B. A. Copeland

You would seriously think that there would be a layout of such a well known and public place....

There is a very seasoned discussion going on at BreakForNews concerning this complex event: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7026 There are about 16-17 pages to sift through but the discussions are very good and reasoned.

Firstly thanks alot for the directory assistance. I appreciate it and will be spending careful time going through that topic. So then am I to correctly assume that you believe the official u.s government position as established by firstly the warren commission? Well lol.....its just not everyday you see an adult post with such......I don't know what to call it lol.

I suppose I can definitely understand that you would interpret my words as not liking your posts but honestly, I say, post what you feel, I have no problem with that. I have simply been curious to see what technical and knowledgable responses you would give in return and I do see bits here and there, generally you just seem irritated or impatient with "explaining yourself" at least thats the idea I seem to get from time to time. You say you "tell it like it is" and that is fine but thats exactly it, what it "is" could be evidence out there to flatly refute ZFA (z-film alteration for the record) and you don't articulate any opposing viewpoints or arguments (well to be fair, none that I notice in general). The use in responding in kind (watch a william lane craig debate to get an idea) you may believe someone's view to be a fantasy, but is it too much to provide an argument that that is so? For example (this is purely hypothetical Chris lol) Chris could say to you Lamson "hey, there is absolutely no such thing as truth" now you could brush him off and take him for a fool or a fantasy induced zombie or you could simply ask him is that statement or claim he has made is "true" for himself and use a logical argument with sufficient evidence to prove (in the classical meaning of proofs) that objective truth is more plausible than its negation. My point? Well you seem to have arguments (I assume?) that can probably show Chris or any 'alterationists' views to be fallacious on scientific and evidential grounds, I'd like to read and study them, thats all. Please, post what you will but as I read your posts here and there, I get the feeling you are more capable than simply "GIGO, fantasy land, get out, etc".

Lamson, I see your responses to Chris and the others but it is odd....I mean you seem intelligent enough to posit your arguments in response to their claims but you seem........I don't know, it's odd seeing an older adult respond in kind the way I have observed you (and quite often)....I mean if Chris is offering "GIGO, ROFLMAO, guesses, fantasy, etc etc" then why not simply reiterate your knowledge against his own so that forum readers and students of the assassination can consistently see your observations or better yet provide links to your responses from other areas of the forum that are relevant to the claims Chris and others are making. It seems as though with almost every well (at the very least, on the surface for anyone who hasn't really studied these concepts and observations) spoken and thought out response or claim made by Chris or others, your response is not in kind but you are either telling him to "scram, beat it, wake up, get outta fantasy land, gigo, etc"....perhaps you are consistently annoyed with such trains of thought but I'd personally prefer to see you deal with these arguments by counter attacking with your own well reasoned studies concerning the very subjects you take part in discussing. Here is a starter for you Lamson: Do you believe that such a theory is even possible that the film could have been altered? If not, how or why? (brief summary or you can even direct me to a written response to this very question if it exists in another topic elsewhere)

I completely apologize for the delayed response Mr Graves. Yes that is what i was asking about. I was going to begin a new topic on this exact topic but I found this topic instead lol. My question is simple, given the history of Oswald's surgeries, wounds (gunshot, mastoid, etc) What do JFK researchers think concerning the total absence of any wounds whatsoever my Earl Rose and (for example) the total absence of a Mastoid Surgery scar in photos such as this: It clearly is not there. I personally do not lean towards an Oswald Dopp. theory but I tend to go where the evidence leads. It definitely seems reasonable to conclude there may have been indeed an Oswald Dopp. but ultimately I am still open. I just wanted to know, what I seem to clearly perceive, as the absence of a previously documented and what should be present mastoid surgery scar behind Oswalds left ear. I also have thought about this many times and wondered if perhaps it was present but in the shadowy area in the above photograph behind the ear but I am certain Dr Rose would have documented it if it existed. Thanks for any and all thoughts.

This is a HUGE victory for the JFK Research Community....but even moreso, a victory for the integrity of the US (whatever is left of it) even...oddly as that may sound or seem.

I wonder why Frazier doesn't mention a single word about being hooked up to a lie detector in this 2002 interview with Gary Mack? http://www.c-spanvid...rg/event/178017 Yes, it's true that Gary didn't ask Wesley this question -- Were you given a lie detector test? And if so, were you pissing your pants with fright as you were being used as leverage by the DPD as they were naming you as a co-conspirator in the President's murder? -- but Gary gave Wesley ample room for telling everything that occurred at City Hall when Frazier was being questioned for many hours on Nov. 22. Six years after Gary Mack's interview, Hugh Aynesworth interviewed Buell Frazier. Aynesworth wrote: Mr. Frazier was questioned vigorously by police – accused of being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy – and even told falsely by police officers that Oswald had named him as a co-conspirator. After 12 intense hours at the Police Department, he was allowed to take a polygraph test, passed it impressively and was released. The fact that Mr. Frazier helped train Oswald at his new job (Oswald was hired at the book depository Oct. 16) and had driven him to Irving several times soon faded from most people's memories. But another factor remained noteworthy. Officials assumed that the package Oswald carried to work that morning was the Italian-made rifle he used to kill Kennedy. Mr. Frazier still doesn't believe it. .........In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mr. Frazier said the brown paper package Oswald carried that morning was too short to contain a rifle. Oswald cupped the package in his hand, he said, and it fit under his armpit. In Washington, Mr. Frazier said, he was "pressured" to change his recollection. In the days afterward, he was badgered by the media, harassed by people who didn't understand his relationship to Oswald and even became fearful for his life. His testimony was important because investigators had proved that Oswald bought the rifle used in the JFK slaying and had found a matching palm print on the stock, but they had no proof that he had it with him that day. Ms. Randle, who was also a leading witness, said recently that when she and Mr. Frazier testified before the Warren Commission, "they tried to get us to say that package was much longer than we recalled, but that wasn't true." The commission kept pushing, Mr. Frazier said. Could it be that he was traumatized by the horror of what happened or embarrassed that he hadn't been more observant? "I know what I saw," he said, "and I've never changed one bit." ....."Conspiracy theories are like noses," he said. "Everybody has one. No one has ever sold me 100 percent that Lee did it. If he did, yes, but some other people were involved in some way." http://jfkfiles.blog...lent-about.html Which probably means that, given that this is Aynesworth's account, the opposite is probably true. Black is White, White is Black.

This is the primary element of that backyard photo I do not understand: has ANYONE ever reconciled how a human being can tilt in such a manner or am I the only one who notices that (not to mention the cut off fingers, odd left arm, shadow errors, etc)? What is the official verdict on that element of the photograph? Perhaps the photograph itself or the camera that "took" it caused such a titling of Oswald? Even if the viewer is titled, that makes the case even stranger for Oswald, for if the viewer tilts, then Oswald would be in more of a "magical" standing position. Has anyone ever dealt with this or am I honestly not seeing something correctly?

Vinson's story seems dynamite. I am also of the opinion that because his story also involves the old "Oswald double" many researchers seem to attempt to steer clear of it but in learning of this man and his story, he seems quite credible and therfore what we do with the data is entirely up to us (if the data is found to have no 'defeaters'). His reasoning behind the waiting or delay seems to relate to that of Gordon Arnold. You can't blame some of these people for being so cautious when we know people were eliminated due to their sensitive knowledge. I do wonder if the ARRB has learned anything relating to Vinson's account. I think we'll definitely learn once we see any documentation that is either highly classified or missing altogether regarding or relating to Vinson's story.

Wait people still honestly and objectively believe the WC? lol.....Either you're a paid hack you need a library account.

Why would we ever expect anything else concerning mainstream media? Would any of you honestly expect to have an intelligent analysis on television? If you allow that.....you will have allowed the opening of pandora's box of truth and that simply cannot happen for many reasons.

B.A., I think the problem is that you're assuming a straight-line trajectory and a bullet that passed through the head in one piece - as we would expect from a full metal jacket. But the "lead snowstorm" on the X-rays shows both these assumptions to be incorrect and, in fact, shows that the bullet essentially disintergrated on impacting the right temple. As Dr. Cyril Wecht told me recently, "This bullet fired from the GK area most likely was some kind of "soft lead" (i.e., frangible) ammunition rather than the kind of bullet that is the "hero" of the SBT. CE 399 is military type ammunition that would have produced a different pattern of fragmentation and overall craniocerebral damage...After a bullet hits the bony skull and begins to break up, the pattern of expansion will usually become wider (conical type distribution) along the bullet's pathway. A FMJ bullet should not produce a "lead snowstorm" within the brain after striking the calvarium." As Don Thomas noted, the "conical type distribution" Wecht refers to is exactly what we see on the X-rays. Thomas writes that when a bullet disintergrates on striking a skull, the smaller, dust-like fragments are found closer to the entry point and the larger particles are found closer to the exit. This is because the larger fragments, having greater mass, have greater momentum and are carried further away from the point of entry. This is precisely what is seen in JFK's right lateral X-ray, with the smaller particles located at the right temple and the larger ones towards the top back part of the skull. Hey there Martin and thanks for the response. I apologize if its been a while. Took me a bit to actually find this post lol. I get the 'gist' of your explanation but I don't understand the flaw with my assumption of a straight traj. and what kind of round. I am not sure of the wind reading that day or the topography but I figured with the knoll's elevation there wouldn't be too much drop (with even a decent powered weapon) or much sway to interfere with a straight trajectory (especially given the distance using the z-film as a reference: from knoll area to limo) Would the round matter much given the entrance wound? My assumption is that there is probably a partially covered wound on the JFK 'death stare' photo and I am also assuming this based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. Once we have the entrance wound down and to a 'lead pipe' cinch, well wouldn't it be natural to then posit that the fatal shot would have to be closely aligned with the wound (I mean the round wouldn't have 'curved' or anything would it? (and I am definitely no ballistics/firearms expect as if that probably isn't already obvious lol) Here is another issue regarding this, lets look at JFK's pose as he is hit, he is slightly leaning towards the left...now lets add in the topography, etc, limo position/speed, etc.....how and where on earth was that gunman? That is one hell of a shot. When you think about it in detail, you had to have an excellent marksman for that final shot. thanks again Martin for any and all discussion.

Whoa....great find Mr Kelly....who on earth is this guy I wonder...as the great Mr Weisberg said "this case is beyond the reach of any one person"....amazing the very fine details still being revealed after 50 years...

Thanks a ton Mr D! Funny thing is I was buying your book along with it lol! Talk about double xmas after xmas. So lets see...this week I find Jim Hougan's Secret Agenda (thanks for mentioning this on Len's show) for 1.00 in excellent condition at a crowns bookstore, and now these two. My summer will be grand.

Hey could anyone explain the differences between both printings? The original print is from 1995 (627) and the 2nd print is from 2008 but has more pages (696). Could anyone explain this please and thank you.

Great post Mr Ecker lol. "Lest the people forget". You know well they really don't mentioning JFK without some kind of PsyOp'ng of the people continually. In fact I am disgusted whenever the CIA, US Govt, Media, etc, mention his or any member of his family's name.

This is one of the things that has always bothered me. I cannot see anything fly onto the back of the limo, nothing.

Well other than "official" history Colby, what strong evidence do you have considering the writer of this book may have unearthed evidence contrary to "official" history? (keep in mind history is written by the "winners"). I think the wise thing to consider in this situation is that Williams may have given us more rational reason to conclude what many have already sensed given the very shady "official" history of WW2 involving Germany and the US (you are aware that the CIA/Dulles/McCloy/Rockefellers/Wall St were instrumental in the progression of Germany's war effort correct?). You conclude that Williams' writing is BS based on reviews on Amazon lol? Do me a favor, when (and if) you do read the book, don't go into the book trying to disprove its claims, in the end, you'll only "disprove" them. Williams' mentions in his book that he has eyewitness testimony and scientific findings (you are always asking for evidence to support one's conclusions, etc) I would think you'd be interested in Williams' evidence but it doesn't seem so. Ultimately its best to take a good read of the book first. I am inclined to believe his conclusion in any event based on my own research into this over the years and the other grandiose conspiracies regarding the US and abroad, it simply never ends with those in power. After taking a look at this video: http://news.sky.com/story/891899/book-claims-hitler-died-in-argentina and then calling him a "kook" just wouldn't be rational. Williams' has obviously done his homework, even though his findings and the questions he raises (why, etc) have sinister implications. Many powerful individuals were involved in the Germany/Nazi war effort and most of them were from the West. This is a find that will challenge the "official" account to its core and I can't wait for the fireworks. The US, Britain, and those complicit with them are liars and murderers and now we've got one more good chunk of evidence to lean on.

This is amazing Greg, thanks.

He trusted the CIA too much because he was possibly supposed to. I wager that he was a 'safe pair of hands'. The entire scene where Richard Sprague was replaced was a deliberate setup. There was no way that the investigation would be allowed to go forward after knowing full well the route intended by Sprague (and, which is a route we should always want in any investigation I might add) Only after the damage had been done to the investigation (and was there ever really any surprise of such an outcome?) does Blakey admit more than a decade later that he is in "that camp". Give me a break 'Blake'. He's even still pushing the old OC (organized crime) angle, or emphasizing it I see....

I don't understand why people are surprised. Of course he felt threatened. His brother was blown away in broad daylight in front of thousands while the SS stood down. The entire family "got it". After RFK was killed Jackie did say something: " They are killing Kennedys and my kids are next" or words to that effect. And she was right: they killed her son. So let's just all blame the victims for not "solving this case" . Dawn Dawn I'm pretty amazed that you consider JFK Jr as possibly murdered as well. I agree and think it is utterly tragic that he and his case just came and went without any consideration (other than Hankey of course, who did a good documentary regarding the matter). I lean in the direction that JFK Jr was probably murdered as well and I hope that someday (maybe 30-40 years from now?) people will start to think more about his death. It happened at a VERY crucial time (right before 9/11, relatively speaking), he had a magazine that printed very "controversial" subject matter and he was the firstborn son of JFK. By those facts alone you have motive, means and opportunity. The entire JFK Jr crash is as smelly and bizarre as they come.

Reposted from breakfornews.com member 'Southpark Fan':

I mean if one has forgotten about CIA approved POTUS', Obama can clearly bring one back to reality concerning the matter. The man has agency written over every inch of his political career. I would bet a body part that if he isn't an asset, he is definitely an operative.

My point exactly Scully. It can be demonstrated that often times there have been times where the CIA will "beat itself up" in public using assets/operatives on both sides (alex jones, the 9/11 issue, the plethora of fake alternative reporting websites anyone?). I remember learning how fake the Oswald/Walker story was lol...