you recommended for further research? Thanks.

Yes, war crimes. The negotiations were orchestrated so that the Japanese could not surrender because they hadn't received assurance that their Emperor--their god--would be free from retribution. The war could have ended with Truman's assurance to the Japanese that their Emperor's could remain. It clearly wasn't a sticking point since that concession was made after the bombs were dropped anyway. As the Japanese were twisting in the wind over the fabricated "unconditional surrender" issue, Truman dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima. He could have dropped it on an island or someplace where hundreds of thousands of civilians wouldn't be killed, as scientists urged him to do, but he refused. In addition, he lied to Americans in his radio announcement of the drop--calling Hiroshima a military target. I believe he dropped the bombs when he did to prevent Stalin from entering the war with Japan, and thereby end up sharing the Asian spoils with Russia. He likely wanted to show Stalin what big guns the US had as well. If the atomic bombing of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a war crime, then there's no such thing.

Well... the rogue typist theory is one I hadn't heard before. I suppose we have a fundemental difference of opinion on the book, and on a major force behind at least two of the big four assassinations of the sixties. I'll just leave it at that.

So you said. And I tried to get specifics, like who said that? Without specifics a statement like "It has been claimed that..." can inadvertantly be taken as a whispering campaign. The kind of tactic Alan Simpson used in the Clarence Hill confirmation hearings for the US supreme court: "And now, I really am getting stuff over the transom about Professor Hill. I have got letters hanging out of my pockets. I have got faxes. I have got statements from her former law professors, statements from people that know her, statements from Tulsa, Oklahoma saying, watch out for this woman. But nobody has got the guts to say that because it gets all tangled up in this sexual harassment crap." http://wings.buffalo.edu/AandL/english/fac.../Simpson_Thomas Notice the total lack of specifics to disprove. You say that others accuse David Talbot of being disingenuous and self-promoting in his review of Ultimate Sacrifice. You haven't supported that with any specifics. I would go so far as to say that the authors might be mockingbirds. Just speculation on my part, but they're certainly promoting the CIA party line with their mob dunnit scenario. And President Kennedy showed his greatness by evolving after the missile crisis. As I think you know his evolution from son-of-rich-man to President of the people was the reason he was murdered. It is important to credit him for the courage to oppose the war-profiteers as he became increasingly isolated in his opposition, while he is judged on his record. His record was clearly anti-cold war, anti-hot war, anti-covert war, and anti-CIA. He also showed wisdom in allowing contingency plans to be generated, which I think any good president would have to do. Again, who are these unnamed cynics John? Maybe this is a cultural thing and it's considered more polite to say "cynics believe" than "I believe." Is that the case? You seem to have fallen victim to a logical fallacy. The fact that someone dislikes a book you vehemantly defend does not mean they're "naive." And let's stick to the subject of this thread, which is about the book and the soundness of the book's premise.

Careful Thomas. When someone is intellectually bankrupt on a subject they will hunt for spelling errors in posts and crow about them. It's all they have But my soul could care less too.

Entire editorial here: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1471.shtml Excerpt below: Beyond "Bobby": Exposing the continuing conspiracy and cover-up of the RFK assassination By Larry Chin Online Journal Associate Editor Nov 27, 2006, 01:38 With the film Bobby, director-writer Emilio Estevez captures a snapshot of 1968 America, and the many hopes and dreams lifted and crushed on the night Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. But the real story that still begs to be told begins where Bobby leaves off: with the assassination itself. For it is only through investigation of the assassination and its cover-up, the murder’s direct connection to the other 1960s assassinations (JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X [who is the only one of the big four without a designatED forum: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8597], and others), and its relevance to subsequent (and also directly connected) wars and political crimes (Nixon/Watergate, Iran-Contra, and both Bush administrations) -- that the soul of the American Empire is truly revealed. RFK case wide open The RFK assassination was, like the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent figures, a political murder committed by operatives and agents of the US government (including, but limited to, the CIA and FBI), in conjunction with local police (operating as CIA cutouts), and intelligence-connected organized crime figures and mercenaries. There is overwhelming evidence that the RFK murder was a CIA operation involving the Los Angeles Police Department. More proof continues to emerge, including this fresh piece of evidence uncovered by BBC investigator Shane O’Sullivan. Conducting research for his own film on the RFK assassination, O’Sullivan has identified and corroborated the presence and identities of three former CIA operatives at the crime scene: Michael Ruppert, former Los Angeles Police detective, author, journalist and editor of From The Wilderness, conducted his own investigation of the RFK assassination, tapping into inside contacts deep within the LAPD. His investigation definitively proves that the assassination was a CIA operation, and names some of the perpetrators: Following the trail of evidence If there is a call to action inspired by Bobby, it must not stop with a revival of the causes that purportedly died with RFK. It must begin with a furious worldwide call to break down the doors of the national security state, with the immediate reopening of real and legitimate investigations into not only the RFK assassination, but every other political murder and crime of the past 40 years. The CIA, the FBI and other agencies must be held accountable. Nothing less will do. The RFK assassination physical evidence was, predictably, destroyed, manipulated, and subjected to a massive and continuing cover-up shortly after the murder. Investigations have been meticulously sabotaged. Whistleblowers, eyewitnesses, investigators and researchers have been silenced and murdered. The Kennedys, physical evidence and 9/11 ... The conspiracy and cover-up of all the 1960s' assassinations must be understood not as isolated murders, but parts of a long and seamless continuum. To borrow the words of Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, authors of The Iran-Contra Connection, they are merely “the outgrowth of a long tradition of covert US activities." Any sober examination of any of the assassinations leads directly to the same master list of agencies, political suspects and covert operatives, from the Kennedy killings to the crimes of Watergate and Iran-Contra, to the present day. The system that made the RFK murder and cover-up possible is at its zenith today, with the openly criminal, overtly brutal George W. Bush administration. Anyone who has studied his history must have been disgusted and outraged by the official ceremony in which George W. Bush named the Justice Department building after RFK, given the fact that the Bush crime family and its network can be directly connected to the Kennedy killings. ... Hopefully, the continuing efforts of researchers and investigators, and people like researcher/film maker Shane O'Sullivan will be a part of a new wave. In short, there is an arduous and long-running battle for justice that must be joined. Let it start now. Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal

Il n'y aura aucun nouvel impôt? Only if I was really pissed off at James Tague. Dang you do mighty fine work though. Nice perspective. Uh, the knoll fence? Likely. Was there such an order? Can you please site a source? Are you suggesting that the assassins were trying to flush out the witness to the assassination to nail them in the parking lot?

It has been claimed that David Talbot's poor review on Ultimate Sacifice is not unconnected to his own book on the assassinations of JFK and RFK that will appear next year. So, anyone who writes about President Kennedy's assassination and give a bad review to another such book is being disingenuous and self-promoting? Or just Talbot? Who has "it been claimed" by John? More on Ultimate Sacrifice from another ed thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5748 "And I wouldn't site "Ultimate Sacrifice" as a source on anything other than an example of the continuation of the theme that RFK had sanctioned his brother's murder (per Russo, et al), and all the schmeil about C-Day is a figment of their imagination - they admit making up the word C-Day, which never happened. Their hypothetical coup never happened, while the real coups took place in Siagon and Dallas. BK" "I agree with Bill that it seems the authors of Ultimate Sacrifice bought into the same old Roselli-generated cover-up story about Bobby having caused his brother's death. I admit to personally considering Bobby's role to be paramount in any understanding of the anti-Castro dynamics in late 1963. However, I certainly do not believe that "Col. Roselli" of JM/WAVE was working from the same playbook as Bobby. Trying to fathom Bobby's role is like the metaphor of blind men describing an elephant, one feeling the leg and thinking it's a tree, another feeling the tail and thinking it's a snake. He was running numerous compartmentalized Cuban special groups, deliberately keeping participants from knowing the entire scheme, if there was in fact any single overall scheme. The authors of Ultimate Sacrifice felt a certain part of the anatomy and came to their narrow conclusion. Richard Reeves noted about the president, and by extension, his brother: "Kennedy was decisive, though he never made a decision until he had to, and then invariably he chose the most moderate of available options." The peace overtures were still in play at the time of JFK's death, despite what Harry Williams may have believed. T.C." A blind man describing an elephant. Beautiful.

No, I do not think it is possible that JFK and the CIA were working with Che and Juan Almeida against Castro. The authors must have been smoking something! Well, I frankly have a lot of problems with the premise of the book. And with the claim that the CIA was duped.... Anyway, I've asked the same question twice with no reply. Here it is again: I just read "Ultimate Sacrifice" and have a question for Mr. Waldron. If the Kennedys were close to overthrowing Castro, why wouldn't the mafia wait until Castro was out of power to kill JFK? Wouldn't they want to get their casinos and property back after capitalism is, presumably, restored -- *before* assassinating their enemy? Thank you. Myra Yes! I found the thread recently with David Talbot's review of Ultimate Sacrifice, and he asked the same question I've had since I read the book: "The biggest puzzler about the authors' Mafia theory is this: Why in the world would organized crime bosses, who had been scheming to return to Havana ever since Castro's revolutionary government had evicted them from their immensely lucrative casinos, knock off Kennedy just days before he was about to knock off Castro? Here again, "Ultimate Sacrifice" fails the basic logic test." Thank you David, thank you. Here's the thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5520 http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2...view/index.html Good review... I mean, not for the authors but for the greater good (i.e., what I believe). This is my other problem with the book: "While the authors take pains to (repeatedly) exonerate the CIA in the killing of Kennedy, their book actually winds up raising serious questions about the agency's possible role in the crime. Though it's not the authors' scenario, after finishing "Ultimate Sacrifice" the reader is left with the unmistakable impression that the assassination was probably the work of a conspiracy involving elements of the CIA, Mafia and anti-Kennedy Cuban exiles -- a cabal that was working to terminate Castro's reign (by any means necessary) and turned its guns instead against Kennedy." Yeah, and the pains it goes to (repeatedly) to "exonerate the CIA" makes it seem like disinformation. The fact that it tries to prop up the flagging "mob dunnit" story makes it seem like official disinformation. I'm honestly puzzled by the defense of this book. Good ol' Salon.

See image above. Does it really matter? (But to answer your question: no.) Hm, taking a tip from Don's (old?) sig line: "Because of the photograph taken by AP photographer James Altgens seeming to show a rifle shaped object protruding from the second floor window of the Dal-Tex building, several Warren report critics (including myself) felt that was a probably a firing point for one or two shots. The committee has made available to me the original Altgens negative. Using my technique of vario-density eynexing, I was able to enhance the image in the window to the point of clarity where window is now identifiable as a black man leaning the window sill with both hands, and with no gun in view." ROBERT GRODEN, his HSCA-documented comments about the panels report, 1979" I went here to see the whole report: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca...denComments.pdf Does anyone have a copy of the Groden photo of "a black man leaning [on] the window sill [of Dal-Tex floor 2 by fire escape on Nov 22, '63] with both hands, and with no gun in view"? More from Groden's report: ATTACHMENT 3: SUSPECTED FIRING POINTS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, AS THEY RELATE TO THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE There are nearly 2 dozen suspected firing points in Dealey Plaza that have been raised by Warren report critics through the years. Of these, several are worthy of close inspection for they may be candidates of probable sources of shots within the plaza. Some of the 2 dozen: 1. The TSBD easternmost sixth floor window facing south (the "Oswald" window). 2. The TSBD roof. 3. The TSBD seventh floor. 4. The TSBD fourth floor, third pair from the left (west) end. 5. The TSBD westernmost pair of sixth floor windows facing south. 6. The Dal-Tex building second floor. 7. The Dal-Tex building third floor. 8. The Dal-Tex building third floor. (any of the top three). 9. Dal-Tex roof. 10. The county records building roof. 11. The county records building second floor. 12. The stockade fence on top of the "grassy knoll". 13. The cement retaining wall in front of the stockade fence. 14. In front of the cement structure on the knoll at the end of the stockade fence (northeastern end). 15. The railroad overpass. 16. A storm drain at the north curb of Elm Street. 17. The "umbrella man". 18. The "south knoll" (the grassy knoll on the south side of the plaza on Commerce Street). Nos. 1 thru 11 were to the President's rear, 12 thru 16 were to his right front, 17 stated at tile front and ended to the rear as the car passed by, and 18 was to the President's left front. 1. Was almost certainly a firing point. If the "Oswald" window was used during the assassination, whether by Lee Oswald or any one else, (this remains to be proven), it is logical to assume that there would be from this window. This would be consistent with a prearranged scenario as well with the official version of the crime. The film taken by Charles Bronson may show a dummy snipers nest for a cover story being constructed just 7 minutes before the shots were fired. 2. and 3. are possible alternatives to 1 but with far less opportunity for interruption by a bystander as was always a possibility at the "Oswald" window. There were reports of a rifle being found at 2 and 3 was not even searched. 4. Is considered by Dr. Cyril Wecht because of the angle of bullet trajectory from that point. 5. Is the point where witness Arnold Rowland saw two men with a rifle Just before the assassination but thought that they were Secret Service agents. There was also what appeared to be a bullet mark on the north sidewalk of Elm Street (since removed) that lined up with this window. 6. Because of of photograph taken by A.P. photographer, James Altgens seeming to show a rifle shaped object protruding from the second floor window of the Dal-Tex building, several Warren report critics (including myself) felt that was a propably a firing point for one or two shots. The committee has made available to me the original Altgens negative. Using my technique of vario-density eynexing, I was able to enhance the image in the window to the point of clarity where window is now identifiable as a black man leaning the window sill with both hands, and with no gun in view. 7. Has been charged as a firing point for the same reason as window 6. Using the VDC technique. I feel that the window was closed and I can find no evidence of any shots from that window. 8, 9. and 10. are strong interchangeable possibilities for one or two of the shots from the rear. Either President Kennedy's or Governor Connally's back wounds or the President's rear entering head wound. These angles are much closer to the alleged trajectory (rear to front) than the depository points 1 to 5. 11. Only one man Hugh McDonald has mentioned this as a firing point. Logistically, it simply could not I have been. The angles and line sight won't line up to any traceable shot. 12. The committee's acoustic panel has presented corroborative evidence to support the photographic evidence that this was in fact a firing point. A figure can be seen in both the second Moorman Polaroid photograph (clearly showing a figure in the area directly behind the stockade fence), 8 feet to the left of the corner of the fence), and the closing few dozen frames of the Zapruder film also seem to show a figure in the same spot. Independently, the sound tapes from the stuck transmitter place a firing point in this exact position, as do a great deal of eye and ear witnesses to the shooting. 13. Appears in a long list of films and photographs: (a) the fifth Phil Willis slide; ( the Hugh Betzner photo corresponding to Willis No. 5; © ,the Abraham Zapruder film frances in the area surrounding and including No. 413; (d) the Orville Nix film in shadow near the left edge of the retaining wall; and (e) the Marie Muchmore film for one frame at the extreme top of the frame. 14. After the shooting, a large crowd of spectators chased this man, who some thought was a gunman, back into the parking lot where he disappeared, and where a man with false Secret Service identification was encountered. In items a and c, a shape appearing to be a weapon or rifle-shaped object is noted being held by this man. The HSCA photo panel has determined that this is indeed a human shape. Appears in the Orville Nix film for an entire sequence and can be seen in motion. Stereo pairs show this shape to have three dimensions, and to be in the plaza in front of the concretes structure with the "left arm" portion extending beyond the edge of the wall. There are similar patches of light and shadow visible on the wall in the next sequence that give the impression that this shape was only shadows. It was not. These remaining shadows lack the coloring and texture of the image itself. 15. There is no photographic evidence of an assassin at this point. 16. There is no photographic evidence of an assassin at this point. 17. It seems unlikely that a shot could have come from this point. 18. Two Dallas doctors noted an entrance wound in the President's left temple. I have also noted in autopsy photograph No. 29 and the front view X-ray that there seems to be such a bullet wound in evidence. If there was, then this probably came from the area of the southern grassy knoll. The only photographic evidence of a shot from this point is the Cancellare photograph. It shows a shape that appears to be a man holding what appears to be a rifle on top of the knoll near a tree just seconds after the shots were fired. However, this shape is far too vague to be considered proof of a gunman and must be considered with its limitations. It is my opinion that Nos. 1, 9, 10, 12 13, and 18 are the most likely candidates for firing points as well as either 2, 3, 4, 5, or 8 (one of these). It is also my opinion that only four of the above or at the most five are truly candidates for firing points and that No. 14 was a probability who never fired a shot. The rest on the list I cannot believe to be points where shots came from on the basis of photographic evidence as well as other physical evidence. Ok, so Groden doesn't mention the Tower. That can be added in, then suspected firing points can be checked and some eliminated, and it'll be all figured out. It's just that easy. Lee Forman post Jan 6 2006, 12:20 AM Post #4 Super Member **** Group: JFK Posts: 1449 Joined: 28-April 04 Member No.: 675 I continue to plagiarize, Lee again: "Wichita Eagle - 11/23 "The charge was filed against Lee Harvey Oswald, 24. Officers said he was the man who hid on the 5th floor of a textbook warehouse..." "The fatal shots came from the second floor..." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5783 Lee? Do you still have that article??? Hey! I don't fold I bluff.

Ok, replying to myself, there is more discussion on the problematic angle from the second floor Dal-Tex bldg. in this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=5149&st=15. This quote from GPH... FWIW: "I also asked Oliver: That since the exterior shots of Stanley and the black kid would be filmed at a time when the dozen or so motorcade cycles weren't to be filmed -- could we please have both a scoped rifle & a "iron-sights" rifle [mounted with cameras] used during the next motorcade cycle. I told him that it would be quite interesting to see [as I suspected] that any 2nd floor DalTex window shooter would have had NO SHOT at JFK after the turn in front of the TSBD. When he inquired as to my theory, I responded that: With the "J/Canoe" now going downhill, the Secret Service "outriders" would have totally blocked any rear-view of JFK !! ("Theory...") Then Lee says: "Perhaps the SS blocking the shot had something to do with a botched shot that ended up hitting the curb by Tague? Elm has a very serious pitch and curve to it. The 2nd floor of the DalTex would literally provide a small 'window' of opportunity seems to me. The inset is a crop from the Altgens 6 - maybe there is a face in the bottom right of the window. The radio seems consistent with one of those sliver Motorola Slimline 220s." (Hope you don't mind me quoting you Lee.) So getting back to the point of this thread, which is about shooters and locations, do other people see men, including one with a rifle, in the attached photo?" (Oh, I should admit that I stole the photo from Lee too.)

Oh you are great JL. That's a keeper. The Persistence of Timesinks.

Not really; I have bad hair years. Je ne peux pas vous entendre avec ce chapeau dessus. Hm, you may have a point. The two figures are on a low floor. So we'd (we ) need a side-view diagram with everyone in position for the shots from behind to see if the angles are possible. Hey! This is your area right? Can you provide evidence for my premise? Huh? Anyways, do you see the two figures in the window? Let's establish that much. ...Oops. Busted. Ok ok so I kinda scanned. My bad. What? So the shooters didn't loll around waiting for the welcome wagon to arrive? As you'd say, "shocking." And downright rude. I mean that's just not good manners. Did you notice that every vehicle including the press bus had already passed? That indicates that some seconds went by before people started charging the knoll. And I suspect that the shooters had escape routes. In addition, early knoll chargers were greeted with the bogus SS men who showed weapons and told people to turn back. Not surprisingly, they did. So the knoll shooter(s) had plenty of time to bolt. http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html "THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, WAS THERE PHONY SECRET SERVICE AGENTS IN DEALEY PLAZA Michael T. Griffith 1996@All Rights Reserved Some witnesses said they encountered Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza moments after the assassination. These reports continue to be the subject of much controversy. Why? Because it has long been established that no genuine Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza until later that afternoon. This fact suggests phony Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza, and that they were there to help the assassins escape. David Scheim(1) summarizes: "After the shooting, Dallas Police officer Joe M. Smith encountered another suspicious man in the lot behind the picket fence [on the grassy knoll]. Smith told the Warren Commission that when he drew his pistol and approached the man, the man "showed [smith] that he was a Secret Service agent." Another witness also reported encountering a man who displayed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service agent. But according to Secret Service Chief James Rowley and agents at the scene, all Secret Service personnel stayed with the motorcade, as required by regulations, and none was stationed in the railroad parking lot [behind the grassy knoll]. It thus appeared that someone was carrying fraudulent Secret Service credentials--of no perceptible use to anyone but an escaping assassin. (Scheim 30-31) Not only were there no Secret Service (SS) agents stationed on or behind the grassy knoll, but there were no FBI or other federal agents stationed there either. Officer Smith was not the only witness who encountered an apparently phony federal agent. Malcolm Summers ran to the knoll moments after the shooting. He related the following in the 1988 documentary Who Murdered JFK?: "I ran across the--Elm Street to right there toward the knoll. It was there [pointing to a spot on the knoll]--and we were stopped by a man in a suit and he had an overcoat--over his arm and he, he, I saw a gun under that overcoat. And he--his comment was, "Don't you all come up here any further, you could get shot, or killed ," one of those words. A few months later, they told me they didn't have an FBI man in that area. If they didn't have anybody, it's a good question who it was. " (Anderson 14)"

Voila! http://www.copweb.be/index.html Michael! Thank you. For the translation and for taking off your hat in the presence of a lady. There are those that could learn from your fine example.

My aren't your presumptious? Like you could possibly know if I've searched a forum. Nonetheless you've managed to back into a truth. Instead of "searching" I've actually looked at every thread on every page of the forum from start to finish. Not that I need to present my credentials to someone who mistakes coming to my own conclusions with not researching. I've already tried spitting into the wind, in metaphorical fashion, in this dialogue. Again you're ignoring the fact that the President's head exploded and one sixteenth of a second later there was no trace of it in the air--in any direction. If a "stiff breeze" blew it backward then it would be visible behind him. But it's not. There's no blood, no brain matter, no "cranial fluid," whatever you insist on calling it, after one sixteenth of a second. It covered the motorcycles and cops behind him in a totally invisible way in one sixteenth of a second. Bullxxxx. I don't care what the author said, I'm talking about my own observations. Greer's head and Mrs' Connelly's head turn impossibly fast. That can be seen in the moving film and in a frame by frame inspection. But you ignore the evidence, so I'll ignore you. Timesink someone more gullible.

Excuse me? "We" who "knows" that? Did I not get the memo? Ashton That's correct Ashton. I distributed a memo to everyone but you because you refuse to remove your hat in the presence of a lady. So there. Ok, I drew the Dal-Tex conclusion after looking at this page: http://www.copweb.be/copweb%20jfk%20gazette-Mag01.htm# Someone with your advanced language skills may notice that it's in French. However, the photos probably speak for themselves. (Then I go on to speak for them.) They show a shooter aiming a rifle (at least that's what I see) in the window of Dal-Tex, right by the fire escape that a man is sitting on. The shooter has a second man (spotter?) with him. (I also attached photos.) The only photo that's retouched is the super closed up that's in color. That photo is showing their theory, but the others are naked eye kinda stuff with some magnification. The knoll shooter I doubt you need convincing on. The evidence is overwhelming, e.g., the stampede up the hill afterwards (in your picture).

Well this isn't much help but Oswald was 5'9" (per http://www.famoustexans.com/leeharveyoswald.htm) and Ruby was clearly shorter than him in the photos of the shooting. Maybe 5'7"?

Nice arial view John. I don't know if this was posted before, didn't see it, but in a triangulation shooting I'd think they would avoid placing shooters opposite each other. If they did they could accidently nail a "colleague" (I wish). So I assume that excludes almost 180 degrees from shooter placement. And since we know there were shooters at Dal Tex and the knoll, that seems like it'd exclude shooters on the South knoll and the County Records Bldg. Not that I'm an expert on this subject (understatement).