Myra Bronstein

More pics of Shaw for comparison. Myra Bronstein

________________________________

Unfortunately, the Shaw look-alike in the Love Field photo that Chuck posted looks to be of average height. I read somewhere that Shaw was quite tall. Six-five or so. He sure looks tall in the lower photo which Myra posted of him surrounded by reporters and/or lawyers outside the courthouse.

FWIW, Thomas

________________________________

Yup, he's too short. (And his upper lip's too short!) Good eye though Chuck.

David, thank you. I used the Nix assassination sequence clip from

http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html

and extracted the frames with xnview. The first frame was very blurred so I left that out. Calling the first used frame frame one, it seems (to me) that frames

5, 11, 20, (21?), 22, 23, 25, 34, 38, 45

of the first 48 frames are missing. Four of these are bunched at the headshot, and there could be even another frame again missing. If this is correct then likely the full clip shows the limo stopping or nearly stopping at the headshot. It would be good if someone could check and confirm or debunk please.

Well that sure would be an interesting find if those were the events in the missing frames. I'm leaning towards believing that zapruger frames were tampered with to hide the incriminating limo slowdown (or stop) you mentioned, and to show a burst of blood shooting forward from the President's head to support the bullet from behind theory. Discussed here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=75

It looks like the Nix stretch shown here is approximately z312-334, based on the positions of people I think are Mary Moorman, woman in light coat still running, and first guy in dark suit.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

I'm going by the zapruder tape used here:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

They gave many examples of supposed alteration flaws that I couldn't see. But I thought the head motions of Mrs Connelly and Greer were impossible, and the blood dissipation occuring in 1/16 of a second was beyond impossible. There would have to be many frame missing or tampered with to disguise those two events.

I haven't seen this addressed anywhere (searched forum, don't recall it in Best Evidence, etc). Coulda missed it of course.

In "Trauma Room 1," Dr Crenshaw said that one of the last things he did at Parkland was close the President's eyes. But in the stare-of-death photo his eyes are open. (Don't want to attach it...'cause.)

I don't know how significant this is, or how reliable Crenshaw is, but I thought I'd mention it.

Thanks, Myra...for taking the time to study the Costella proofs of alteration.

Miller and other obstructionists refuse to address them. They had rather

invent "gaps" in the Moorman photo and rely on Zavada and other "nameless"

experts.

I suggest anyone with doubts about alteration to visit the sites Myra cites.

Jack

Jack, you rely on peoples lack of knowledge of the subject so to feel as though they support your nonsense. The alleged limo stop has been addressed many times. When witnesses said the motorcade stopped for several seconds at the time of the kill shot to the President - people like yourself attributed their remarks to the limo, which is in error. Moorman's photo, which was filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination, shows the limo in motion. Maybe Myra doesn't know this stuff and I personally wouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to be honest enough to point it out to her.

Costella's alleged proof for alteration has also been mentioned in the past. Costella didn't seem to have a clue as to why the Life Magazine images were sharper than the MPI version. For some odd reason, Costella got it backwards and thought the MPI version should have been sharper than the Life stills published in their magazine. So once again I will point out that MPI used filters and other processes that caused a loss of sharpness to their Zfilm. Myra can think what she wishes and if she really buys into the mistakes you guys have made, then let her assist in trying to get even the most disrespected tabloids to pick up the story!

You guys made claims that should have shaken the world and yet once educated people looked at what you came up with - they shook their heads and considered your claims ridiculous and this is why you have not gotten an ounce of interest shown from any news agencies - tabloid or otherwise.

Bill Miller

Interesting that you don't address the impossibly fast head motions and the impossibly fast dissapating blood Bill. You seem to ignore the points you can't explain. Which makes you a timesink. I seriously doubt I can learn anything useful from you.

I read an article once, about an incident in Canada, where a man thought to be David Ferrie was speaking

with an associate in public. A canadian overheard him talking about the assassination.

What caught my attention in this article was a statement which said Ferrie talked about someone involved

in the assassination being dumb enough to be photographed at Love Field.

I scanned Love Field photos and did find one face, and, if it is who it looks like, he said he was in California

at the time of the assassination.

This was posted at Lancer by me a few years back. It got some attention, but, I felt it was not given the

scrutiny it deserved.

Here is the face in the crowd and next to it is a photo of Clay Shaw.

I'm sure someone else could pull a much clearer image from the picture than I did. I was very new to

working with images at the time I cropped and enlarged this blurry thing.

There sems to be a good paper/witness trail that Shaw was on the West Coast at the time.

I trust you will forgive me if I am skeptical of any paperwork/witness which gives a CIA operative an alibi?

We have learned we can not rely upon the paper/witnesses from the Warren Report nor can we fully trust

those provided by the other "investigations" undertaken over the years.

Garrison mentions, at length in On the Trail of the Assassins, discussions between Shaw and Ferrie wherein they're discussing the alibis they'll use well in advance. It was a prime consideration. Since (as Chuck said) Shaw was CIA (was it Helms that admitted that?--I think so), it would be quite easy for him to get fake evidence to support his alibi.

More pics of Shaw for comparison. The upper lip can look shorter depending on angle and expression.

I haven't read the Film Hoax book, but it's on order.

I did find this URL in an earlier ed thread on the subject, and it's the most compelling thing I've seen so far.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

It supplies a film of Zapruder in the "click here" link almost half way down the page, and explains the importance of watching a stabilized version at normal speed.

The examples I found most persuasive were here:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/fast.html

The impossibly fast head movements of Mrs. Connelly and the ever suspicious Greer.

This page is also noteworthy, showing the lack of blur of both car and stationary objects in the Life magazine stills.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html

They address the critical "why" question, and I'm pretty satisfied with their answer. The altered film does not show that the limo stopped, which is incriminating to the driver and the SS. In fact it shows the limo speeding up at the same time four people are thrown forward from the force of a stop that is not shown. That's not to say that the stop is the only thing they're trying to hide, but it's a biggie.

On edit: Another significant reason for alteration is to show a burst of blood shooting forward from the President's head, supporting the bullet from behind theory, rather than shooting backward, which shows a shot from the front.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html

It's quite noticable that the blood explosion disappears after just one frame (the infamous 313). So all that brain and skull and blood are supposed to have dissipated in 1/16 of a second? I don't think that's possible.

This is aside from the question of available technology in the era in question, which you all are hashing out.

Just in time for Christmas.....

http://www.thegoodshepherdmovie.com/

Thank you Michael, this looks excellent!

People need to accept the truth about the CIA before they can accept what they've done domestically.

And it outs Yale as a recruiting ground, and Skull and Bones.

I may have to see that one.

I read an article once, about an incident in Canada, where a man thought to be David Ferrie was speaking

with an associate in public. A canadian overheard him talking about the assassination.

What caught my attention in this article was a statement which said Ferrie talked about someone involved

in the assassination being dumb enough to be photographed at Love Field.

I scanned Love Field photos and did find one face, and, if it is who it looks like, he said he was in California

at the time of the assassination.

This was posted at Lancer by me a few years back. It got some attention, but, I felt it was not given the

scrutiny it deserved.

Here is the face in the crowd and next to it is a photo of Clay Shaw.

I'm sure someone else could pull a much clearer image from the picture than I did. I was very new to

working with images at the time I cropped and enlarged this blurry thing.

That's really interesting Chuck. Would you mind posting the original photo you took the image from?

It does look a lot like Shaw, except for the upper lip which isn't as long as Shaw's. Though that part of the image is pretty blurry.

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

Myra, as I said in a previous post, Sloan-Kettering had conducted such experiments staring in the 1950s with animals, then moving on to healthy humans, before finally experimenting on people whose immune systems were damaged.

And I actually like to find my own sources Greg.

Myra, I'm glad you do. However, the sources you provided are about tests conducted in recent years. We need sources on tests from the 1950s/60s. Sloan-Kettering's tests from the '50s had limited success (if they are to be believed). If you can find other reports from that era, I think that would be very useful.

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

In the first example you gave, nothing is said about injecting cancer cells into healthy mice.

No Greg, and I wasn't posting it as an example of an injection method. As you like to say, "as I said in a previous post" it is an experiment in "transplanting" cancer cells. I clearly labeled it as such. You might want to take the time to read a post before you post a rebuke about someone not reading your post.

If I upset you, I apologise unreservedly. It wasn't my intent. My point went to the relevance of your sources to the discussion at hand.

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

In the second example, we don't know how genetically similar the mice were.

Oh, whatever. I'm not personally experimenting on mice and I'm not keeping stats on those that do and don't develop cancer. I'm finding out how common it is to introduce cancer into mice. And based on a google search--as I said in a previous post--it's a common technique. That was the point of the post. There are many google hits on the search term. So I don't see a reason to be incredulous over the technique. Whether you're incredulous or not is your business.

You can hardly say it's common (now) to introduce cancer cells to mice -- and therefore it's likely that this is what happened to Ruby 40 years ago. I want to know how successful the experiments are, what conditions are needed (eg a destroyed immune system) and how advanced this knowledge was in the mid '60s.

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

With all of that said, I don't entirely rule out cancer cell injections being given to Ruby, as I believe his immune system was damaged (as I indicated in my original post). However, the nationwide outcry at the time over cancer cell injections given to patients in the Jewish hospital in Brooklyn (by Sloan-Kettering doctors), would really make it a high risk strategy. Letting Ruby BELIEVE that's what they were doing on the other hand, was perfect since suspicion was bound to be strong given the timing of his death. By throwing that suspicion on to something which could be easily dismissed, the real culprit then would never be looked for - Beryllium.

Are you serious? They blew away the president in broad daylight on a public street with hundreds of witnesses in the most conspicuous possible manner, and covered it up for years before Ruby died. They own the media. And they're supposed to care that killing yet another witness is "high risk"?

If you're going to blame a "lone nut" for the assassination of a president, you can't have it happening in the Oval Office. "Lone nuts" are opportunistic and therefore go for the kill in high risk settings out of necessity. The fact that a "lone nut" patsy was in place made the risk to the real killer/s much less heightened. By 1966, when Ruby became stricken with cancer, the WCR was under serious and sustained attack, and a number of suspicious deaths had already occurred. So - yes, I'm serious. In the face of much adverse attention to the Sloan-Kettering cancer cell injection experiments, as well as the timing and the growing public disquiet fueled by the sluething of the WC critics, it would be "high risk". Use another method unlikely in the extreme to be detected unless suspected, and it becomes wise to allow "cancer cells" to be blamed so it can then be "debunked" (as it was in an FBI report). Everyone could then relax again safe in the knowledge that it was just "coincidental" cancer, after all.

Ah, ok I understand now; thanks Greg. True, I do need to look for tests from the era in question. Thanks for taking the time to explain it better.

Myra, as I said in a previous post, Sloan-Kettering had conducted such experiments staring in the 1950s with animals, then moving on to healthy humans, before finally experimenting on people whose immune systems were damaged.

And I actually like to find my own sources Greg.

In the first example you gave, nothing is said about injecting cancer cells into healthy mice.

No Greg, and I wasn't posting it as an example of an injection method. As you like to say, "as I said in a previous post" it is an experiment in "transplanting" cancer cells. I clearly labeled it as such. You might want to take the time to read a post before you post a rebuke about someone not reading your post.

In the second example, we don't know how genetically similar the mice were.

Oh, whatever. I'm not personally experimenting on mice and I'm not keeping stats on those that do and don't develop cancer. I'm finding out how common it is to introduce cancer into mice. And based on a google search--as I said in a previous post--it's a common technique. That was the point of the post. There are many google hits on the search term. So I don't see a reason to be incredulous over the technique. Whether you're incredulous or not is your business.

With all of that said, I don't entirely rule out cancer cell injections being given to Ruby, as I believe his immune system was damaged (as I indicated in my original post). However, the nationwide outcry at the time over cancer cell injections given to patients in the Jewish hospital in Brooklyn (by Sloan-Kettering doctors), would really make it a high risk strategy. Letting Ruby BELIEVE that's what they were doing on the other hand, was perfect since suspicion was bound to be strong given the timing of his death. By throwing that suspicion on to something which could be easily dismissed, the real culprit then would never be looked for - Beryllium.

Are you serious? They blew away the president in broad daylight on a public street with hundreds of witnesses in the most conspicuous possible manner, and covered it up for years before Ruby died. They own the media. And they're supposed to care that killing yet another witness is "high risk"?

Someone mentioned one interview that was cut from the second edition (can't remember who was interviewed and can't find the thread).

Was there more that was cut from the second edition, or was it just that one interview?

Myra, I think I mentioned in passing that it was my understanding that the interview with Roy Hargraves had been removed. I haven't seen the book yet and am not sure if this is true.

There is a thread on Larry's book over in the authors section. It might be better, organizational-wise, to ask Larry questions there. He is a frequent contributor to this forum. The original thread on Larry's book is the longest, and possibly most informative, thread in the history of this forum.

... There's an author's section?

Hargraves! Right, thanks Pat.

Uh, well the second part to my question is how I can get that interview, from some kind forum member--HINT.

But I will post in the author's section...as soon as I find it.

Someone mentioned one interview that was cut from the second edition (can't remember who was interviewed and can't find the thread).

Was there more that was cut from the second edition, or was it just that one interview?

This is excellent info Greg, thank you.

I don't know enough to have an opinion, but Garrison's book "On the Trail of the Assassins" makes a point of describing the foul smell from Ferrie's apartment due to the large number of mice he kept there for his cancer experiments. I don't have the book in front of me so I can't give the exact quote.

-MB

Myra, OTTOTA was the second book I read on the case (first was Conspiracy). I'm up to about number 9. Ferrie told 3 or 4 different stories about how he lost his hair. Cancer research was one of the reasons he gave.

Sorry I missed that the first time it was posted. Fascinating.

-JS

John,

Found this today, It shows that there was concern even back then that his cancer was "artificially induced." I haven't seen the report, but needless to say, the FBI would not have found any evidence of this.

ORIGINATOR : FBI

FROM : [No From]

TO : [No To]

TITLE : [No Title]

DATE : 03/17/1967

PAGES : 2

DOCUMENT TYPE : MEMORANDUM.

SUBJECTS : RUBY, JACK; CANCER ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED.

CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED

RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL

CURRENT STATUS : OPEN

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 06/04/1993

COMMENTS : Box 15. Section 89.

Also in NARA... confirmation that Eva had noticed he was seriously ill many weeks prior to his trip to Parkland.

Some newspaper reports from Dec '66 that I've just located tend to support what I wrote in the original piece.

From the Long Beach Press Telegram 12dec66:

Ruby... was taken to Parkland Hospital Friday night after being treated for a week by the County Health Officer for a congested, tight-feeling chest. The hospital said he had pneumonia.

----

A malignant tumor was discovered Saturday to have nearly consumed a lymph node in Ruby's neck. The doctors said this signified there were other cites and the cancer had advanced.

----

Whatever the results of this weeks tests [to find where the cancer originated], Dr Sanford said, "I do not expect he will be able to go to court" as early as February for a retrial...

The Nevada State Journal two days later reported...

Cancer has been found in the lining of Ruby's chest, in addition to the lymph node on his neck, where it was originally discovered. Both lungs are filled with suspicious looking nodules. The cancer spread to these areas; physicians are still looking for the place it started.

----

The right lung was collapsed by the pressure of four quarts of fluid that were in his chest cavity when he was taken Friday from the Dallas County jail...

----

Dr Barnett said it was impossible to tell how long Ruby had been suffering from cancer and declined even to speculate whether he may have had it when he killed Oswald.

My time is running out. I am breathing toward my last breath. I was set up and tried the minute I walked down that ramp. - Jack Ruby to reporters, 31mar65.

Woah, more great info, thanks again Greg. In general I don't totally trust anyone on this subject, and even the trustworthy people should be double/triple checked. But Garrison is as trustworthy as anyone can be IMO. Of course he only stated that Ferrie was doing experiments. Nothing about results.

I do want to learn more about the general subject of cancer experiments in mice. If researchers do such experimentation then it seems like they must have some way of inducing cancer in the animals. Do they transplant cancerous organs into them? Do they inject cells? Do they inject something else? Do they only get animals that already show signs of cancer?

Well, it looks like cancer experiments can be done on mice by transplanting cancer cells into them (from a human or another mouse), after which they develop cancer. At least according to this source:

"Experimental Cancers in Mice

There are several different strategies for studying cancer in mice, and they vary in their ability to predict the behavior of cancers or therapies in human patients. For example, one can divide the types of mouse cancer models into five major categories: 1) inducing endogenous (naturally occurring) cancer in mice using chemical carcinogens, 2) inducing endogenous cancer in mice using genetic manipulation, 3) allowing mice to grow old and get spontaneous cancers, 4) transplanting human cancers into immune-deficient mice that cannot reject cells from a different species and 5) transplanting aggressive cancers from other mice. This last group represents the type of model we used in our experiments. Some therapies that work for the first four categories have difficulty treating these more aggressive mouse cancers. The SR/CR cancer resistant mouse was originally identified using these aggressive mouse cancers and, therefore, had to be a very effective resistance mechanism to have been detected. One might predict that such an effective mechanism might not only be able to kill cancer cells in the original mutant mouse, but perhaps one could transfer this mechanism to normal mice, as well."

http://www1.wfubmc.edu/cancer/research/mice/part3.htm

And it's easy to find websites that discuss, in a very matter of fact way, that mice are injected with cancer cells, after which they develop cancer:

"One injection can give a mouse cancer but a second can cure it. That was one of the conclusions made from recent experiments on mice conducted by Steve Kennel and Saed Mirzadeh, both of ORNL's Life Sciences Division.

Dozens of mice were injected with lung cancer or breast cancer cells. The injected cells lodged in the mouse lungs and grew there. Several of the mice were later anesthetized, and the tiny, solid tumors in the lungs were imaged by high-resolution X-ray computed tomography, using the ORNL-developed MicroCAT scanner (see MicroCAT "Sees" Hidden Mouse Defects)."

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/200...l-cci061802.php

Googling on the terms "cancer experiments mice injected" turns up hit after hit referring to the injection of cancer cells into mice, and the cancer that results.

(He mentions the very thing that threw me, the fact that Wallace was quite inept.) (Myra Bronstein)

Hi Myra,

Wallace was an interesting character with some very curious connections.

This image below shows a young Malcolm Wallace and Molly O'Daniel. Molly was the daughter of Texas Governer W. Lee O'Daniel who was seriously opposed to Homer Rainey, a man Wallace supported.

John has some terrific information on O'Daniel in his Spartacus biography.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKodaniel.htm

FWIW.

James

Well I'll definitely have to read more about Mac Walace, and Bobby Baker, and Billie Sol Estes...

And O'Daniel, wew, they sure had them some kinda politicians in Texas. He's a piece of work. It looks like every progressive president, in this case FDR, has a klan out to get 'im. It worked with President Kennedy.

There is earlier related discussion at this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=655

In "Body of Evidence" Kellerman is shown, in a transcript, to be actively arranging the diversion of the body to Walter Reed (for alteration) as the empty casket goes to Bethesda.

Myra, I have been unable to track down any reference to a book (or video) entitled "Body of Evidence."

Can you tell us more about it?

Thank you.

Oh, I'm so sorry Raymond. That was a misnomer; I meant "Best Evidence" by David Lifton. I mispeak like that every time I mention that book, 'cause it's focused on the evidence associated with the body, so...

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Evidence-Op-Dav...TF8&s=books

I'm sure I'll keep doing the same thing. It's implanted in my head.

In "Body of Evidence" Kellerman is shown, in a transcript, to be actively arranging the diversion of the body to Walter Reed (for alteration) as the empty casket goes to Bethesda.

Myra, I have been unable to track down any reference to a book (or video) entitled "Body of Evidence."

Can you tell us more about it?

Thank you.

Is that the one with David Lifton and Madonna and the knky sex scene in the parking garage?

I wish!

Mac Wallace??? Wasn't he kind of a... xxxx up? He bungled the job on Henry Marshall horribly. Tried to set it up as a carbon monixide suicide but left a gash in Marshall's head, turned off the truck after the "suicide" and shot the victim 5 times with a bolt action rifle. He might have killed a lot of people for Johnson in Texas but I don't think he'd be trusted with anything of national scope.

Hello Myra - this doesn't preclude his use as leverage to be used against Johnson if required. The Loy Factor account [Men on the Sixth [maybe Fifth] Floor] is quite compelling - plus the print studies. Use of Mac would be very intelligent if one wanted to ensure LBJ played ball. No time at the present, however, his description [horn rims, etc.] sounds too similar to what quite a few witnesses reported to simply discard. If we can credit Factor - then Wallace is working with a cell - which includes a cuban woman, and a possible Oswald double. The Sam Rayburn funeral is also an interesting connection.

Plus - in hindsight, it doesn't really matter if he hit anything.

- lee

Well, I've wondered about the Johnson/Hoover talk of Nov 29:

"Lyndon B. Johnson: How many shots were fired? Three?

J. Edgar Hoover: Three.

Lyndon B. Johnson: Any of them fired at me?

J. Edgar Hoover: No.

Lyndon B. Johnson: All three at the President?

...

Lyndon B. Johnson: Were they aiming at the President?"

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjohnsonLB.htm

It could possibly have indicated his genuine concern over his own nasty ol' hyde.

But it's a stretch for me to think of LBJ as anything other than one of the leaders in the murder, what with the fact that he was the one in dire danger if President Kennedy lived. He was being dropped from the ticket and was about to get nailed in the Bobby Baker investigation.

And it's even more of a stretch to think that the assassin LBJ used would then be used against him. Granted these types do tend to free lance.

I'm having trouble understanding some of what you're saying. Are you saying some witnesses of the men on the 5th and 6th floors of the TSBD described a man that could be Wallace?

I don't know anything about the Sam Rayburn funeral. Care to summarize the interesting connection you refer to?

Francesca did a nice job of filling in some details - thanks Francesca!

Let's look at it this way - LBJ doesn't need to know any intricate details about anything. He may have been 'aware' - he may have even had a conversation with someone - but he's probably not accustomed to doing any nitty gritty work - more of a point the finger and get it done type. Which would make sense afterwards when we consider his documented paranoia, and reports of his serious concern over a 'conspiracy' - since it would almost appear that he was ignorant as to the details. So I am not implying that he would have commissioned his 'man' to be present. As to his being dropped from the ticket - still a matter of debate. On Baker, he would probably still be okay - depends on how he plays his cards, and how his other card players do as well. From the plotters perspective, it seems wise to get some dirt on LBJ in order to ensure you've got some skin in the game to work with. Makes a great deal of good logical sense. As to Mac being some sort of freelance - reused for other assignments - well, sounds more like he was a special type. A 'family thug.' But I have never really studied him in great detail - I only like the game plan.

- lee

Ah thank you Francesca, Lee. Ok, all clear. I'd assumed that the DCM in the TSBD was Cuban. Maybe not.

John included a really intriguing scenario of James' on his site:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm

"(16) James Richards, JFK Assassination Forum (25th June, 2004)

LBJ cronies most likely played a part in the cover-up. I hold the belief that the assassination itself and the cover-up were two different things. I also believe what the plotters were hoping to get out of the assassination did not come to fruition.

If Wallace was present on the 6th floor of the TSBD, then he was most likely recruited as part of an operating cell that needed to be managed just like all the others. He would not have been included for his ability as a hitman as at best his past exploits in that area were sloppy to say the least. I'm sure Wallace was there to tie Johnson into events if Johnson decided to turn on the plotters themselves. If Johnson was going to take the top job as a result of Kennedy's demise then I'm sure he needed to bring something to the table, even inadvertently. I do not believe Wallace fired a shot that day."

(He mentions the very thing that threw me, the fact that Wallace was quite inept.)

Has anyone heard of former Secret Service Agents Jerry O'Rourke?

Palamara's account is fascinating:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter13.pdf

Yes. Agent Art Godfrey was "unusually close" to Nixon. Clint Hill and another agent had oil interests. Wonder if they obtained those interests in the form of a reward.

I'm stunned to read that any SS agents supposedly had good feelings about the President. Did Boring (or whoever made assignments) carefully select only Kennedy haters and drunken buffoons for the Dallas trip?

Well, ok I'm warming up to Palamara's book. There's some dang good info in there.

Tip of the hat to Vinnie P. for job well done.

Regarding SS.

Has anyone heard of former Secret Service Agents Jerry O'Rourke?

The Telluride, Colordao native acknowledges that "Oswald had help" and agents were ordered to lie.

See Ellen Miller, Rocky Mountain News, Nov. 21, 2003.

I'd also like to locate former Special Agent in Charge Secret Service office in New Orleans 1963 - John W. Rice - (not Calvin), if anyone has a line on this guy.

Thanks,

BK

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Good find.

Well I'm googling, and there's this:

"18. Douglas Weldon, "The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963," in James H. Fetzer (ed.), Murder in Dealey Plaza (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2000), pp. 129-158; Pamela McElwain-Brown, "An Examination of the Presidential Limousine in the White House Garage, Kennedy Assassination Chronicles 5(4)(Winter 1999), p. 18. Parkland Hospital nurse Shirley Randall stated that as JFK was being rushed on a carriage to the emergency room, "some man" in the presidential party "asked me if I would get someone to come and wash the blood out of the car." (She said that she was "so excited and nervous" that she forgot about it.) (WC 21:217.) Former SS agent Jerry O'Rourke, who helped protect JFK in Fort Worth on the morning of the assassination, has said he was later told by a fellow agent of being ordered to remove blood from the car (Ellen Miller, "Ex-Agent Refuses to Toe Party Line on JFK Slaying," Rocky Mountain News, November 20, 2003). See photo of SS agents Samuel Kinney and George Hickey at Parkland attaching the top to the limo with a water bucket sitting beside them."

http://www.hobrad.com/acreumbr.htm

Looks like the full article is quoted here:

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.cultu...n/msg11245.html

O'Rourke is a bit off on his description of the back wound trajectory, but is sure is an interesting piece.

"Instructions were given to lie. The agent in charge of motorcade protection told O'Rourke that he was told by the Warren Commission during his testimony that he did not hear a fourth shot and he did not see someone running across the grassy knoll. But the agent insisted that his account was accurate."

The agent in charge of motorcade protection--wouldn't that be Kellerman?

An extremely stressful event like the assassination of a high-ranking government official can create a neurological firestorm in the minds of all humans who attempt to digest the confusingly difficult information. Waves of adverse thought energy can be generated which are extremely powerful and detrimental to their surroundings - and, can have devastating effects on basic structural systems for miles around - such as the phone and electrical services. Goo goo ga joob. Hodey doe doe. Wake up and go to sleep. We're trapped like rats (Speak for yourself...)

I'm sensing a wee bit of a neurological firestorm now...

Ok, my confusion is in remission. The additional info helped. Thanks Michael. I'll shut up and read the entire book then.

I am especially interested in the fact that some SS guys were accomplices and appreciate Palamara's focus on them. What they got away with is beyond belief.

I just want to make it clear that when I referenced "the above," I was referring to Palamara's actual research on Clint Hill more than his conclusion (which I separated by putting in bold).

Yes, it's clear. Thanks. And it's this very assessment of Kellerman that makes me wonder why Palamara ignored the the transcript of Kellerman arranging for the body to go to a different hospital than the casket, in "Best Evidence." On Amazon Palamara claims that Best Evidence has been largly debunked, but doesn't give specifics. He cites Livingstone as the debunker, but doesn't name the book, and Livingstone has many books on President Kennedy's killing.

Ultimate Sacrifice, Best Evidence and Final Judgement are three works that come to mind (there are plenty of others), where the author's conclusions may or may not stand the test, yet much of their research may still be valuable.

I don't need convincing that Ultimate Sacrifice lacks value. And, in fact, Palamara's endorsement of Ultimate Sacrifice is one of the red flags about him. I consider that book to be out and out disinformation, a mob dunnit smokescreen.

I'd love to hear why you think Best Evidence and Final Judgement are getting obsolete, if it's not too much work for you. Can you name just a couple of specifics that have been debunked? No point in wasting time reading Final Judgement if there's a negative concensus about it's worth.

Do you accept Lifton's premise that the President's body was hustled off to Walter Reed for alteration while the empty casket went to Bethesda? That's one of his more significant conclusions, and I accept it. I can't think of a better explanation for the changes to the body. And it certainly explains why they wouldn't start the oath until Jackie was there... away from the coffin.

Palamara did not absolve Clint Hill. In the part of my post you didn't reproduce, he wrote:

I do appreciate his criticisims of Hill, and in fact it's impacted my opinion of Hill. I've come away with a negative assessment of all the SS guys, even Rybka for his cover up work after the fact. And the fact that Hill went on the drinking binge makes him totally scummy in my view. There's no excuse.

I'm going to go back and read what Palamara had to say about Kellerman.

I just did. This is some of what Palamara writes about Kellerman:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter10.pdf

Thanks for the link. I did read it and I appreciate the good compilations of pros and cons for each agent. In fact I'll probably read some more. He does compile some good info, though it's hardly exhaustive (based on his ommission of the transcript testimony from Best Evidence.)

In fact one reason why I care about his verdict on Kellerman is that I think he's dirty so he's sort of a litmis test for Palamara's credibility. But Palamara rattles of a laundry list of contradictions in Kellerman's testimony and remarks, then gives a terse conclusion that he's a patsy without any explanation. I think there's enough there to conclude the opposite. At the very least I'd think Kellerman is inconclusive. But stating he's a patsy seems overly generous. Granted it's likely just a difference of opinion, but since Palamara doesn't explain his verdict it's hard to debate.

I'm relieved to see that Palamara concluded that Emery Roberts was dodgy. Roberts is the biggest litmus test. If someone tried to tell me he was clean they'd lose all credibility.

There is a valuable lesson to be learned here. Whenever a spook sits down for a meeting with fellow spooks, sources, or other shady types, he should not eat or drink anything that glows. Or to quote the venerable Geoffrey Chaucer, "When dining with the devil, use a very long spoon."

In addition, a good maitre de will always offer a pepper mill and a geiger counter to their customers.

"Trauma Room One" excerpt:

12:29 pm on Nov 22, '63, Dallas -- "Geneva Hine, the only employee in the Depository's second-floor offices, observes the electrical power and telephone system go dead. The Dallas Police radio systems Channel One, reserved for officers participating in the security of the President, is suddenly immobilized."

12:30 -- President Kennedy murdered

12:33 pm, DC -- "A breakdown in the telephone system in the nation's capital occurs. It will not be restored for almost an hour."

"The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy," one of the first books on the RFK assassination, reports that immediately after the 1968 murder the police radios are immobilized for an extended period of time. (I don't have the book in front of me so I can't quote.)

Assassination protocol, requires multiple people with power and clout.

...

That said, Hill later said on national television: "There were only 3 shots---one gun, 3 shots." Interviewer: "Are you satisfied that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?" Hill: "Completely."

Hill’s White House Communications Agency (WHCA) code name was Dazzle.

Conclusion – Like Kellerman, Hill was a "patsy," set-up via the security test of 11/22/63. [/indent]

In my opinion, the above typifies the splendid quality of Palamara's research.

Well I'm really puzzled here. I've read a fair amount of Palamara's research and I disagree with his conclusions about Kellerman. So many sources show Kellerman's behavior to be beyond suspicious that I just have to wonder if Palamara saw these sources. He gives a brief review of about every JFK assassination book on Amazon, so I doubt he missed seeing the books.

And he gives a glowing review to "Ultimate Sacrifice," which I consider the official bible of the mob dunnit sect bent on advancing the official post HSCA mythology, which also makes me wonder. Here's part of what he wrote:

""Ultimate Sacrifice" is THE ultimate book on the JFK case (with a nod to Larry Hancock's "Someone Would Have Talked" as a very nice companion volume)!

Not only is it very well written and put together (and lengthy: over 900 pages!), it is extremely well documented and thought out. There is no other way to put it: forget all the many "theories" on the case put forward by others, however well meaning---"Ultimate Sacrifice" puts forward solid FACTS via HISTORIANS, utilizing a vast trove of (new) documents and unique-to-the-authors' knowledge obtained from Kennedy insiders, among many others.

There WAS indeed a conspiracy involved in the death of JFK...and "Ultimate Sacrifice" lays out the 'who', the 'what', and the 'why' better than any book I have ever seen. Get this book asap! ""

Yup, the mob dunnit.

Kellerman, in particular, seems dirty as hell. In "Trauma Room 1" he's consistently shown as the "thug" who is in charge of stealing President Kennedy's body from Parkland. He actually pulls a machine gun on the doctors and officials attempting to prevent the theft, and Dr Crenshaw, the author, feels certain he would have killed anyone in his way.

In "Body of Evidence" Kellerman is shown, in a transcript, to be actively arranging the diversion of the body to Walter Reed (for alteration) as the empty casket goes to Bethesda.

Kellerman's behavior during the Dallas trip was outrageous. He sat and watched Kennedy die as his counterpart SS agent in LBJ's SS car supposedly shielded his charge.

Do you guys agree with Palamara's assessment of Kellerman as a "patsy"?

Mac Wallace??? Wasn't he kind of a... xxxx up? He bungled the job on Henry Marshall horribly. Tried to set it up as a carbon monixide suicide but left a gash in Marshall's head, turned off the truck after the "suicide" and shot the victim 5 times with a bolt action rifle. He might have killed a lot of people for Johnson in Texas but I don't think he'd be trusted with anything of national scope.

Hello Myra - this doesn't preclude his use as leverage to be used against Johnson if required. The Loy Factor account [Men on the Sixth [maybe Fifth] Floor] is quite compelling - plus the print studies. Use of Mac would be very intelligent if one wanted to ensure LBJ played ball. No time at the present, however, his description [horn rims, etc.] sounds too similar to what quite a few witnesses reported to simply discard. If we can credit Factor - then Wallace is working with a cell - which includes a cuban woman, and a possible Oswald double. The Sam Rayburn funeral is also an interesting connection.

Plus - in hindsight, it doesn't really matter if he hit anything.

- lee

Well, I've wondered about the Johnson/Hoover talk of Nov 29:

"Lyndon B. Johnson: How many shots were fired? Three?

J. Edgar Hoover: Three.

Lyndon B. Johnson: Any of them fired at me?

J. Edgar Hoover: No.

Lyndon B. Johnson: All three at the President?

...

Lyndon B. Johnson: Were they aiming at the President?"

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjohnsonLB.htm

It could possibly have indicated his genuine concern over his own nasty ol' hyde.

But it's a stretch for me to think of LBJ as anything other than one of the leaders in the murder, what with the fact that he was the one in dire danger if President Kennedy lived. He was being dropped from the ticket and was about to get nailed in the Bobby Baker investigation.

And it's even more of a stretch to think that the assassin LBJ used would then be used against him. Granted these types do tend to free lance.

I'm having trouble understanding some of what you're saying. Are you saying some witnesses of the men on the 5th and 6th floors of the TSBD described a man that could be Wallace?

I don't know anything about the Sam Rayburn funeral. Care to summarize the interesting connection you refer to?