Dean Hagerman

Bump, because still unanswered

Thx

KK

Unanswered?

These were taken by Oliver Stones camera man!

During the shooting recreation by Kevin Costner in court, they use this short filmed part to show JFK being pushed forward by a shot in the back

Pop in your copy of JFK and fast forward to the end of the movie and when the shot that hits JFK in the back is fired you will see all of these frames that you posted as a film

It was Stone mixing in real footage and his own footage that he shot, just look at all the bystanders, they are in different spots with different clothes on

How anybody thinks this is anything other then footage shot by Stone for the film JFK just blows my mind

Easy to prove

There is no way that a 3+ inch fold happened in the 1 second (or less) between the time Croft and Betzner were taken

And Craig there is no way you can say that you see a 3+ inch fold in Croft, you know and I know and everybody knows that Croft shows nothing even close to a 3+ inch fold

Oh man! That is just horrible!

Doug was a great researcher!

And I will also never forget how he stuck up for me over and over again in the Judyth Baker thread after I was attacked for telling a story about how a bum threatened my wife and I stuck up for her

I thanked Doug over email and we talked back and forth a couple times

Im glad I got to know him a little, I wish I could have known him personaly

RIP Doug

Oh my gosh thats sooooooooo scary!

Don,

as with Lifton, you guys are predictable. DSL can say whatever crap he wants; spew whatever lies; ridicule and bully to his hearts content. Nada action from you guys. But all hell breaks loose as soon as someone responds to him with a few home truths. Worse still, one of you insists we should welcome his bile as somehow being a positive thing. At least you have included Lifton in your round of "chastisements". I knew sooner or later, one of you would be forced to. Pity it's too little, too late.

We hear this constantly, that we're biased towards David Lifton.

Then maybe... just maybe, Don... there's at least a little truth there. I mean, if I had people telling me all day my feet stink... I might just start to think I should at least check it out...

I wrote the post you're replying to.

Yes. And I acknowledged that at last, someone included Lifton in the round of rebukes.

I disagree far more with David's views on this subject than I do with Lee or you.

I know some are having difficulty with the concept, but this has nothing at all to do with his disagreeing with some aspects of the case. If that was all there was to it, there would be fights breaking out all over the place between me or Lee and various other posters. See, what the subtext of your statement is is that it is our fault - we are the bad guys in all this because we cannot abide anyone disagreeing with us. You think you have no bias? Think again. Your statement is the classic "some of my best friends are black" argument.

Like many others here, you want the strong arm of moderation applied to those you're arguing with, but object if it's applied to you or someone you agree with.

Which again, is a total mischaracterization to hide the fact that Lifton has up to now received NO moderation or warnings whatsoever - despite continually making stuff up about others, or using whatever bio information he can find in attempts to humiliate. Apparently all of that is quite acceptable. But call him on it and watch out. A mod will appear out of nowhere to lecture or apply the black marker on banned words - even when they're the truth and can be easily proven. So do I want moderation applied to him and only him? Total bollocks. Do I want it applied to him? Yes. But I am assuming there is some sort of sanction against what is borderline libel in much of what he makes up about others. Am I wrong about that?

I do want to directly address some of the issues you raise.

1. Yes, moderating is a tough task. So what. Lots of jobs are. If you don't like it - don't do it. And if you can't do it FAIRLY and CONSISTENTLY - you SHOULDN'T do it.

I've noted that there are so many offenses, by so many posters, that to apply every rule constantly would mean that a good portion of the most prolific posters on the forum would be on moderation. That's what we want to avoid, and thus the constant pleas for everyone to try and cut out the nasty stuff.

Who said that anyone wanted rules constantly applied? The terms I used were "fairly" and "consistently". Please stick to what I say and not reply to what you think you can argue against.

2. Bringing Lee Farley into it after he has said he is through with Lifton, is a bit harsh.

If Lee actually proves to be "through" with Lifton, I give him a great deal of credit. However, he is a big part of what we're discussing. I think his give and take with Lifton is the primary focus of what I'm talking about. Now, it's become a three on one situation, with you and Martin joining Lee in unanimous opposition to Lifton.

...Unanimous opposition to Lifton's [edit] Don't you think it's a little odd that, until the past day or he had not started any thread discussing his own work? He has spent almost his entire time here trying to tear down the work of others. You haven't noticed this?

3. Do I ridicule Lifton? Sure. When he deserves it. I do it openly and transparently with a wink to actually reality. His, on the other hand, is of the mean-spirited, sly type based on his own morbid fantasies to avoid technical breaches of "the rules".

The fact that you (accurately) see Lifton's mean-spiritedness, but don't see Lee's, or Martin's, or your own, illustrates the main problem here.

The fact that the mods want to only ever discuss OUR alleged shortcomings, but until you now - refused to address Lifton's is one of MY main problems. But you are right. I don't see any mean-spiritedness in the posts of Lee or Martin. They are blunt, to be sure. But at the heart of what they say, is a shining honesty. I don't even see tarnished honesty in Lifton's posts directed at them. As for me, I don't think I have been mean-spirited, either -- but I acknowledge I'm not the one to make that judgement.

You are all posting in a mean-spirited manner, most of the time now. I've said many times that I am on your side in most every debate with David Lifton. I've told him I think it's ridiculous to cling to witnesses like Bledsoe. I didn't believe Oswald was on that bus years before Lee Farley started posting here.

Again - it's not a matter of whose on whose side in which debate. I don't care, and I'm sure the others don't, that Lifton disagrees about Bledsoe. The manner of his disgreement; his predilection for attacking the messenger, cherry-picking and obfuscating were some of the problems.

4. You hate having to keep making these posts? Too bad. All that had to be done was to deal with Lifton from the get-go. This mess was created because he was never dealt with.

Yes, you (and others) want us to "deal" harshly with Lifton,

Can you please provide a quote of anyone saying that? Repeating it, doesn't make it any truer. I want you to deal with him - in the same manner that me, Lee and Martin are being dealt with. "Harshly" is your word and again shows a bias away from the facts.

much as Lifton would like us to deal harshly with you.

Truly? Has he asked for us to be dealt with? "Harshly" or otherwise? Because, to be honest, it sounds like something you've made up in order to give an appearance that you're a good guy whose not just accusing us of wanting tyrannical treatment dealt out to him - he's hounding you to do the same to us! And all we all very naughty! If I'm wrong - apologies - but I'd want you to back it up with evidence to show I am.

Your attitude is akin to the child who keeps pointing at the other kid and cries, "He started it!" At this point, it doesn't matter any more who triggered the nastiness first. I can see how Lifton's sense of superiority and tendency to talk down to younger critics like Lee Farley would become really irritating. However, to respond in kind to the point of trying to demean him as an individual is just as misguided.

There we go again. He has REPEATEDLY tried to demean, me, Lee and now Martin. And does so with partial and total falsehoods. No one has to make anything up about him. The facts are enough.

And that is all I have done - told the truth by pointing out those falsehoods - and I'm the bad guy? Telling the truth is "misguided"? I can call him an obfuscater, a fantasist and a million other euphemisms, but not the "l" word?

As we try to tell our children, it takes two to tango.

I don't dance.

5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

So you respect the owner of the forum by stating you're going to do whatever you want.

As far as I am concerned, they are two separate issues. If Lifton had been targeted for the lectures and deletions that others have, including now, myself, I wouldn't have a case, would I? And as for it not mattering who started it? If I notice a skin cancer on my body, I don't leave it to spread and affect the whole. I get it cut out. Maybe it doesn't matter either who started WWII - after all, it takes two to bomb the crap out of Europe.

You obviously realize I didn't mean this was John Simkin's literal home. Why is it so difficult for you-laying aside the sins of any other posters-to simply say you'll try to post in a more civil way?

It's a bad analogy - and one designed to evoke sympathy. There are few words that are more emotive than "home".

As for my behavior - I have taken whatever steps I have because you guys hadn't taken any against him yourself. I grew up dirt poor. All my father left me were a set of values to live by. I admit, I don't always apply them perfectly.

6. I will continue to criticize moderation when it is applied to me unjustly.

Again, you will do what you want.

I will do what I see as appropriate in the given circumstances until I am banned, or Lifton is appropriately sanctioned for his [edit] about me and others, in which case I would be satisfied you guys have finally looked up the words "fair" and "consistent".

7. I don't like Lifton. Correct. So what? Where do you state the reverse? You don't. Because you and the others have an inbuilt bias toward him. It has taken some effort to get one of you to even mildly rebuke him for any of his array of appallingly dishonest behaviors. Bottom line. It is you guys I blame. Not him. He clearly cannot help himself.

I certainly have no bias towards David Lifton. Yes, it's clear he doesn't like you, Lee Farley or Martin Hay, either. Does that make you feel better?

Nope. too late.

8. Swearing. Ban it by all means. But please learn a bit of history first. "Swear words" only became "swear words" because the upper classes decided that the slang used by commoners was "vulgar" and ought not be repeated by people "of breeding". Designating certain words as "vulgar" is historically nothing but elitist snobbery. Surely no history is unimportant? If this means nothing, then nor does who killed JFK - because historical truths and lessons are meaningless.

No one takes a back seat to me in my hatred of upper class snobbery. However, it's obvious that you, Lee, David, and every other poster on this forum abides by the rules against profanity, at least. Joe has certainly read the posts here and should know that isn't appropriate language.

Fine. As long as you understand what it is you're applying.

9. You guys deal with me however you see fit. But while I can still post, I will continue to point out Lifton's lies if and when they are aimed at me or about me. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, he is free to pursue his fantasies without my input. I'm not here to play games, make friends OR enemies. But making both are almost inevitable when you stand your ground. Nor do I want this to be a lifelong (and losing) fight for the facts of 11/22, and if that means hurting a few feelings along the way -- tough.

Okay, continue with your "tough" stances. Keep calling each other "fantasists." That's the way to "fight for the facts of 11/22."

You need to talk to Pat Speer about why he thinks anyone labelled a "fantasist" is fair game.

10. Speaking of which... your comment that "It's irrelevant to any discussion at hand, that Greg Parker's web site postulates any particular theory..." may cause some to conclude that you agree with Lifton that this constitutes my belief about the case, or alternatively, it is the main focus of the web site - whether or not I support it. Neither of those propositions is true and I want you to reword the statement to say that "lying about Greg's website is against forum rules." Or if you cannot bring yourself to actually say it like it is, then simply withdraw the statement altogether. I'd rather no statement than a misleading one.

Greg, I've never visited your web site, so I know nothing about its content. I was merely trying to make a point to David Lifton. I certainly do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I agreed with Lifton's statements about it, because I have never even viewed your web site.

Are you saying you were also unaware that I am one of the most vociferous critics of the theory Lifton keeps saying I and my website support? If you were unaware of that as well, then I accept the apology.

Every single one of your replies make you sound just like the upper class snobs you claim to hate

Don is the best mod on this forum, the way you are talking to him is out of line

Now some of the other mods is a different story

I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

I reside in my place of buisness as well, my wife and I run a public buisness (not some sit at home selling stuff on Ebay fake job) and our home suffers severe abuse every day

The only reason we are sticking with it is the great income it provides

This whole thing is crazy

I agree with Greg, what could Lifton (or anybody) sue for? Who could they sue?

If I was the judge I would throw this case out so fast it would make everybodys head spin

Bob,

Where is the reaction from those on the grass to a shot at approx 285?

Good one Chris

I bet Bob will say tht only the passangers in the lim heard the shots

I really don't see how there can be any doubt that the limo passengers who all reacted within the same 1/6th of a second of one another, were startled then by a loud gunshot.

Thats because your only looking at it through your eyes, if you had my eyes you could clearly see what is the begining of the limo stop with the passangers being jolted forward

Not reacting to the sound of a shot

If thats the case where are all the "reactions" to the first shot?

To me it looks like he is holding a highball glass filled with Gin and Tonic

The Third Reich did not die with Hitler. Allen Dulles saved the remnants and made them the CIA.

WHY WAS PRESIDENT KENNEDY ASSASSINATED?

by Michael B. Schweitzer

Attorney at Law (retired)

THE TRUTH: The CIA assassinated President Kennedy, in what is nowadays called a "regime change." The directive came from its former director, Allen Dulles, a criminal mastermind fired by Kennedy for launching unauthorized covert military operations to force him into wars. Vice President Lyndon Johnson, a ruthless political manipulator with a mania to be president and a manic-depressive serial killer with a personal assassin (Malcolm Wallace), supported the plan, secured the financing from his Texas oil backers (H.L. Hunt, John Mecom and especially Clint Murchison, pronounced "Murkison," whom Kennedy enraged by proposing to eliminate a massive tax break for oilmen), and waited in the wings to control the cover-up. Johnson had positioned himself as Kennedy's successor in 1960, by blackmailing Kennedy into nominating him for the vice presidency with evidence of Kennedy's womanizing furnished by Johnson's close friend and neighbor, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. The assassination, although uniquely ambitious, was another CIA covert military operation, intricately planned by members its inner circle, the "Gold Key Club," hand-picked by and still loyal to Dulles. The killing itself was carried out by the United States Secret Service and long-time CIA Mafia contract shooters. The operation, code-named "The Big Event," ambushed the president in a Dallas motorcade by maneuvering his open limousine into a killing zone where bullets struck him from multiple directions. Johnson then created a seven-man, "blue ribbon" investigative committee, the Warren Commission, to preempt all other inquiries (especially by Congress), and Hoover falsified and manipulated all evidence fed to it and the public. The Commission – whose members included Dulles and, as FBI informant, then-Congressman and later President Gerald R. Ford – issued a "definitive" report that pinned the blame on a "lone nut" assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was actually an FBI "asset" who had infiltrated secret CIA training camps for a Cuban invasion so Hoover could shut them down, ironically gifting the CIA a disposable asset of its own. Oswald himself was shot dead two days after Kennedy in an event staged for live television by the CIA so all Americans could see for themselves "case closed."

JUST THE FACTS: As an attorney, I state facts, not speculation. I devoted more than 4,000 hours to research, reviewing mountainous written and pictorial evidence (including newly-declassified CIA and White House memoranda) and studying the life histories of key individuals. Then I assembled the array of disparate fragments into a coherent whole. Anyone can do the same, because the information is all in the public domain – but, as President Kennedy said he wanted to do to the CIA, splintered in a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds. Turning to specific questions:

WHY WAS PRESIDENT KENNEDY ASSASSINATED? Mainly because Kennedy was about to end the Cold War, an extraordinarily profitable enterprise for the military-industrial complex. (There were additional reasons, but this was the main one.) The Cuban Missile Crisis of October, 1962, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, transformed both Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. Kennedy became an outspoken peace advocate and called for nuclear disarmament. Khrushchev responded by secretly entering into in peace negotiations. Kennedy had become our first and last anti-Establishment president. He threatened to gut the profits of American's most powerful private interests. Both leaders had to go, and Dulles knew better than anyone outside the Kremlin that killing Kennedy would topple Khrushchev as well, because replacing Kennedy with hardliner Johnson would compel the Soviets to counter-move by installing their own hardliner, Leonid Brezhnev, which they did 11 months after the assassination. The Cold War, about to end in Kennedy's second term, continued for another profitable quarter of a century. The surprise is not the assassination. The surprise would be if there wasn't one. And one must admit Dulles was clever. He overthrew the two most powerful governments on earth by killing just one man.

EFFECT ON THE WAR IN VIETNAM: Johnson's first major act as President was to issue National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 273 on Nov. 26, 1963. It reversed Kennedy's NSAM 263, issued Oct. 11, 1963, that ordered all American military personnel withdrawn from Vietnam by the end of 1965. Interestingly, McGeorge Bundy, the highest-ranking CIA infiltrator in the Kennedy Administration (the national security adviser), drafted NSAM 273 the day BEFORE the assassination.

KENNEDY PREDICTED THE CIA WOULD LEAD A COUP: 50 days before the assassination, famed New York Times columnist Arthur Krock published an article quoting a "very high American official" as stating: "If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government it will come from the CIA." Krock later revealed the "official" was President Kennedy, who spoke the words to him the day before. Kennedy often turned to his friend Krock to publish statements too politically explosive for him to speak as President.

HOW DID DULLES GAIN SUCH POWER? President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed him as the first civilian CIA Director in March, 1953, shortly after taking office, on the advice of Ike's friend and confidant Prescott Bush. Bush, during WWII, had been Hitler's American banker until the FBI seized his bank, and both his son and grandson became U.S. presidents. Dulles, a mysterious man with a Nazi past, in effect infiltrated the CIA as its first Nazi director. President Harry S Truman had created the CIA in 1947 as the intelligence arm of the Executive Branch, by signing the National Security Act. The Act included a CIA charter that unambiguously stated it would function only in response to directives of the president and of the president's own intelligence apparatus, the National Security Council. Nowhere does the charter even infer the CIA is allowed to initiate policy. Dulles, with free reign from Ike to run it as he chose, endowed the CIA with a policy-making function that served his personal aims: to act as the enforcement arm of the military-industrial complex by conducting "covert operations." This military function gave the CIA full use of legitimate armed forces resources off the books and absorbed more than 80% of its budget. Dulles also re-structured the Agency horizontally, not vertically, so no compartment could know what any other was doing. He had also learned to profit from an intelligence post during World War II, when he ran a European office of the OSS (the predecessor of the CIA) while acting as intermediary for Hitler's bankers. Dulles' CIA profited the most powerful private interests in America: industrialists, bankers, big oil, agribusiness, the Rockefellers, and himself. His covert actions included two "regime changes" that turned democracies into dictatorships. In Iran in 1953, he overthrew the Mossadegh government (Operation TP-AJAX) after it nationalized a British oil company that controlled Iran's oil industry; new arrangements gave U.S. corporations an equal share with the British over Iranian oil. Then in Guatemala in 1954, it overthrew the Arbenz government (Operation PBSUCCESS) after it initiated a land-reform program that re-distributed land mainly owned by United Fruit Company (later United Brands) to landless peasants. United Fruit owned 80% of the country's arable land. Dulles had been a lawyer for United Fruit and remained (with his Secretary-of-State brother John Foster Dulles) a major stockholder. In his Guatemala invasion, Dulles killed 150,000 people.

THE DULLES TOUCH: Dulles, as CIA chief, specialized in 4 things: assassinating people, overthrowing governments, infiltrating and manipulating the news media (Operation Mockingbird), and conducting horrific mind-control experiments on unknowing subjects (Project MK-ULTRA). The "MK" stood for "mind control" (as spelled in German, "kontrolle") and "ULTRA" was a top secret CIA classification so high it withheld information from the president. Dulles staffed his brainwashing project with dozens of Nazi scientists he smuggled into secret CIA bases in the U.S. to continue the work they had done for Hitler. Among Dulles' imports: the most sadistic man on earth, Auschwitz' "Angel of Death" Josef Mengele (code-named "Dr. Green"), to disembowel children in front of other children to desensitize them. Dulles also planted teams of infiltrators throughout the federal government, including every branch of the military, every secretive agency, and the White House. His operatives could easily influence or even direct Secret Service activities and cut deals with the Mafia. Indeed, one recently declassified CIA memo discloses Dulles personally approved a murder contract with Johnny Roselli, second-in-command of the Chicago Mob under Sam Giancana. Even after losing his CIA post, Dulles remained on retainer as the attorney-enforcer for the military-industrial complex, and continued to serve his clients (as would any good lawyer) through his CIA loyalists, including killing Kennedy – which, for a CIA like that, would be a day at the office.

WHO TOLD THE TRUTH? Ironically, the only players who told the truth were the two supposed "killers": Oswald and Jack Ruby, the man who "shot" him in the stomach during his basement-garage transfer from Dallas city to county jail! In a city jail corridor, Oswald told the media he was "just a patsy," and Ruby later told the media "the answer is the man in office now." Then, in 1967, just before his death from sudden lung cancer, Ruby told reporter Tom Johnson the Kennedy assassination "is the most bizarre conspiracy in the history of the world."

THE RUBY-OSWALD CASE-CLOSER: Ruby actually fired a blank! Oswald, who had asked to wear a dark sweater before the transfer so he would look better on television, groaned twice and dropped to the ground in an Oscar-worthy performance. The CIA then double-crossed him in the ambulance and shot him for real. The necessity: The coup required 2 assassinations: JFK and Oswald. Letting Oswald live would have kept questions alive for years – during the prolonged process of trial and appeal – which would not only have delayed legitimizing the Johnson presidency, but given the public time to think about what happened and a jury a chance to acquit. That door had to be shut at once – and it was, within 48 hours. Planners selected Ruby so the second killing, like the first, could be pinned on a "lone nut" gunman. But the scenario required a single shot to play out plausibly. Ruby had to lunge at Oswald through a throng of police, reporters and photographers – a multiplicity of variables to hinder him. A fatal shot could only be guaranteed if someone else fired it. Absent this precaution, there may well have been a second "magic bullet" to explain: how a single shot by Ruby caused two wounds to Oswald. The evidence that Ruby did not shoot Oswald: photographer Bob Jackson, who took the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of the "shooting," said there was "not a speck of blood anywhere" on the body or at the crime scene; the two "stretcher photos" of Oswald being carried to the ambulance show not only no blood on his sweater, but no damage to a single a fiber; and a shot by Ruby would have passed straight through him, but the trajectory of the bullet that killed him was upward. And Ruby, recounting the "incident" (his words) in an interview three weeks before he died, said: "I can't recall what had happened from the time I came to the bottom of the ramp until the police officers had me on the ground." His mind was blank about everything he said and did during his encounter with Oswald, as if programmed by MK-ULTRA to auto-erase. To those who doubt the proposition the Ruby-Oswald "shooting" was staged, consider this: in a plot that required two assassinations, what is the probability the first occurred by conspiracy and the second by chance?

IF ANY DOUBT REMAINS #1: The Warren Commission itself concluded Oswald could have fired only three shots. But their own evidence proved at least five. The Commission claimed a first shot missed and injured bystander James Tague with a flying curb fragment, a second (the "magic bullet") penetrated Kennedy's neck and struck Gov. John Connally three times, and the third hit Kennedy's head. But Roy Kellerman, the Secret Service agent in the front passenger seat, testified he heard Kennedy cry out, "My God, I'm hit!" (Warren Hearing Transcripts, Vol. II, p. 73.) Kennedy could only have said this BEFORE the throat-shot, because it took out his vocal chords. Moreover, some 40 out of 40 eye-witnesses (civilian and governmental) swore they heard two head-shots, half-a-second apart. Incidentally, the last shot was an exploding projectile fired from the front that blew the president's brains so far beyond the trunk of the car they splattered people behind it, and the famous Zapruder film shows First Lady Jacqueline stretch her arm to the far end of the trunk to retrieve a piece. (Curiously, the news media has consistently and falsely reported she climbed onto the trunk, as if to escape. The Zapruder film clearly shows she never left the back seat, but planted her knees atop it, grabbed the brain tissue, and immediately sat down again.) There is only one impossibility in the murder of President Kennedy: a lone assassin.

IF ANY DOUBT REMAINS #2: Six of the ten members of Kennedy's Cabinet were sent out of the country before the assassination, on a flight to Japan that only one of them had to make, Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Flying with them, for no reason, was Kennedy's press secretary, Pierre Salinger – an expert on motorcade security. Only two important Cabinet members were in Washington, D.C. when Lyndon Johnson became the President of the United States: Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Attorney General, Kennedy's brother Robert. Everyone else with authority to run a Department of the federal government was stranded over the Pacific Ocean in a presidential aircraft – with the code book to communicate with the White House missing! They learned about the assassination from an old-fashioned telex – and with no code book, only Johnson could run their Departments. Meanwhile, McNamara, attending a budget meeting at the Pentagon, was never told by anyone there that Kennedy died. He only learned about it 90 minutes later, when he received a personal phone call from Robert Kennedy. Someone cleared a path for Johnson to run almost the entire federal government himself, without any impediment, for the first 24 hours after the assassination. And also absent from the country during the assassination was the Joint Chief of Staff's intermediary with the CIA, Col. Fletcher Prouty. Someone sent Prouty on a pointless mission to the South Pole!

IF ANY DOUBT REMAINS #3: Only the CIA had the capability to carry out the assassination the way it happened, including making full use of the Secret Service (which designed a motorcade route that forced the presidential limo, improperly placed first in line for easy targeting, to make a slow-speed 120-degree turn – almost a U-turn – into a plaza open to gunfire from all directions to enter a freeway it did not have to use, abandoned all presidential security in Dallas including ordering his bodyguards off the back bumper of his limo, and later secretly shipped the limo to Ford Motors in Detroit where Lee Iacocca rebuilt it to destroy all evidence of bullet hits, including a bullet hole in the windshield positioned perfectly to hit Kennedy in the head), and staging the Oswald-Ruby case-closer (heavily promoted for public viewing by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry). The entire sequence of events displays the distinct and brilliant hallmarks of Allen Dulles, as identifiable as an artist's brushstrokes on a painting. The JFK assassination is a case study of how Allen Dulles' mind worked.

AND A FINAL TWIST: Rep. Hale Boggs, the member of the Warren Commission most dissatisfied with its findings, died in a mysterious airplane crash in Alaska on Oct. 16, 1972. He had blasted the FBI on the House floor the previous year – on April 5, 1971 – for using Gestapo tactics against opponents of federal policy. Boggs was taken to the airport for the first leg of the trip by a young Democrat who later, as president, appointed Boggs' wife, Lindy, as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican after she served 18 years in Congress after her husband disappeared. The young Democrat: Bill Clinton.

CAVEAT: This summary answers only the second-level question: Who assassinated President Kennedy? (The CIA.) It does not address the first-level question: Who was the mastermind that set the machinery in motion? Many people, including Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy, believed it was Lyndon Johnson, who coveted the presidency and blackmailed JFK into making him next in line. I believe it was Allen Dulles. I do not find credible the CIA assassinating the President of the United States to serve Lyndon Johnson personal ambitions. The CIA served the global geopolitical and profit interests of the top industrial and financial multinational corporations in the country. Their power exceeded the president's, they were Dulles' clients, and Kennedy had initiated policies that imminently threatened their profiteering.

This is what I see while reading your post

That you just watched the movie JFK for the first time recently

Just about everything in your post comes across as being said word for word in the movie JFK

Not from your "extensive research"

Its Lovelady for sure, anybody who doubts that needs to read Robert Grodens "The Killing of a President"

Groden proves that its Lovelady

And not only that LHO was in the 2nd floor Lunchroom during the assassination.......

I agree with you 100%. What he hands the dark-haired man looks like a small gun, or it could be a wallet, but it's certainly not a phone.

Rifle magazine?...

Good call David! Thats what popped into my head

Alien abductions, Bigfoot, Princess Di being murdered by MI6, God, the resurrection of Elvis, whether the movie ET is based on a true story, and many, many more. Be on your guard and choose your answers carefully.

1. Alien abductions: I do not believe in single Alien Abduction case, and I have read all of the famous ones

2. Bigfoot: I was born and raised in the heart of Big Foot Country (and still live here) I going to say there is a 50/50 chance of Bigfoot

3. Princess Di being murdered by MI6: No way

4. God: I do not believe in God at all

5. The resurrection of Elvis: After some hard thought im going to say............ No

6. Whether the movie ET is based on a true story: Im going to say........ Maybe

Lee I thought long and hard about each answer

Craig acknowledges that the Elm St. photos show JFK's jacket collar in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

This has always been the reason I have always backed Cliff in his and Craigs on going debate

Even Craig has to admit that Croft does NOT show the fold or bunching that Craig claims Betzner shows

How in the world could JFKs tailor made clothes all of the sudden fold and bunch up in the 2 seconds (probably less then 2 seconds) between Croft and Betzner?

I know Craig is smart enough to know how impossible that would be

I have no idea why he still claims that its possible

Thank you for your support, Dean. I appreciate it very much.

I think Errol Morris should do a documentary on Craig Lamson and the effects of hard-right ideology on human cognition.

Anytime Cliff

And I can see Craig right now calling us all wingnuts who live on Fantasy Island together

Craig acknowledges that the Elm St. photos show JFK's jacket collar in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

This has always been the reason I have always backed Cliff in his and Craigs on going debate

Even Craig has to admit that Croft does NOT show the fold or bunching that Craig claims Betzner shows

How in the world could JFKs tailor made clothes all of the sudden fold and bunch up in the 2 seconds (probably less then 2 seconds) between Croft and Betzner?

I know Craig is smart enough to know how impossible that would be

I have no idea why he still claims that its possible

Croft shows the same fold as Betzner Dean. In fact it was the fold in Croft that made me realize the neck shadow was missing in Betzner. And of course the missing neck shadow in Betzner was the nail in the coffin for cliff's (and it appears your) fantasy.

Learn to live with it.

There is not a 3+ inch fold in Croft!

No amount of posts that you make can change that Craig

Craig acknowledges that the Elm St. photos show JFK's jacket collar in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

This has always been the reason I have always backed Cliff in his and Craigs on going debate

Even Craig has to admit that Croft does NOT show the fold or bunching that Craig claims Betzner shows

How in the world could JFKs tailor made clothes all of the sudden fold and bunch up in the 2 seconds (probably less then 2 seconds) between Croft and Betzner?

I know Craig is smart enough to know how impossible that would be

I have no idea why he still claims that its possible

Every time a CTer gives ground without cause on some of these points, imho, it fuels the feeling among casual observers that the overall case for conspiracy isn't as strong.

Bingo! And this is especially true in regards to the back and throat wounds.

In SSID Tink ceded ground on the cardinal facts of the case with arguments he's embarrassed to make today. He has always dismissed certain "sinister facts" re back/throat wounds and now he turns up on the NYT to pooh-pooh the very notion of "sinister facts".

What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong with this picture?

How about Cliff Varnell dismissing the very real properties of light and shadow that show us only a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket could produce the image we see in Betzner.

Why? Because Varnell is so invested in his silly claims he can't deal directly with the truth he has it wrong.

Sunlight and shadow work in very well defined and proven ways. Varnell's claims of the "indentation" won't work given the angles of incidence seen in Betzner. Which is why he can't offer a single proof of concept image that supports his claims. He can't because it simply won't work. And despite his rambling attempts to change the subject *which are sure to come* his position continues to fail, because he can't replicate the Betzner shadow pattern with his "indentation"

Cliff

Dont reply to Craig

I know your right about Betzner as do many other members

So there is no need to fight with Craig in this thread over that

This thread already has enough of that in it

If egos were left at the door, and even a fraction of the energy spent attacking one another was channeled into attacking the evidence and working on it together, who knows how much farther along the case might be today.

Perfect Barb!

This is exactly what im talking about

Why cant this happen? Why cant egos be checked at the door?

We need to fight the correct fight

Dean,

What justifies a reaction of this kind? We all have things to learn here, including that DiEugenio is not always a reliable source, even in relation to recounting the testimony of an interesting figure from the HSCA hearings, which is rather unexpected, and that Lifton is willing to shade the evidence and commit multiple fallacies in order to "nail me", which is not.

I had rather expected him to show up and tackle Tink for reaffirming his abandonment of the "double-hit" analysis of SIX SECONDS (1967), which Lifton had actually verified with Richard Feyman, who demonstrated it to him. Which means that Tink has subverted the strongest scientific argument in his book for the sake, it now appears, of trashing JFK conspiracy research.

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

The flip flopping on Witt is killing me, but thats not the main reason

Tink not only insulted Cutler, he insulted every single one of us that has a conspiracy theory that we back up

It makes no difference that I dont agree with Cutler, Tinks comment that Cutler is a wingnut is the same as calling you and I wingnuts for backing Z-film alteration

This enrire thread has some very good posts from Don and Lee but nobody seems to notice

I really wish that all of us could just stay together and present a united front

I know thats wishful thinking but do know how strong we would be fighting against the LNers then amongst ourselves?

This thread makes me want to throw up

Im so disgusted

Wait a second, so now Jim believes that Witt was TUM because he said he saw the limo stop?

And now Robert believes Witt was TUM because a single researcher told him that he was and that made Robert just change his mind?

Am I hallucinating? Or am I reading the last couple pages of this thread wrong?

I cant believe what im seeing, two researchers flip flopping like its nothing

First, I can't imagine that Josiah Thompson is calling anyone an "idiot".

You must have missed Tink calling Robert Cutler and "idiot" (not that exact word but he was for sure saying as much about Cutler)