Ian Kingsbury

In his statement Clint Hill says" there was a second shot I did not hear"What if that was the head shot ? and another shot occured after that as in Brehms statement " after the second shot hit the head" would indicate a shot after "313"

Doug Horne whilst discussing the presentation boards( cant remember which set)that the FBI agents stated that 6 - 8 shots could have been fired.If the W.C. admits to 3 shots they must be playing around with the sequence.I do not believe the "313" head shot was the last .And it appears that Clint Hill was told their was a second shot while he was in between the Queen mary and the limo, and the head shot "313" occurred as he got there.and as it has been displayed that Altgens was foggy about his testimony.So once again we have the age old problem of witness testimonies or our Lyin eyes.

We are being told in testimony of many events occurring at the time and just after the shooting we tend to believe our eyes because its there in front of us .Chaney's forward ride for example .If you follow the testimony we should be looking at a completely different film or are we?.

Ian

Nice of you, thanks.

I could not get it to download.

Jack

Full disclosure: I looked at the preview, planning to download later. I have the other version Robin put up recently. Perhaps like Jack, the typed-in code words didn't work for me.

Has anyone ever plotted Altgens' position against the Z-frames following the Stemmons sign, to see if the distance traveled/number of frames between the Stemmons sign and frame 313 Z-film corresponds to the spatial representation in Altgens 6?

I ask because - though I know focal length and ground declination and other perspectival-technical issues are involved - it seems odd to see the Brehm-Hill-Moorman shadows so close to the limo in Altgens 6.

ADD: It seems odd that the shadows are so near the curve in the south side curb in Altgens. And then when you look at Zapruder, the "sea of green" lawn between the sign and Hill-Moorman seems even more impossibly long in duration (= frames) than one suspected it was before.

Robin thanks yet again for your time and efforts Ian

Now take a look at frame 161 .

The recreation numbers say it is 94.7 ft to station C.

When added to the real station C distance this equals 3+69.

If you look at the chart, Spector has frame 161 at 3+29.

That is a difference of 40ft approx.

Limo's in the same spot, distances are incorrect.

Beginning to get the picture.

chris

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=4272&relPageId=29

What was actually surveyed in was Z168.

CE884 was changed to make it appear as if Z161 was what was surveyed in.

I will get back to you on "Station C" as soon as I dig out the survey notes & the full sized copy of the WC Survey Plat. Which, by the way, clearly shows "Station "A"" marked on it.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464a.htm

That "first line" as drawn from the sixth floor window of the TSDB to Elm St., goes to "STATION A", which portion of the WC Survey Plat I long ago posted here.

Thanks Tom,

The 40ft difference threw me off for a while, as the original distance from Station C to Position A was stated as 44ft.

But on CE884, between frame 161 and 166 there is a distance of approx 1ft traveled. (An adjustment no where close to a steady 11 mph).

Since Spector was keeping the speed consistent, I looked for a distance traveled among 2 other sets of frames 5 apart.

The difference between frame 235 and 240 is 5.5ft.

A difference of 4.5ft.

Added back to the 40ft =44.5ft, which gets us back closely to the original 44ft mark.

chris

Chris

Would this account for the Altgens 6 differences you pointed out before?. If you remember it was difficult to find an unmolested version.

Thanks Ian

The FBI report of Richard C. Dodd ( CE 1420 ) says that Dodd

"...did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433a.htm

But in this 1966 interview with Mark Lane, Dodd says that

"...we all...four saw the same thing---the shots--the smoke came from behind the hedge on the north side of the plaza."

Dodd also tells Lane in the video that he gave the FBI the SAME ACCOUNT when he was interviewed that he gave Lane in the video.

IOW, the FBI falsified what he told them----- and THAT brings the credibility of the entire written record into question.

Is there any wonder why the witness was never called to testify ?

You can believe what they said the witnesses said, or you can hear it from the witnesses themselves.

Brehm indicated a shot after "313" the head shot small wonder not called to testify .just jie or ignore seemed to be the maxim applied .Oswald anyway you like as long as its Oswald.

In the GIF sequence of Nix, I can clearly see a man shooting Kennedy with a rifle from the grassy knoll. He's above that white thing no one knows what it is. Just as Kennedy was right before him. He doesn't disappear after the head shot. Arrogance! I can also see a figure in the Pergola and by the pycanthia bush. I see a number of figures in the grassy knoll. As for the guy in the front behind that thing, you can see him focus and shoot John Kennedy. I wonder if someone can zoom in on that man.

In the Rickerby photo there is no Stemmons Freeway sign that blocked the shot from the front. In the Bond photo you can see it. These photos were taken at about the same time after the shooting. What happened to the sign?

Kathy C

Kathy

I am trying to make sense of this and it appears that Brehm was aware of a shot after the (313) head shot,

BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.

Altgens seems to fluff his lines when giving his description as well these were probably the closest to the shooting apart from Umbrella man and DCM .

As for your man behind the fence have you seen this great piece of work by Rick Needham

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,414.0.html

Ian

Thanks Jack!

If you watched it, you see that in every speech, he emphasized the word PEACE. The MilIndComp needs WARS

to keep them in business.

Jack

Yes. The danger of allowing the Military-Industrial Complex to create/promulgate the illusion justifying the

"necessity for war" is what Eisenhower only "hinted at" in his farewell address. But, IMO, Ike had already gone

past the point of no return...he'd been compromised to a degree by then. He nonetheless warned us in advance.

By contrast, JFK was set on peace going into it. Why not? War hadn't worked so far...

John Lennon: "All we are saying, is give peace a chance..." -- and they killed him too...

There was a brief clip where Eisenhower remarked:

"No. As I said, I know the American people will stand solid and they will not be stampeded."

This was said when he was replying to reporters about the murder of President Kennedy. It appears at the very end of this YouTube clip:

Some other quotes by Eisenhower on war:

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."

"War settles nothing."

"Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative."

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war."

"There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs."

"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it."

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

"How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?"

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

Wonderful quotes from Ike! Summing up his campaign slogan, I LIKE IKE.

Jack

Jack

I pointed this out to DVP a while back and he told me the this presentation is lies and speculation .It is also one of the only representations of the Kilduff Head point that has not been erased according to DVP for editing purposes.

thanks for bringing it back up

Ian

In an interview you won't see on any of the Von Pein internet sites, Jesse Ventura interviews Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi tells the camerman to "turn it off" several times. Typical of LNers, there's always something they don't want you to know.

Why would he want to put it on any of his sites? The show was pure junk with nothing new to offer, whether you're a CT or a LN.

For reference purposes, the whole show can be seen here.

Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory

Perhaps VB was trying to display his open-mindedness?.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jesse-ventura.html

A few thoughts about Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" JFK program:

Many of the same old myths, long ago debunked, were dragged out by Ventura for his "TruTV" program (embedded at the bottom of the webpage linked above), such as the nonsense about Lee Harvey Oswald not being able to pull off the shooting of JFK in the time that was allotted him.

Ventura, however, for some reason didn't stick to the oft-used myth of LHO having only 5.6 seconds to get off his three shots with his Mannlicher-Carcano. Instead, Jesse pulled a different figure out of thin air: 6.3 seconds.

So, I will give Ventura credit for adding seven-tenths of a second to the timing myth, although I have no idea where he came up with his "6.3 seconds" figure.

The Warren Commission, of course, was never boxing itself in to accepting a shooting timeline of only 5.6 seconds (or even 6.3), and Page #117 of the Warren Report easily disproves the often-repeated "5.6 seconds" myth, with the Commission stating, plain as day, that if either the FIRST or the THIRD shot was the shot that missed President Kennedy (which the Commission certainly did not rule out), then the time for the entire shooting would therefore increase accordingly, up to a possible 7.9 seconds, per the Warren Commission's investigation:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

Ventura himself made three attempts (on camera) to duplicate Oswald's shooting performance (which Jesse said was 6.3 seconds). On his first attempt, Jesse did everything he could to make firing his Carcano seem like it was more difficult than building the Pyramids, and as a result of this obvious stretched-out fakery, Jesse's first time was a ridiculous 11.17 seconds.

He then did get better on his second and third attempts, scoring times of 8.84 seconds and 8.79 seconds for three shots (while, as he admitted, achieving multiple "hits" on the target below him, including a "head shot" too).

Now, when we examine the truth regarding the actual amount of time that Lee Harvey Oswald had on 11/22/63 to get off his three shots at the President from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, which was very likely a total time of approximately 8.4 seconds, and then compare that figure with the last two attempts made by ex-Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, we can see that Jesse came very close to Oswald's time -- missing LHO's 8.4-second time by only about 0.4 seconds.

And Jesse said that his three attempts at duplicating Oswald's feat were "nowhere near" Oswald's time. Ventura also said: "This is xxxxing impossible".

Bullxxxx, Jesse. And you (unintentionally) proved that Oswald's feat was not impossible when you got off three shots (with some hits) in only 8.84 and 8.79 seconds. And that even INCLUDES Jesse's sluggishness with the Carcano bolt-action rifle he was using.

And it doesn't really matter whether Jesse was merely pretending to have trouble with the gun, or whether he was, in fact, legitimately having a difficult time working the bolt, the results are still the same -- Ventura fired three REAL, LIVE bullets with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in just about exactly the same amount of time that Lee Oswald did on November 22, 1963.

This old "it's impossible" trick reminds me of a similar goof in Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which contains a scene that has Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) and one of his assistants making the claim that Oswald could not have done the shooting in under 6 seconds. But when actor Jay Sanders actually performed his shooting test with the camera rolling, what happened? He dry-fired three shots with a Carcano in 5.5 seconds! Ya gotta love it.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oliver-stone-blunder.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/five-point-six-seconds-myth.html

Ventura also resurrects the "Three Tramps" myth, pretending that the tramps were somehow involved in Kennedy's murder in some way, all the while ignoring the fact that the arrest records for the three tramps were discovered years ago, with the tramps turning out to be just that -- tramps.

And then there's the crap about George H.W. Bush possibly being photographed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

And we're also treated to a guest appearance by conspiracy quack Jim Marrs, who wants Ventura's audience to swallow the notion that Lee Oswald went to the Texas Theater to meet a "contact" on November 22nd, and then the rug was pulled out from under "patsy" Oswald in the theater as some unnamed co-plotter called the cops and had Oswald picked up.

Naturally, Marrs and Ventura will completely ignore the truth regarding Oswald's arrest. With the truth being: ordinary civilian witnesses Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal were the people who were directly responsible for Oswald being arrested in the Texas Theater, with Postal being the one who called the police shortly after Oswald sneaked into the theater without paying.

I think it's time to call "Mythbusters" after watching this Ventura propaganda piece.

Still More Crap:

Ventura decides to ignore the multiple witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit, with Jesse wondering why Oswald would have thrown down the shell casings at the Tippit murder scene. It was just "too pat", "too easy", and "too perfect", according to crack investigator Ventura, even though witnesses at the scene saw Oswald, HIMSELF, dumping the shells from his own gun as he fled the scene.

But it's best to ignore the best evidence if you're a conspiracy theorist like Jesse Ventura. And, as usual, Ventura does just that. He ignores all of the best evidence, in favor of rumor, speculation, and the conspiracy theories of people like Jim Marrs and James Fetzer. (God help Ventura's audience.)

And, of course, the proverbial "back and to the left" stuff is dragged out of the closet again too, with Ventura totally ignoring the fact that JFK's head initially moved FORWARD at the moment of the bullet's impact. Naturally, though, his audience is never told that fact.

In summary, Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" episode on the JFK assassination is one great-big steaming pile of recycled and rehashed conspiracy-flavored garbage.

David Von Pein

November 25, 2010

Was this based on the S.S. re-enactment or FBI timing of the shooting because theres a big difference between the two including a shot after the head shot?.

I think one must consider communication always. This is one reason HDH often comes to mind. (for me anyway). I think he must be viewed in the context of the testimony of PMG J.E. Day (and his successor) and the historical role of the USPO (not USPS). It was to him that the request that theUSPO participate in the covert (and illegal) mail opening campaigns a couple of weeks after starting work (afaik the campaign took off around '53.) came in the form of a meeting with top CIA as published in the later investigation of inteligence agencies>. Therfore while the USPO PI servide was a separate entity within the USPO this must have been transmitted to the head of the USPO PI department and as HDH said he was in constant contact with his superiors in Washington who therefore must have been in constant communication with someone. One thing I've yet to learn is exactly who was the USPO PI head?

John

Found this interesting maybe you will?.

Postal Reorganization Act

In May 1969, four months after he became a member of President Richard Nixon's Cabinet, Postmaster General Winton M. Blount proposed a basic reorganization of the Post Office Department. The President asked Congress to pass the Postal Service Act of 1963, calling for removal of the Postmaster General from the Cabinet and creation of a self-supporting postal corporation wholly owned by the federal government. On March 12, 1970, after extensive hearings, the House Post Office Committee reported a compromise measure containing postal reform provisions similar to those proposed by the President and providing a pay increase for postal employees, but postal employees called it "too little, too late." Six days later, a postal work stoppage began and ultimately involved approximately 152,000 postal employees in 671 locations. The Postmaster General agreed to negotiate with the seven exclusively recognized unions upon the employees' return to work. Consequently, the employees went back on the job, and negotiations began on March 25. On April 2, the negotiating parties announced they had agreed to recommend to Congress a general wage increase of six percent, retroactive to December 27, 1963, for all federal employees, plus an additional eight percent increase for postal workers that would take effect if the parties could agree on legislation reorganizing the Post Office Department and if the legislation could be enacted. Management and the unions agreed to develop jointly a reorganization plan and, on April 16, 1970, announced agreement on such a plan. The agreement was embodied in a legislative proposal and sent to Congress by President Nixon. The proposal included four basic provisions enunciated earlier by the Postmaster General as necessary to reform the postal system: adequate financing authority; removal of the system from politics, assuring continuity of management; collective bargaining between postal management and employees; and the Postal Service's setting rates after an opportunity for hearings before an impartial rate panel. In addition to the eight percent pay increase for postal employees, the bill provided for negotiation of a new wage schedule so employees could reach the maximum step in grade after no more than 8 years, instead of 21 years. On August 3, by a roll call vote of 57 to 7, the Senate approved the conference report on House Resolution 17070, a modified version of the legislation proposed by the President; three days later, the House of Representatives approved it. On August 12, 1970, President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic, Public Law 91-375.

One person he reminds me of is a more 'sophisticated' version of the guy who invented 'the Tague shot' who was killed in a shootout some time later.

John

I call these the facilitators they had or were of service in their own particular capacity and could not wait to "serve"

Usually just a jobsworth or busybody till called into "Action" .I would put Shelley in this catagory.

How's the weather down there? , Its cold and wet here,No change there.

Ian

On the lower left at this link, is the best resolution I can find, 3.3 mb file, originally posted on a thread on this forum. http://jfk.fotopic.net/c1259640.html

Next to it is a lower resolution, enlarged image, with an "x" at the end of the file name.

This is the best result I can manage from the 3.3 mb file, using Photoshop.:

Hi Tom.

Many of the scans on the fotopic site including that one, were taken from my image galleries.

That is why he has Credited me on his website.

NA013009.jpg was the original name given to it by Corbis, when i purchased the image and downloaded it.

unfortunately, that Corbis copy does not have a very good resolution near the doorway area, it is not as sharp as i would like it to be.

Cheers.

Robin.

Robin

Is it my eyes or does Lovelady have a deformed left shoulder .I can see a portly chap behind dark suit, hat and white shirt .

Ian

The whole "Mauser" business has been blown up to absurd levels by conspiracy theorists since 1963.

The fact is (and always was) that the police just simply goofed on 11/22/63 when multiple officers thought (incorrectly) that the rifle pulled from the box stacks on the sixth floor of the TSBD was a Mauser.

And both Eugene Boone and Seymour Weitzman have stated publicly that they were both in error regarding their respective initial "Mauser" identifications (and these retractions don't even count both Boone's and Weitzman's Warren Commision testimony, wherein they each corrected their initial "Mauser" mistake):

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN (ON CBS-TV IN JUNE 1967) -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."

EUGENE BOONE (IN 1986):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Addsk7GpnaA&p=974A39F551630434

Plus, I think it's also worth noting that the initial "Mauser" error was corrected in the media just a little more than 24 hours after the assassination, because I have the video of CBS-TV's Walter Cronkite announcing to the world on the afternoon of November 23rd that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was not a Mauser at all, but instead it was an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano (or, to use Cronkite's hilarious mispronunciation at the 4-minute mark of the video below -- a "Mann-lisher Car-CHANT-o"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrtLLQpA4uU&p=364F4A4B1BBC9DC6

And, btw, Bernice, there is no date on this article at all -- unless the "_68.jpg" at the tail end of your image file is supposed to signify the date--as in "1968". Is that the date you're talking about? And I have no idea where the SECOND date notation would be on that article. ~shrug~

Dave

Please tell me you are not playing the old "DUMB OLE DPD" card are you serious?.

Ian

Alright, here goes.

The URL for ctka is ctka.net

This is a link to Bill Kelly's new article on Mr.Leventhal, the State Department guy who runs the "disinformation clearinghouse" on conspiracies for the government.

His guidepost for the JFK case? Reclaiming History.

http://ctka.net/2010/Levanthal.html

Davdi Mantik's related article on Obama's buddy Cass Sunstein's piece telling the government to "cognitively infiltrate" conspiracy sites.

http://ctka.net/2010...k_sunstein.html

My update of Ray Marcus' classic monograph entitled The Bastard Bullet, which traces the incredible one day journey of whatever bullet was found at Parkland. It was not CE 399.

http://ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

What I consider the top five books on the RFK case

http://ctka.net/revi...fk_top_bks.html

What I consider the top five books on the MLK case

http://ctka.net/revi...lk_top_bks.html

Some upcoming articles and reviews: David Mantik on the work of Doug Horne and Don Thomas, Gary Aguilar on Doug Horne, Joe Green on Philip Nelson's book on LBJ, Martin Hay on the book Head Shot, David Williams on Robert Oswald, Jim DiEugenio's two concluding installments on Reclaiming History, an excerpt from Mitchell Warriner's book on Jim Garrison.

Thanks for posting my article Jim,

And for posting so many other good reserachers and critics of the official party line and reviews of books that cover both sides.

It's a shame DVP doesn't read conspiracy books, or we could have an intelligent conversation with him.

Bill Kelly

Bill

I read the levanthal Piece and now that the page has been suspended maybe he is writing part 2 as we speak informing us how to deal with part 1 The disinformation.I personally find it strange that a government would have such a department and also inform us it has such a department what would Winston Smith have made of this ?.

Ian

You have the morals of a bottom feeder...

David! Stop eating Lee!

Dave only eats chicken that he has slaughtered himself

The old channel is gone thanks to the CIA-backed lone nut cases. It took them 3 years to do it, but they got it done. My response is to create a new channel that will be better by dealing exclusively with the assassination. I am adding some of the old videos and some new ones to boot. If anyone has any favorites, please let me know and I'll try to do those first. Compilation videos will take longer as I will have to search through the sources and piece them together.

Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/JFK63Conspiracy

Gil

Thanks for taking the time .Bookmarking it now.

Ian

The King drove right into the Pawn's domain - Pawn Takes King, no check, just checkmate. It's the King's move, not the Pawn's that counts.

The fact that JFK came to Oswald made it too irresistible for LHO. No way he could pass up that golden chance. The assassination was served up to Ozzie on a silver platter.

Conspiracy theorists, though, think it was a fake or contrived silver platter, designed to frame the pawn (Oswald).

But what most CTers never talk about is the fact that their "pawn" named Oswald had murder flowing through his very own veins as surely as night follows day--and the Walker shooting is proof of that fact.

It's much better, however, for the conspiracists to ignore or distort the Walker shooting. Because if they start analyzing the true inner character of their so-called patsy, they'd begin to realize that Oswald had it within HIMSELF to kill people with rifles in 1963.

And that type of realization makes it much, much more difficult to treat Lee Oswald as a mere bystander (or "pawn" or "patsy") to the events of November 22nd.

Dave

So why did he not kill anyone in 1962 or 61 or 59 or at any other time?.Nobody would have missed another Russian surely.And if you are convinced he took a shot at Walker why was he not on some "dangerous individual list"to alert the authorities to possible murderous nuts in the vicinity of the President and entourage?.

Ian

Terry, I suspect Frankie means Marina Oswald, as a mother, but I think you know that?

_______

Just to add to the previous post, when one talks about a persons worth, that refers to unencumbered monies. This is usually accompanied with money flows and often there are ''hidden'' assets for tax minimisation purposes, so the 4 million and the startup capital in toto could be considerable higher.

I think one needs to look back further still.

No I didnt that was a mistake on my part. Were talking about the Kennedy family and there was a reference to Marina. My mistake.

What's the point discussing "old money" versus "new money".It's irrelevant! The real question is who are the sponsors behind the Kennedy political dynasty?

Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger involved with Meyer Lansky and the Bronfman gang. He got the distribution rights to Dewars, Haig, etc. from the British. His acquisition of RKO studios also came from British aristocracy. Then the old boy married his daughter into the "Cecil" family. You can't find a more oligarchical clan then the Cecil's.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850493,00.html

You have Robert Morrow blabbing about the "CIA" Mockingbird operation totally oblivious to the fact that Lazard had purchased the Washington Post back in the mid 1930's while they were also the trustee's of the Kennedy family fortune.

And keep in mind it was a fortune derived from criminal activity.

The irony of this entire mess is amazing.

The same interests that groomed the Kennedy family, cleaned them up and presented them as this liberal wonderkin were also the very same people that pulled the plug. That engineered the assassination(s).

Look at this. The Skybolt Missile Crsis. It is but one indication of the breach between Kennedy and the British. JFK was breaking with the "Special Relationship" in favor of an FDR approach.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55664/philip-zelikow/report-to-jfk-the-skybolt-crisis-in-perspective

Terry

Most "Kings " do not become so by employing diplomacy and tact .It is usually thier sword (metaphorically) that cements thier fate .The diplomacy and tact comes from those they employ to smooth the politicains and placate the masses.The Kennedy dynasty were very outward looking , Young and handsome with a family appeal ,Thats what made the crime so abhorent to many.Not just a life cut short it was the whole family that suffered and America along with it .IOW if a"Bush" was shot how many would grieve?. Do you think the U.S. would suffer the same amount of loss as with JFK?.

Ian

Bobby was coming apart at the seams after the death of his brother.But rallied later on when going for the presidency.this being cut short by the same horror .Teddy had his hands tied by chappaquidick(which I think was an attempt on him)Then just to put a cap on it John Junior dies in a suspicious way .I believe the family that was left made a decision to accept defeat and leave things well alone .Here in the U.K. we have the Guinness family another very rich but unforunate family who suffered tragedy after tragedy they now seem to just shrunk back into the countryside and live peacefully .Our own royal family has suffered through terrorism but as they are the face of the country they maintain the stiff upper lip and carry on I guess this is what dynasties do they survive maybe one day to attempt to put right the wrongs of the past.

Ian, I used irfranview (free download) to extract the frames. I can't say for sure but I think all fingers are there, intact.

John

Thanks for replying .I use a Mac and will have to find a piece of freeware to do this myself .

I am looking for a chap named Gator who lost 1 or 2 fingers who was supposedly on the plane with Plumlee and his

assassination "abort " Team .I was led to believe that DCM was Fillipe Vidal Santiago and Umbrella man Was possibly

a man called Roy Hargeaves apparently they had a few "missions" under thier belts together.I can't go for the DeWitt evidence as this would indicate alteration of the Zfilm, DeWitt says he was messing with his umbrella while it all happened and the Zfilm clearly shows this to be untrue.And the excuse for the umbrella seems to me uneasy their must have been many up to date slogans the guy could have put on a placard to embaress JFK and he picks something from the war years when the U.S.A. and U.K were much closer allies.this does not make a lot of sense to me .Hows the weather in Oz?

Ian

Thank you, Martin.

Ok I can see similar ''cracks'' later in that gif in places where they can't be so, so logically I tend to lean towards your and Davids suggestion they are anomalies, probably explained as streaks on the glass or on the film itself. I think that clears it up. Again, thank you.

Martin/John

Can you see if the DCM has any fingers missing on this blow up. Thats the clearest I have seen a copy but I cannot freeze it to see clearly .Thanks

Ian

Jim

This latest gif graphically shows so much more than just a static shot .The guy in the middle of the 3 on the stairs reminds me of Fritz in the basement when Oswald got it Frozen like he was waiting for it.DVP also mentions in one post that if we Totalled the number of people said to be involved in a conspiracy it would be akin to the cast of Ben Hur.

So for balance how many would have been involved had the investigation been legal i.e. Autopsy performed in Dallas ,The evidence from the limo Had it remained in Dallas.Also in a legal investigation most of the top brass Miltary intel,CIA,FBI and DPD Would have been involved anyway its just that the evidence they produced would have been seen by more people and Hoover would not have had the ability to Filter the evidence to the Justice Dept like he did with the W.C. IOW The Chances of the real killers being exposed is much higher as there is less control over the evidence and even with the press in tow Those leaks would have been at least contained within the evidence and many more snippets would have been gained for the public.My opinion is that a legal investigation was not an option and the sloppy way the paperwork was put together on the rifle/Oswald would have been exposed much earlier.But there would still be many many more people involved in a legal investigation than were involved in the conspiracy and cover up put together.

Ian

In my research of the CIA Catherwood Fund in Philadelphia, I found a CIA officer - E. Wharton Shober - who was head of ATEC - a Chicago based printing company that sold printing presses in Latin America - and then he became head of Hannamen Hospital in Philadelphia, which had US Army research contracts. Shober was also co-director of the Cuban Aid Relief -CAR - a Philadelphia based CIA cuban operation that assisted anti-Batista professionals who fled Cuba.

Shober was very tight with the Somozas - visited them often - and brought them to USA.

While Shober was head of the hospital - he arranged for Anastasio Somoza to receive an honorary degree - over the protesting objections of the medical school faculity and students.

When he finally left Philadelphia Shober was last known to be running a hospital in Saudi Arabia, but then I lost track of him.

I think he may have been Somoza's CIA case officer.

Any info on E. Wharton Shober would be appreciated.

BK

Bill, prior to Hahnemann, every single business venture he was involved in failed - yet he simultaneously amassed a fortune and decided to turn his attention to "philanthropy". He actually took the job at Hahnamann without pay.

The research contract I think you're alluding to (there were a few) dealt with an experimental program for addicts. It was an unmitigated catastrophe... but had the outward appearance of success via carefully orchestrated deceptions.

In the late 70s, he was indicted for bribery, and banking and mail fraud -- eventually beating all charges. This involved Federal grants obtained with assistance from Reps Flood and Eilberg. Flood was forced out of office as a result. Eilberg got 5 years after pleading guilty to conflict of interest charges and Shober got off clean.

He moved to England after Saudi Arabia and he and his wife started a computer training business in which he promotes himself as the President of a medical college - something I have not been able to confirm as true - and hard to believe given his history at Hahnamann. The couple also has as a company called Allergy Technology Ltd (they have one or two patents concerning such things as eliminating dust mites).

In recent years, he has written a novel loosely based on his experiences in Saudi Arabia. This is available through Lulu online.

Greg, according to the Web site JR linked us to, it is curious how short "Wharton Shober" what happened to the "E." - Wharton is not a first name - his ancstor's last name, -

and how he avoids mentioning Philadelphia - his hometown - that his wife mentions in her bio.

"Emeritus Honorman Medical College" doesn't exist - that is a purposely misspelling of Hahnamann - a very well known and respected school/hosptial that survived his presidency.

It seems by dropping his first name/initial and fudging his background he is trying to avoid his past, or at least keeping those who are uninformed from being able to discover it.

Now look who's backing him financially : The Drapers Company, Peter de Hann Trust, Colyer-Ferguson Charitable Trusts, Garfield Weston Fund, W.P. Carey Fund, Allan Willet Fund, Loyds TBS, the HBOS and Tudor Trust.

Their fellow Trustee William Curran does work for a real school - IUSS London, and has a background in Nuke Security.

Lets see, should my first question to E. Wharton Shober be "Are you still working for the CIA?" or "Were you Anastasio Somoza's CIA case officer in '63, and if so do you know about the Alvarado incident?"

BK

Bill

Lloyds TSB is an old English bank who recently bought out HBOS

A bit of background

Lloyds TSB History

Lloyds Bank was founded as the private bank of Taylors & Lloyds in Birmingham in June 1765. For nearly 100 years it prospered from a single Birmingham office.

Changes in legislation and a need for increased capital led the firm to convert to joint-stock status in 1865. This resulted in an explosion of growth and the first of many take-overs.

In the 1880s Lloyds, turned its attention to London. In 1884 it absorbed the Lombard Street bank of Barnetts, Hoares, Hanbury & Lloyd. This marked the beginning of the bank’s association with the famous black horse; Barnetts, Hoares & Co. had inherited the symbol, which had originally been used by a Lombard Street goldsmith as early as 1677.

The first half of the 20th century saw the bank's expansion overseas, including continental Europe, South America and India. Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society joined the group in 1995

The savings bank movement started in 1810, when the Reverend Henry Duncan opened the first self supporting savings bank in Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire. The movement aimed to persuading the poor to save. The savings banks were independent of each other, until they united in the 1970s and amalgamated into regional institutions. This was followed, in 1986, by flotation on the stock exchange and the creation of TSB Group plc.

Lloyds Bank and TSB Group plc merged in 1995 to form Lloyds TSB. The new group took over Scottish Widows in 2000.

Further information

Our Group Archives department has an extensive archive of Lloyds TSB material.

For more information, please contact: group.archives@lloydstsb.co.uk

Lloyds Banking Group Archives

2nd Floor, 48 Chiswell Street

London

EC1Y 4XX

Executive Directors

Sir Winfried Bischoff: Chairman J Eric Daniels: Group Chief Executive

Lord Leitch: Deputy Chairman Archie G Kane: Group Executive Director, Insurance

Sir Julian Horn-Smith G Truett Tate: Group Executive Director, Wholesale

Glen R Moreno Tim J W Tookey: Group Finance Director

David L Roberts Helen A Weir CBE: Group Executive Director, Retail

T Timothy Ryan, Jr

Martin A Scicluna

Anthony Watson CBE

Ian

Who cares what the CFR says or does not say?

What is the point of this thread?

I dont see one

Dean

Its all background and associations ( who can I call on for a favour knowing or unknowing) Remember you start outside a maze to get to the heart.

Ian

Here's a picture of the blond Oswald, photographed in Mexico. It doesn't look like Harvey or Lee. The picture, to me, depicts a slight man with a blond toupee -- like Andy Warhol used to wear. Did the Embassies really think that was real hair? I don't know who first posted this photo, but I found it in my picture archives.

Does anyone know anything more about this Blond Oswald?

Kathy Collins

Kathy

The person reminds me of DeWitt too or maybe Roy Hargreaves.

Ian

Personally, I don't see a strong resemblance.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/jfk-assassins-lookalike-has-no-plans-to-become-910558.html

I don't see it either.

Me either. I saw it in today's paper and the only interesting thing in the video part is the last line when he says he does not believe Oswald did it. Wonder how this got started. Kelso does humor.....

Dawn

Maybe Alfred E. Neuman.

Jack

Jack

What me worry?.Maybe they should sit this guy in the front row at Obamas next press conference?.

Ian