Dean Hagerman

I have been reading a bit lately about Jim Garrison. I find it amazing that anyone would buy into his rubbish. Garrison appears to be one of the most corrupt people I have looked at in this case......

Can you list examples please Mike?

Because any example you list I will be able to disprove

You are way off about Garrison, Mike

Robert do you own Robert Grodens "The Assassination Films"?

If not buy it, it has the short Bronson film in good quality

Robert has only read like 5 books on the assassination!

He has admitted that its a waste of time to read books on the assassination!

Robert the Zapruder film was altered!

TGZFH is in my top 10 books of all time, and MIDP and Assassination Science are in my top 20 for sure

Greg and Jims posts were both spot on, how can you dismiss alteration when you claim your not familar with the subject?

Its just like you listing books on your top 50 list that you have never read! You even listed Judyth Bakers new book on your list BEFORE IT EVEN CAME OUT!

[...}

Madeleine Brown used to meet Lyndon Johnson for trysts at the Del Charro Hotel.

[...]

I seriously doubt it. I'm a 61 year old native La Jollan and I've never heard that LBJ even visited La Jolla. Nixon yes, Johnson no. I am, however, willing to do some research on it by looking through old La Jolla Light newspapers, etc. at the La Jolla Library. So, Robert,... what year or years were Lyndon and Madeleine supposedly "trysting" at the Hotel Del Charro?

--Thomas

Boom!

Watch Robert fumble around for 3 hours trying to write a reply to that

You're a little behind the curve here, Dean. Did you really believe that I abandoned the double-hit between 312 and 313 because some guy sidled up to me at a bar and told me a story? Nope. David Wimp (not "Whimp") has produced a persuasive analysis of what blurring does to a frame of the Zapruder film. It was published on the Internet for many years starting in about 2004 or 2005 and was subject to much discussion. Wimp was invited to Jim Lesar's AARC Conference in Washington and gave a lecture on it there. He gives a couple of examples from the end of the Z film where the camera was moved horizontally and it appears to wipe out the dark width of a light post. Then he goes on to show that highly exposed areas if smudged horizontally will extend into darker areas. Since 313 is smudged horizontally as shown by the smearing of the chrome strip over the passenger compartment, he takes this to be occurring in that frame. The upshot is that the very bright strip against which I measured the movement of JFK's head is elongated, thus giving the impression that his head moved farther than I thought it did. Wimp's corrected figures show JFK's head moved about an inch forward between 312 and 313 and this is consistent with earlier forward movement of his head immediateley prior 312.

I would point out that just because it appears now that JFK was not hit in the back of the head between 312 and 313 this does not mean he was never hit in the back of the head at some other time. However, that discussion is something I don't want to get into just now.

Thank you for calling my earlier theory of a double-hit between 312 and 313 "well-researched." Unfortunately, it was wrong and I am anxious to admit the mistake and point out why it was a mistake.

JT

Tink

Your entire book is very well researched!

I knew that as a young kid back in 87-88 when I first read SSID and I still know that to this day

And I am up to speed as you have explained to me before how David Wimp (sorry about the Whimp) changed your mind

I was just giving thanks to Jim for pushing that theory that you came up with and now do not back

It pains me that you dont back it up Tink, its fits perfectly into the shot scenario that you came up with and I believe in

Its the one thing through all my years researching the assassination that has remained unchanged, I have always and still do believe that the shot scenario that you describe in SSID is what happened

This is why I feel so strongly about it Tink

Jim

The double head hit on JFK is very important (not just to me because it is the center piece of conspiracy for my theory including Alteration)

Im am always happy to see you backing up the work that Tink has abandoned because of what one person (David Whimp I think?) told him

The double head hit proves conspiracy, Tink proved that in SSID

It bothers me to no end that he doesnt back up his well researched theory

Several of us know the identity of the researcher that Rich DellaRosa confided the FULL STORY of the OTHER FILM to.

Since Rich is now deceased, his security oath no longer applies, and I think Rich's confidante should reveal all the

details that Rich withheld. This would make Rich's story much more believable, since it would reveal places and times

the film was seen and what circumstances (which Rich led us to believe were military in nature).

I think the time is now appropriate.

Jack

In fact that person that Rich trusted has made posts in this thread

He should post everything that Rich told him

A question or three for Tink:

1) Do you believe the Warren Report is essentially accurate or do you believe it is essentially flawed?

2) Are your current beliefs essentially unchanged from what they were when you wrote Six Seconds? Are they contrary? Is this a gray area?

3) Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?

I'm not being as facetious as it might appear. I just haven't heard or read what you currently hold to be true about this subject in a vey long time.

Thanks--

Sure thing, Greg. Sylvia Meagher once pointed that it was not important what any particular person believed. What was important was the evidence (or lack of it) for that belief. But you ask rather simple and obvious questions that I’ll be pleased to answer.

“1) Do you believe the Warren Report is essentially accurate or do you believe it is essentially flawed?”

“Flawed” is too gentle a term for what the Warren Report perpetrated. As countless folks have pointed out over the years, its conclusions do not grow out of the evidence. In instance after instance, their conclusions conflict with the evidence.

“2) Are your current beliefs essentially unchanged from what they were when you wrote Six Seconds? Are they contrary? Is this a gray area?”

They are essentially unchanged. I made some mistakes... some minor, at least one major. But the overall claim of Six Seconds... that is, that shots came from more than one location... has become more and more indisputable as the years pass.

“3) Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?”

I’m not sure that Lee Harvey Oswald even acted that day... not to say “acted alone.” I am persuaded that shots were fired from the Depository but I am not persuaded that Oswald fired them. I never have been so persuaded.

*******************

At the risk of boring you and others, let me add a few thoughts about this case.

From the beginning, the only thing I’ve been interested in concerns what happened that day in Dealey Plaza. Because of that, I’m largely ignorant of the numerous conspiracy theories about who did it and why did they do it. It seemed to me that there were three questions that had to be answered in logical order: (1) What happened? (2) Who did it? (3) Why did they do it? I’ve been stuck for forty-some years on the first question.

If you’re going to figure out what happened, you have to decide first and foremost what you are going to take as evidence. The researches of John Hunt, Gary Aguilar and myself with respect to CE 399 indicate the problems with only one piece of physical evidence. There were hundreds of people in and around Dealey Plaza that day and we have a plethora of their eye-witness observations. Some are credible some are not. All are subject to the caveats Elizabeth Loftus laid out in her groundbreaking studies on eyewitness testimony. Almost every factor Loftus lays out as degrading the reliability of eyewitness testimony was present in Dealey Plaza that day. Where, then, can we turn for some bedrock of evidence upon which to base our judgments of what happened in Dealey Plaza. It seems to me that we have to turn to the numerous films and photos taken that day by press photographers and ordinary citizens in Dealey Plaza. We know that the event happened in only one way. We know that photos or films of the same event should fit together without discrepancy except for the point of view of the photographer. If they did not fit together... if one film or photo was discrepant... it would stand out like a sore thumb. The fitting together of all the films and photos taken that day is both the test and guarantee of their authenticity. They form a seamless, self-authenticating whole. The zealotry of Professor Fetzer and his collaborators over fifteen years to show any discrepancy serves to buttress the authenticity of these films and photos. We should be grateful for their efforts. We would not know that these films and photos are authentic if no one had tried to show they were fakes and failed in that attempt.

Don Jefferies has complained that it’s difficult to determine my views on anything “that doesn’t pertain to Jim Fetzer.” It may seem that way. Actually, I have discovered a small community of folks who don’t often post on this or any board and I find my email discussions with them productive. I think the threshold question in this case is whether or not it is provable that shots were fired from a location other than the Depository. I’m working on that and finding that the accretion of evidence over time is impressive. Thus far, however, my project has not lent itself to discussions on the internet. I suspect this will change and I am looking forward to getting assistance and opinions from the members who post here.

Finally, I should indicate why I may have given Don Jefferies the opinion he holds. It has to do with the difference between advocacy and scholarship and between advocacy and investigation.

I learned a bit about scholarship while I was in the academic world. The scholar does not just advocate a point of view. He/she does not build a case like an attorney builds a case for trial. Rather, the scholar looks at both sides of a particular question, catalogues the evidence on both sides and then offers a solid opinion as to the emergent truth. He/she also is scrupulous about admitting a mistake when one has been made.

The same distinction is apparent in the world of the courts. Within the courtroom, the attorney is playing the game of persuasion. His job is to persuade the judge or jury of a particular version of the truth. His job is simple advocacy. Admitting he is wrong when he is wrong is not part of his job description. The job of the investigator is different. In criminal defense, the investigator of course has his eye out for those facts or possible interpretation of facts that buttress the case of one’s client. But that is not the sole job of the investigator. The proper job description is to find what is out there and report that back. For example, when I was working for Stephen Jones in his defense of Tim McVeigh, my job was not just to report back the facts that helped McVeigh’s case. As any defense attorney knows, he wants to know the good with the bad... the facts that hurt his case along with the facts that help his case. In this sense, the same distinction between advocacy and scholarship is found in the distinction between advocacy and investigation. I know how to build a case and I know how to investigate a case. With respect to the Kennedy assassination, I’m doing the latter.

Professor Fetzer shows again and again that he is doing the former and it gets my goat. For over a decade he’s been using an argument that 19th Century logic books label “poisoning of the well.” Since I used sketches drawn from the Zapruder film in Six Seconds, he’s been claiming that my defense of the Zapruder film’s authenticity is just an old fart defending his reputation. Of course, the same argument applies to Fetzer ten times over since he has been trying to make his reputation by impugning the Zapruder film. This is pure advocacy that has nothing to do with scholarship or evidence. It’s the sort of thing a lawyer might or might not try before a jury he took to be stupid.

But no one reading this needs a catalogue of Professor Fetzer’s style of advocacy. It’s there for all to see.

JT

Tink

Thank you for replying to Gregs questions, I am very happy to see that you still back up your work in SSID, not that I had ever thought that you had abandoned it, its just with all of the arguments back and forth between you and Jim about alteration other issues become blurry

I am disappointed that you have changed your mind on the double head hit theory which I still strongly believe in to this day

The reason I so strongly believe in it is because when I first read your book back in 1988 I thought your research on that subject was very sound and I still feel that way

Jim,

The short answer is:

In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly

appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center

(driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection

is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder

pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised

up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck.

There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo

remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it. The head shot most obviously came from the right front. A

detail that is missing from the motion of JFK in the extant film has to do with the difference between: "back and to the left" --and--"up, then fall to the left".

My recollection is that he was "lifted up" from his seat to a discernible degree before falling to his left. This "body motion" appeared to be much slower than the jerky,

abrupt, "snap" seen in the extant film.

Rich had a few items that I didn't recall and vice versa. For instance, unlike what Rich reported, I don't recall a shot from behind that caused JFK's head to move forward

initially just before the fatal head shot from the front. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just may not have registered that for whatever reason. I also recall that

several Secret Service Agents climbed out of the Queen Mary with (what appeared to be) automatic weapons drawn apparently looking to return fire. They appeared to

be very disoriented. Then they climbed back in and sped off. There was a considerable gap between the time the X-100 sped off and the Queen Mary sped off. Rich

did not recall the agents climbing out of the limo.

==============================

I am not at liberty to discuss the circumstances under which I viewed this film.

Thanks for the description of the "other" film that you viewed Greg

I sure hope that one day you will discuss the circumstances under which you viewed the "other" film

It has been claimed that LBJ did more to move along civil rights legislation than JFK would have had the latter

survived Dallas to serve another term. During the intervening years since the assassination a lot has been

written to indicate that JFK was "slow" to pursue civil rights. I don't agree at all. I don't care that some of those

making the claim are African Americans. I think that JFK was going about this task as fast as possible. It was

a very difficult and dangerous task, but one that I believe he would have seen through to fruition. As it is, we

can never know for sure...

However, here's something that I can't even IMAGINE coming from the mouth of JFK! The word is: "N****rs"!

Yet, it did come from the mouth of LBJ, which speaks volumes, IMO.

"The more hatred is superficial...the more it runs deep." -- FAREWELL AMERICA (1968)

.

It is funny how folks in the year 2011 get so hysterical over the use of the word "n." They act like it is such a horrid word they can't even fully spell it out. For example, they don't spell "slavery" "s....ry" or call it the S-word. It is really quite silly and juvenile to watch this. I guess these folks have never read Huckleberry Finn like I did in 6th grade. A superb book with the word "n" all throughout the book, e.g. "n Jim" being one of the characters.

Back in the 1950's and 1960's the vast majority (not all) of Southerns used the term "n" to refer to black people, many of whom actually had "white" blood in them.

As for Lyndon Johnson, just read the book LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination. Johnson was a racist, then again the vast majority of his peer group were racist and vehemently opposed to civil rights. Lyndon Johnson thought that the proper relationship between whites and blacks would be "master" and "slave."

Johnson ALSO had an attractive black secretary. In fact he spend New Year's Eve socializing with her at parties in Austin before heading back to the Driskill Hotel (where Madeleine Brown waited upstairs). Ron Kessler's Secret Service contacts said that LBJ was having sex with 5 of his 8 secretaries, and this lady was attractive ... so I will let you estimate the odds.

Lyndon Johnson - after murdering JFK or being on the coup d'etat - had to throw a sop to the liberals, after all a LOT of them were suspecting that HE, LBJ, had a role in the JFK assassination. So civil rights was LBJ's way of carrying on the Kennedy legacy (as opposed to what LBJ did NOT continue with: dropping LBJ from the ticket, ending or cutting back oil depreciation allowances, not getting involved in Vietnam, opposing the Rockefellers).

So were American blacks happy with John Kennedy's stand on civil rights? You bet they were: he forcibly and militarily integrated Ole Miss; he made Gov. Wallace of Alabama backdown in his famous "school door" stand a few months before... all you have to do is look at the PHOTOS of a whole line of black Americans smiling and waving at JFK as they stood right outside the Texas School Book Depository just 8.5 seconds before the murder of JFK. American blacks were very aware JFK was moving the ball in the right direction. In millions of black homes across America there were 3 photos on the wall: Jesus, Martin Luther King and John Kennedy.

As for Vice President LBJ, all he did was subvert and undermine and undercut John Kennedy on every single policy he had - including civil rights. JFK appointed LBJ as head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where he LBJ promptly did NOTHING to such a degree that Bobby Kennedy came to one of the public meetings and humiliate Johnson there. After looking at LBJ's non-performance on civil rights, John Kennedy remarked that is why Lyndon Johnson must NEVER be president.

LBJ pushing civil rights in the wake of the JFK assassination was not just political opportunism for Johnson, it was part of his LBJ's escape plan from the JFK assassination. Also, the events of 1964, particularly the murder of 3 civil rights workers in Philadelphia, MS on 6/19/64 also provided a big impetus for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And even that thing was unenforceable and toothless. The REAL change occurred the next year with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That was where the rubber hit the road, as local blacks were suddenly (and belatedly) electing the local sherriff, city council and county commissioners. THAT is when political change REALLY came to the South.

Lyndon Johnson spend much of his life violating people's civil rights - notably by murdering them - that I can't give the ole boy any credit for passing civil rights legistlation; he did it using John Kennedy's dead body. And LBJ did it because civil rights was part of his escape plan from the JFK assassination.

Robert

Thank you for that amazing high calorie post!

Im so glad that you are thinking about Baseball

....One such "obscured" interest is seen in a company most all of us take for granted

is/was a Japanese company from its inception, but which was not. SONY is one such example.

SONY is not a Japanese word nor is it a Japanese acronym. It is an American acronym that has become a Japanese

"brand" and has been "positioned" in the market in such a manner as to give the impression that it is a product

of superior (Japanese) quality available for a reasonable price (due to its having been manufactured in Japan).

That impression is false.

SONY stands for: STANDARD OIL of NEW YORK -- Yes, Rockefeller!

Greg, are you sure about this?

I must say this info caught me off gaurd as well, I have respect for Fletcher Prouty so I dont doubt this

Thanks for sharing this with us Greg!

This is the same Gary Mack who ran an email campaign against me.

Thats BS John!

You allow Gary Mack to be a member of your great forum and what does he do? He hides behind his position at the 6th Floor so he dosent have to post

It must be nice and easy to have others post for you and not have to answer to anybody on the forum

I believe that if he is a member of this forum he should have to post

The fact that he ran an email campaign against you makes me very upset!

Well, if one of Mr. Swanson's main goals is something so incredibly peripheral and unimportant as trying to discover what happened to Jackie's pink hat, I'm just wondering how serious and "definitive" his book will actually be.

Mark me down as agreeing with DVP for the second (or maybe third) time in my life

RIP Rich

Richs forum was the place that I started

I never met Rich in person but talked to him through email and on his forum many times

He was the kind of person that you felt like you had met him in person just by his kind ways through the internet

I'm just sayingthis for the life of the thread, it is annoying to look through all this. Even though I am interested in it.

PS: IMO, he was the best small forward ever.

And BTW, Wilt Chamberlain thought so also.

A case could be made for Elgin, Larry, or Julius.

Of course Barry was the star that carried that great '75 Warriors team, but Keith Wilkes and Clifford Ray were unsung heroes. Coach Attles called guard Butch Beard from Louisville "the glue."

The Warriors went ten deep with a bunch of role players and although they swept the heavily favored Bullets, the series was closer than it seemed, with the four games being decided by 16 points.

That year, they were a true team.

Golden State went into that series as heavy dogs; Varnell went into this exchange as the heavy favorite. This time it was the favorite that won. And none of the games were that close.

Very good Micheal, always nice to see someone who knows what he is talking about when it comes to old school NBA

I agree with Jim that Barry is the best Small Forward ever

I will take it a step farther and say Barry was the best complete player of all time, and dont give me this he wasnt a good defender garbage when Barry led the league (as a forward!) in steals in 74-75

And while I agree that the Warriors that won in 75 were the true meaning of the word team, there is no doubt that Barry was by far the team leader

He was amazing in the finals, the Bullets had no answer for Barry, unless you call Riordan attacking Barry from behind then getting beat down by Al Attles in the final game an answer

Im biased as Barry is my favorite player, but besides Bird I see nobody who can match Barry in skill

Sorry Len, Cliff just did to you what my 1975 Golden State Warriors did to the Washington Bullets

SWEEP

honorary member of note Woodrow Wilson

LMFAO!

One of the top 5 best presidents we have ever had and you have him down as an "honorary member" of the KKK

I cant stop laughing

Seems to me that while close, they are not identical and whether that is simply stamp wear or what, I thought you might like to take a look.

I imagine creating a stamp is no big deal but why there are such differences in many of the letters, especially the KLEIN'S lettering and the apostrophe is not even close at all... The one Waldman uses on Ex.9 looks newer and cleaner that the older one on the back of the Money Order - single use versus multiple possibly - yet there are difference.... like the tilt of the N in the bottom stamp as opposed to the "I".

DJ

Great point David!

No kidding Sherlock.

This made me laugh uncontrollably as to Len's late 1800s reaserch for the word "Conspiracy Theorist" which was just around the time that Sherlock Holmes was created

Perfect use of a put down by Jimmy D

Dave,

Tell this Mike Picardi to join the Ed forum

"ALL FRAMES WITHIN SEVERAL TAKES OF THE COMPLETE FILM FOOTAGE EXPOSED ARE EXTREMELY CLEAR AND ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR ANALYSIS" !!!!!

Very nice!

Great work Greg

Who is "Costello" -- perhaps Abbott's partner?

Whos on first?

Martin have you tried going back and deleteing pictures that you have posted in your old posts?

Try deleting like 10 old pictures that you posted and I bet you will be able to post all your pics needed in a single post

his brother's widow were doing: having a torrid affair from 1964 -1968

You sound like a sleazy Romance Novelist

You just love writing these posts dont you Robert?

And are you ever going to answer my question? Do you like JFK?

Why do you keep ducking and dodging my question?

Are you scared to answer? I know that you hate JFK, you think he is a "Sex Freak" and deserved to be assassinated because you dont agree with his moral standards

Answer my question Robert, its a simple yes or no