David Andrews

I don't have anything against Walker's sexuality, or anybody's - but the circumstances are indicative. A supposedly powerful man that allegedly had a president killed was busted twice, 13 and 14 years later, for soliciting sex in a park. In 1976 and 1977, when homosexuality was on the verge of being socially acceptable and partners were easily available (viz. Roy Cohn, Esq.), and after his own sexuality had been an open secret for a number of years (viz. Roy Cohn, Esq.). That was the length Walker had to go to for fun, and nobody let him take a powder after the arrests. He got the Dallas police to assassinate a president and cover it up, but 14 years later he couldn't cover up two sex raps when the complainants were themselves DPD. This is not the fate of a privately acknowledged mastermind and world-beater who controlled a city police force and an immense, multi-state, and perhaps international, rightist network. This might have been a fate for someone at the level of a David Ferrie.

Are you referring to the fact that Ted Walker wasn't allowed to skip on indecency charges? Did they set him up for a fall by lifting his little black book so that he had to go cruising in the park? The very act and circumstance are indicative of Walker's status after the "crime of the century." Ted Walker was a useful tool of bigger powers. His ending a few short years after JFK proves, Q. E. D., that he had no real or enduring power of his own. He was bought off and kept in line by the restoration of his pension at the end of his life - if he had had real power the pension would have meant as much to him then as when he threw it away under JFK.

He was trying to win the Viet Nam War. Getting the Chinese to back off would help. ...By dealing with the Chinese independently of the Russians. Another reason why his trips would be opposed by the Eastern Establishment, who hoped to be invested longer in Vietnam..

I do have one question - why is it that when Kennedy wanted to reach out to Russia and Cuba he was basically pilloried, while crooked ba##ard Dick Nixon goes over to Russia and China in the 70's and he's hailed as an esteemed statesman? This from a guy who disrupted peace talks for Vietnam in '68 and who used one of the most outrageous foreign policies in US history (the "madman theory")? Just to mention, Michael - if you check Rick Perlstein's books (I think this is in Nixonland, but it may be in the sequel, The Invisible Bridge), Nixon's Russia and China overtures were frowned on by the Rockefeller-centered Eastern Establishment, and the trips may have contributed to the climate that led to the resignation. The visits seem to have been Nixon's attempts to create a legend as a statesman for himself, and were not more than icebreakers policywise, though Nixon surely also explored and exploited the divisions between Russia and China. Rockefeller protégé Henry Kissinger may have been caught in the middle on these trips, though his own vanity was surely stoked.

The problem I continue to have is that the best CT is that the Dallas Police killed JFK And no one in national-level intelligence, law enforcement, or the military took this as an insult or a usurpation? Why not? Surely there were prerogatives of power to defend from the likes of Jesse Curry, not to mention upstarts like Rousselot and Gabaldon. If LBJ was willing to deliver a smackdown to fellow Southerner and Democrat George Wallace over civil rights resistance not very much later, would not some yankee in DC be upset that the cowboys had snuffed JFK? Unless...

And he implicated Lyndon Johnson on news film. But who did he leave out among his close associations? The Mob, the Cubans, the CIA. Ruby's playing a game here, and in all he said after his arrest. P.S. - I knew you were going to go all Bircher on me when I wrote that, so it's not like I let you sweep across the board to checkmate. Like the groups I named above, were the Birchers capable of managing all levels of the assassination and coverup?

Paul, I prefer to interpret the nature of the influence on Ruby from the hints he dropped on news film and in his Warren Commission testimony. Even in the places where he was speaking irrationally, real fears may about "forces" may have been expressed.

BlackOp Radio is the premier assassination-related podcast, bar none, The rest is hype, sniggering sensationalism, and disinfo. Len's choice of subjects is superior and his interviewing most judicious. The show, for my interests, could use more 9/11 topics - once a part of its purview - but I can understand Len's preference for abstention. Looking forward to Greg Poulgrain.

Is there not film of JR, leaning into the frame at left to correct Henry Wade, as the camera pans away from Wade discussing Oswald's associations?

He hasn't yet achieved Harry Truman's proportions, but military killing has always gone, of necessity, with the office. Optimists are hoping his remarks spell an opposition to extra-judicial murder, but, from the nonchalant tone, we may doubt it. Being that Putin's political enemies are often journalists and whistle-blowers, we might wonder about Trump's remark in the context of the most bad press at the dawn of any administration.

Roger Stone, in his e-mail ads for his book The Making of the President 2016 (original!) mentions that when Trump first began backing presidential candidates, his prime question would be, and I paraphrase because I don't want to read Stone's ads again: "How are we going to get him to 270?" As in electoral votes. Being a much larger nation than we were at the founding, why do we not constitutionally adjust the role of the electoral college to permit an accurate toting of the popular vote? France, a nation about the size of New York State, doesn't hold an Election Day - it takes an entire week, including a controversial Sunday vote. It's time to examine the US electoral history and review past legal precedents for change after systemic turmoil.

John, I see some of the "open field" view you describe. However, there is film of the limo driving out of Love Field, including the infamous "Why me?" footage or the SS agent ordered off the limo. If I recall right, the limo was kept in an area secluded from the tarmac crowds. Do images exist of Jack, Jackie and Connally looking to the left and right, as if acknowledging waving crowds at Love Field? Or are they excised from Dallas street scenes and added to the limo in the photo above, which shows these behaviors? I myself have said in past threads that the grass on the Elm/Main median strip seems to go on unfathomably long and without interruption in Zapruder once the camera is focused tight on Kennedy. I've referred to this as the "sea of green" effect (after the "Yellow Submarine" lyric), and think it is one of the biggest indications of alteration in Zapruder. And the climactic tight focus on Kennedy - accompanied by a black bar below the limo cockpit - also cuts off the reflection of the north side of Elm Street in the side of the limo, and any possible aberrations such as a motorcycle cop riding past the limo on that side, which has been discussed in past threads. That is, if, indeed, Elm Street reflections are what is cut off there.

Sandy, I know it's a different day, but the perspective is close to Altgens 6, allowing for different focal settings on the still and movie cameras. I was wondering if Tindel was a useful comparison tool for people who cry foul about the appearance of the front of the TSBD and the shadows on the median strip as seen in Altgens, cited in posts above in this thread. Brad, let me take some time to consider your points.

Two of the great Forum threads discussed on the podcast Doug Caddy refers to. "There were 'giants in the earth' in those days," someone said:

It really doesn't take a mystical "illuminati" to crash the market and devalue people's mutual funds, 401Ks, and portfolios. It takes the same collusion on deregulation among Wall Street, banks, and insurance companies and successive executive administrations - Dem and GOP - that under other circumstances brought us the Silverado S&L looting. Administrations tear down regulations, and eventually there's a payday for the few. As observed after the 1929 crash, invested money is never "lost" - it just changes ownership.

In Altgens 6, is the view of the TSBD and the shadow placing for Jean Hill and Mary Moorman (i.e., the grassplot length on the median between Elm St. and Main) substantially different from the area captured in the Jackie Tindel film, starting at about 1:22 in the clip linked to below? http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/classification@Films/8/title-asc?t:state:flow=90ccb3fb-b485-4fd3-ac8f-95dbf04e2a32

In summary? The people who stole $20K from my mutual funds in 2008, and made it impossible for me to make any profit on the $20K I had left for as long as I could keep it, are now guarding the Wall Street henhouse and further deregulating the nexus of banks, financial firms, and insurance companies..

"Run for cover," as Frank Sinatra once sang, just before the Basie orchestra tore up the bridge on "I've Got You Under my Skin"... http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a52809/trump-financial-deregulation/ Say Goodbye to Your Life Savings (Again) President Trump's team of Goldman Sachs alums are in the hen house. "Asked about the potential political pushback because of his Wall Street past, Mr. Cohn said the administration's goal of deregulating financial markets 'has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs.' "

I take your points gratefully, but it was the bald admission of state-sponsored killing that got to me. "Beyond irony," someone said? It's like Douglas Valentine said on BlackOp Radio this week: We're run by gangs of psychopaths who think that realpolitik is the real world, just because lives can be extinguished, Q.E.D. (Extrapolation mine.)

In America, journalists get you killed... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/o’reilly-told-trump-that-putin-is-a-killer-trump’s-reply-‘you-think-our-country-is-so-innocent’/ar-AAmCCVG?li=BBnb7Kz O’Reilly told Trump that Putin is a killer. Trump’s reply: ‘You think our country is so innocent?’ Washington Post 4 February 2017 WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump has long been effusive in his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike. In an interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, which will air ahead of the Super Bowl on Sunday, Trump doubled down on his “respect” for Putin — even in the face of accusations that Putin and his associates have murdered journalists and dissidents in Russia. “I do respect him. Well, I respect a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean I’ll get along with them,” Trump told O'Reilly. O'Reilly pressed on, declaring to the president that “Putin is a killer.” Unfazed, Trump didn't back away, but rather compared Putin's reputation for extrajudicial killings with the United States'. “There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers,” Trump said. “Well, you think our country is so innocent?” Trump added that he thinks the United States is “better” getting along with Russia than not. “If Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all around the world, major fight. That’s a good thing,” Trump said. ISIS is another name for the Islamic State. It wouldn't be the first time Trump has brushed aside the topic of Putin's political killings. In a 2015 interview on “Morning Joe,” Trump was pressed on the same issue and gave a similar answer. “He kills journalists that don't agree with him,” the show's host, Joe Scarborough, pointed out. “Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe,” Trump said. As recently as this week, a prominent Putin critic exhibited symptoms of poisoning for the second time since 2015. The incident drew the attention of Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a staunch Russia critic, who tweetedtwo newspaper editorials that call for the United States to denounce the incident as an act of political retribution. He called both editorials “a must-read.”

Who is Ted Rubenstein?

As I recall it, there was a past Forum thread of considerable length discussing this Bob Harris video.

What about before 9/11? What about when Bush was just a candidate running for president? The accepted, mainstream histories have Bush and crew studiously ignoring warnings of terrorist attack in 2001 - like the set-up for a punchline. What do you see pre-9/11 other than the wish for vendetta on Iraq? The PNAC papers? Probably the thing to do about "infiltration" is to move all Trump topics to their own section of the Forum. I can understand members' need to vent, however, and I do read it. I'd vent myself, but I'm sick of the man's very name, occupying every five-letter space on the internet.

Ron - see this article: https://medium.com/@jakefuentes/the-immigration-ban-is-a-headfake-and-were-falling-for-it-b8910e78f0c5#.x7nljfmzl The trouble is, this "testing of fascism" thing spoken of was already performed by Bush after 9/11.

I smell Oswald's exhumation redux. It's CYA time in the Big Apple.