Ian Kingsbury
-
Posts
489 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ian Kingsbury
-
-
If you read down to the quote box displaying page 10 of AJ Weberman's "Nodule 9", it will help explain why I
am posting this. I was reading through the Nodule looking for information unrelated to this post. I got interested
in the excerpts I've posted here, and then I noticed that Mr. Weberman was still researching this, in 2010, so I
figure if it was important enough for him to be spending time on it, maybe it was for me, also. I did some searching
where he said he had reached dead ends, and I came up with this. If Joan Mellen was correct, this USAF general was
the brother-in-law of Gerry P. Hemming's uncle, Robert.
http://www.af.mil/in....asp?bioID=4766MAJOR GENERAL DAVID D. BRADBURN
Retired Aug. 1, 1976. Died Oct. 18, 2008.
Major General David D. Bradburn is vice commander of the Electronic Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command, at L.G. Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass.
General Bradburn was born in Hollywood, Calif., in 1925, and graduated from high school in South Pasadena, Calif., in 1942...
...In May 1948 General Bradburn went to Japan, where he served as a fighter intercept controller with the 610th Aircraft Control and Warning Squadron at Kyushu until July 1949. He then joined the 3d Bombardment Group at Yokota Air Base, and later at Iwakuni Air Base. He flew 50 combat missions in B-26s over North Korea as flight commander on daylight medium-level bombing, close-support and night-intruder missions.
In December 1952 General Bradburn was assigned as a staff officer, Headquarters Air Research and Development Command, Baltimore, Md., where he worked on aerial reconnaissance equipment (photo, radar) and ground radar (forerunner of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. He led the site selection team that picked Trinidad for the prototype BREWS radar.
In May 1957 General Bradburn was picked for assignment to WS117L, the first U.S. Air Force satellite project office, with duty at Western Development Division, ARDC, Los Angeles, Calif. This began a series of assignments of increasing responsibility in the field of military applications of earth satellites.
In December 1960 he was assigned to the Directorate of Special Projects, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, also in Los Angeles, first as a staff officer and later as manager of a space satellite program.
In August 1966, after attending the Air War College and receiving his master of science degree at The George Washington University, General Bradburn returned to the Directorate of Special Projects, Los Angeles, where he remained until April 1971 as deputy director and manager of a group of military space programs.
From April 1971 until January 1973 he was assigned as director of the Office of Space Systems, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, D.C.
He returned to the Directorate of Special Projects again in January 1973, this time to serve as the director, with additional duty as deputy commander for satellite programs of the Space and Missile Systems Organization.
General Bradburn reported to his present position in August 1975. ...
http://webcache.goog...n&ct=clnk&gl=us
Page 1
NODULE X9
GERALD PATRICK HEMMING
THE MAN WHO WROTE THE OSWALD SCENARIO
by AJ Weberman
...HEMMING hinted at his friendship with OSWALD:
I had run into him before, he came to Subic Bay, I didn't know who the hell
he was. He saw me. I didn't know him. I visited the radar sites. He was
with a group of people. I didn't much pay attention to him. I might even
Page 6
have drank beer with him and not even remember it. Or at chow he might
have been with a group of people driving from his unit over to the chow
hall that could have overheard numerous conversations and sat there. In
the Marine Corps when you are sent overseas to an outfit, you are sent on
a draft. Usually when you are on a draft, you're not a critical MOS guy. A
guy that may have been OSWALD came through on a draft and then
stopped over in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii and attempted to switch jobs from
this draft with our radar people. He'd rather have not gone to Japan. If the
man dealt with me there it was over a sandwich or a cup of coffee or some
such xxxx. I was busier than a son-of-a-bitch. Now if it was in Iwakuni...
HEMMING told the HSCA he flew to Atsugi three times, but never saw OSWALD.
According to Scott Malone, OSWALD and HEMMING could have met when they were
both in Iwakuni, Japan. HEMMING told his children at he was barely acquainted with
OSWALD at Atsugi...
More from "Nodule 9" by AJ Weberman
http://webcache.goog...n&ct=clnk&gl=usPage 10
....HEMMING'S UNCLE, ART SIMPSON
HEMMING stated his entre into the intelligence community was through his uncle, Art
Simpson, the brother of his mother, Catharine Ellen Simpson. HEMMING told this
researcher: "He knew John McCone, who was involved with my uncle, Art Simpson.
Simpson was one of the un-indicted co-conspirators in John McCone's war profiteering
trial. He was found innocent." There was no trial.
Born into a prosperous San Francisco family on January 4, 1902, John McCone was a
steel company executive until 1937, when he formed the Bechtel-McCone-Parsons
Corporation. This company specialized in the design and construction of petroleum
refineries for installation in South America and the Middle East. In 1939 John McCone
entered the ship-building business; in 1946, Ralph E. Casey, an investigator for the
Government Accounting Office leveled accusations of profiteering against him, and
John McCone was called before the House Merchant Marine Committee. McCone was
president of the California Shipbuilding Corporation, which was accused by the
Government Accounting Office of having made $44 million in profits from an investment
of $600,000. "Calship" was owned by Henry J. Kaiser. Henry J. Kaiser was in
partnership with Howard Hughes during the war. [Robert Maheu, Next to Hughes, 1992,
Harper Collins p133] Kaiser and McCone made convincing arguments, and the matter
went no further. They were not indicted. The name "Simpson" was absent from the
articles about these hearings. [NYT 9.26.46; Newsweek 10.7.46 p37; Wash. Post
9.26.46; Ross & Wise Invisible Government p193] After the war, John McCone
purchased a million-dollar interest in Standard Oil of California which was owned by the
Rockefeller family. McCone became a member of President Truman's Air Policy
Commission in 1947 and in 1948 he became special deputy to James Forrestal, the
Secretary of Defense. In 1956 John McCone stated: "The uninformed believe that
radioactive fallout from H-bomb tests endangers life." In 1958 he became chairman of
Page 11
the Atomic Energy Commission. He was an avid supporter of the Dulles brothers and a
devout Roman Catholic. On September 27, 1961, President John F. Kennedy
announced the appointment of John McCone as Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency....
....On HEMMING'S application for CIA employment he listed this financial reference:
"Haisa-Pacific Inc., Art Simpson (President)." HEMMING told this researcher: "That was
the Asia Pacific Foundation. Simpson was on the board. It was a proprietary."
It was not the Asia Foundation, an organization that was funded by CIA. In 2010 I
located an Asia Pacific Capital Advisors (213) 680-8811 345 S Figueroa Street Los
Angeles, CA 90071. The Asia Society is located 350 S Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA
90071 (213) 613-9934 The CIA worked the Rockefeller Foundation, and established
numerous "bogus" foundations to "hide" its funding of the Asia Society and other
NGO's. Robert Hemming confirmed that his uncle, "Art" Simpson, was a partner with
John McCone in Cal-Ship in San Pedro. HEMMING was telling the truth despite the fact
I cannot locate any relevant traces on Art Simpson....
Well, Mr. Weberman, I can locate relevant traces of both Art and Robert Simpson, and so I have put together this
post.
http://www.google.co...l=&oq=&gs_rfai=A farewell to justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's assassination, and the ...
Joan Mellen - 2005 - 547 pages - Snippet view
He added that Hemming "could have been" CIA because "he had the connections," as he revealed his knowledge that Gerald Patrick Hemming had two uncles, Robert and Art Simpson, who had been shipbuilding partners with John McCone during ...
The quote above from Joan Mellen's book is not the "relevant traces" I was referring to. I've located the uncle Art Simpson trial details AJ Weberman said do not exist, and I will post them shortly if there is interest in this post. Aren't the details in the resume of this USAF Maj. General a little too similar to the ones described by Weberman related to Hemming and Oswald to be dismissed as mere coincidence?
Bring it on!
Bill
Hemming suggests other times he met Oswald,Ferrie and Ruby in connection with selling jeeps to the cubans .
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/unpub_testimony/Hemming_3-21-78/html/Hemming_0006a.htm
I myself do not know the validity of these claims but if someone could point me in the general direction I will have a good look through so to speak.
Ian
-
In the profile of DPD officer Paul K. Wilkins in the Dealey Plaza Echos that was just posted at MF - he mentions that he was one of the first car patrol officers to arrive at the TSBD.
Parking his patrol car outside the front door, Wilkins says he went up the back steps to the Sixth Floor and saw a lot of officers from a number of different departments and agencies, including the DPD and Sheriff's Department, but also mentions "a couple of officers from the Games Management Agency."
Who were these guys?
Do we know who from the Texas Game Commission were on the Sixth Floor and whether they wrote a report on their activities there?
This must be the Texas Game Commission.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/TT/mdttk.htmlTEXAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION. The idea of managing the state's wildlife resources developed over several decades in the latter half of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries. As the state's human population began to increase, especially after the arrival of the first railroads in the 1850s, the wildlife population began to decline. The state's first effort to regulate hunting occurred 1861, when the legislature established a two-year closed season on quail. Fishing regulations, in the form of restrictions on coastal seining and netting, were instituted in 1874. In 1879 the legislature established the office of Fish Commissioner to enforce such regulations; the office was abolished five years later because of intense controversy surrounding the introduction of German carp to Texas waterways . In 1883 130 counties in Texas claimed exemption from all game laws. By 1895, however, it had become clear that some regulatory office was needed to control the depletion caused by overfishing; in response to this need the legislature established the office of Fish and Oyster Commissioner. In 1907 the legislature also gave the commissioner the responsibility for hunting regulations, and the name of the office was changed to Game, Fish, and Oyster Commissioner. The first hunting licenses were sold in 1909. In 1919 the state had only six game wardens to enforce regulations, and many counties continued to claim exemptions; the number of wardens was increased to forty-five by 1923 and to eighty by 1928. In the 1920s the commissioner's office began developing extensive fish hatcheries in order to supplement the dwindling natural supply of fish; restocking of deer and releases of nilgai antelope began in the late 1920s and early 1930s. In 1929 the duties of the commissioner were transferred to a board-called the Game, Fish, and Oyster Commission-which was composed of six members, appointed by the governor for overlapping six-year terms. The commission appointed an executive secretary, who acted as chief executive officer. With the commission format, the agency had more stable leadership than the earlier single-commissioner style did, and as a result it became more consistent in its policy-making and enforcement. The major duties of the commission were to enforce the laws of the state pertaining to birds, game, fur-bearing animals, fish, and marine life; to issue hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses; to proclaim open seasons and bag limits on various types of game and fish; to operate fish hatcheries; to administer game preserves; to supervise the oyster beds of the state; to control the sand, shell, and gravel in the state's public waters; and to inform the public about the state's wildlife resources. In 1942 the commission began publishing Texas Game and Fish magazine, and in 1946 it began a statewide conservation education program. In 1951 the legislature expanded the commission to nine members and removed the term "oyster" from the commission's name. In 1958 the commission controlled hunting and fishing regulations in eighty counties; by 1962 hunting and fishing activities in 129 counties were under full or partial control of the commission's regulatory authority. The Texas Game and Fish Commission merged with the State Parks Board in 1963 to form the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ed H. Ferguson, Jr., Ellen Schmidt, and Shirley Ratisseau Sweeney, "Let's Get Acquainted," Texas Game and Fish, October 1954-June 1955. Texas Parks and Wildlife Conservation Chronicle (Austin: Texas Parks and Wildlife, 1990).
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/20151/tsl-20151.html
Texas Game and Fish Commission:
An Inventory of Game and Fish Commission Records at the Texas State Archives, 1896, 1899-1969, 1976, bulk 1928-1963
Overview
Creator:Texas. Game and Fish Commission.Title:Game and Fish Commission recordsDates:1896, 1899-1969, 1976Dates: bulk 1928-1963Abstract:The Texas Game and Fish Commission managed wildlife, fish, and marine resources and sanctuaries; conducted research and gathered information on Texas fish and game; promoted preservation efforts; regulated hunting and fishing activities; enforced game laws; educated the public about conservation and environmental issues; controlled the sand, shell, and gravel in Texas waters; and oversaw the operations of fish hatcheries, game preserves, and oyster beds throughout Texas until its merger with the Texas State Parks Board to form the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in 1963. Types of records consist of minutes, correspondence, various reports, clippings and other printed materials, news releases, memoranda, proclamations, petitions, legislative information, maps, and photographs. These records cover the Texas Game and Fish Commission's administrative activities, finances and operations, educational material, wildlife research and findings, and federal aid to wildlife project reports. The records date 1896, 1899-1969, 1976, bulk 1928-1963.Quantity:21.5 cubic ft.Language:These materials are written in English.Repository: Texas State Archives
Agency History
The Texas Game and Fish Commission managed wildlife, fish, and marine resources and sanctuaries; conducted research and gathered information on Texas' fish and game; promoted preservation efforts; regulated hunting activities and enforced game laws; educated the public about conservation and environmental issues; controlled the sand, shell, and gravel in Texas' waters; and oversaw the operations of fish hatcheries, game preserves, and oyster beds throughout Texas until its merger with the Texas State Parks Board to form the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in 1963 (House Bill 21, 58th Legislature, Regular Session). The Texas Game and Fish Commission traces its history back to early government conservation efforts during the late 1870s. Charged with monitoring compliance to fish preservation legislation, the Texas Office of the Fish Commissioner was established in 1879 (Chapter 78, 17th Legislature, Regular Session) and lasted until 1885. In 1895 the Legislature (House Bill 55, 24th Legislature, Regular Session) authorized the creation of the Office of the Fish and Oyster Commissioner. Early duties included protecting marine life and oyster beds along Texas bays and coastal waters.
Due to growing concerns over regulating hunting and preserving wild game, a game department was added in 1907 (House Bill 379, 30th Legislature, Regular Session) and the office was renamed the Texas Office of Game, Fish, and Oyster Commissioner. This department was designated to issue hunting licenses with the idea that the department would sell enough licenses to absorb its operating costs. During 1909, the year the first hunting license law was passed in Texas, the department sold five thousand licenses. Throughout the 1910s and 1920s the Office of the Fish and Oyster Commissioner continued its conservation efforts with projects focusing on gathering specimens of native birds, promoting awareness of growing pollution problems, and exploring water sewage issues. The department grew considerably in 1923 (House Bill 85, 38th Legislature, 3rd Called Session) when the game fund was turned over to the agency (instead of remaining under the Legislature's control) and forty-five game wardens were hired. This development made the enforcement of game laws possible, and two years later the activities of the Commissioner expanded further when fish hatchery construction resumed and game sanctuaries were created. Along with these activities came a new emphasis on public education and awareness of environmental issues, and the Division of Education, Publicity, and Research was formed in 1926 to oversee publications and establish a relationship with the press.
In 1929 the Legislature (Senate Bill 83, 41st Legislature, Regular Session) eliminated the Office of the Fish and Oyster Commissioner and, in its place, created the Texas Game, Fish, and Oyster Commission. Composed of six members appointed by the governor with six-year overlapping terms, the Commission held regular quarterly meetings as well as special session meetings around the state every year. William J. Tucker was appointed the first Executive Secretary of the Commission and A.E. Wood its first Chairman. The Commission handled written and personal requests on designating areas as land preserves and changes in game laws and regulations. The Commission also made decisions about fish hatchery, oyster, and predatory animal control activities, and instituted departmental policies and reviewed departmental projects. With the 1930s came increased rebuilding of fish hatcheries and growth in the killings of predatory animals, though the Great Depression and ensuing dwindling financial resources forced the Commission to conduct departmental salary reductions and layoffs. Despite the influx of federal relief funds during the early 1930s, in 1933 the number of game wardens was reduced from one hundred twenty-five to sixty-five. Educational and research efforts continued to increase, however, and in 1935 the Texas Wildlife Research Unit was established at Texas A&M and a game warden's school was created at Texas A&M in 1946. Public outreach continued to grow as well during the 1940s, and the Commission conducted radio programs and produced a number of educational films. The Commission also replaced its monthly bulletin with Texas Game and Fish magazine, published monthly and reaching over six thousand subscribers.
In 1951 (Senate Bill 463, 52nd Legislature, Regular Session), the Commission was renamed as the Texas Game and Fish Commission and the number of commissioners was increased from six to nine. During the 1950s the Commission was organized into seven divisions. The Administrative Division handled office operations and accounting and fiscal matters; the Law Enforcement Division enforced the Commission's laws and regulations relating to game, fishing, and pollution; the Education and Publications Division produced Texas Game and Fish magazine, published educational materials, housed a library of wildlife films, and oversaw conservation courses at the university level; the Wildlife Restoration Division, in partnership with the United States Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act, oversaw the Commission's projects that focused on researching restoration of wildlife; the Marine Fisheries Division managed and researched the gulf coast's marine resources; the Inland Fisheries Division monitored fish hatchery operations and conducted research and management projects; and the Sand, Shell, and Gravel Division administered the sale of sand, shell, and gravel from public waters to businesses and its distribution to the State Highway Department for use in constructing highways. By 1961 the Game and Fish Commission had been reorganized into three major divisions with five regional headquarters and twenty district headquarters, and consisted of over six hundred employees. Two years later, in 1963, the Commission merged with the Texas State Parks Board to form the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (House Bill 21, 58th Legislature, Regular Session).
Bill
The only thing that springs to mind is an endangered species(The Patsy) under threat.But this would mean foreknowledge of Oswalds Imminent demise.
Ian
-
BTW, when I constantly say "ABO" or Anybody But Oswald, I'm referring to the people who truly think Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy AND didn't shoot Tippit either.
Dave, the Warren Commission tells us that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy or Tippit.
Lee
You cannot let facts like this get in the way of a good trolling .Dave lives in 1964 .and will support Gary Mack as long as they are on the same team.If Gary Mack ever leaves the sixth floor suppository we may see a change of view.
Ian
-
Ian,
Why not try following the ACTUAL EVIDENCE in the case to where it leads sometime, instead of following the pack of Anybody-But-Oswald evidence-manglers?
And if there was ever a case where the ACTUAL EVIDENCE has been mangled and misrepresented beyond all tolerance by conspiracy theorists, it's certainly the JFK/Tippit case.
Heavens to Murgatroyd--some people in this forum are actually suggesting Oswald never sent in EITHER one of his order forms for the rifle and revolver!
The people who suggest such a ridiculous thing must certainly realize that they have to say that KLEIN'S in Chicago is "in" on a plot to frame Oswald too. The CTers who take this stand have no choice BUT to believe the Klein's people are conspirators, because the Klein's records indicate that they received an order from HIDELL in March '63 and they shipped a rifle to HIDELL in March '63.
I wonder how the WC got William Waldman to tell lie after lie about KLEIN'S OWN RECORDS regarding the sale of Rifle C2766 to HIDELL?
And the same type of allegations of misconduct have to be directed toward Seaport Traders too, because Seaport has records of THEIR OWN that indicate they received a mail order from HIDELL for a revolver and that they mailed Revolver V510210 to HIDELL at OSWALD'S Dallas post office box.
According to these silly conspiracists who think Oswald never even ordered his guns, there is evidently no end to the number of people that the police and/or Warren Commission were able to get to tell lie after lie in their never-ending desire to paint Lee Oswald as the murderer of both JFK and J.D. Tippit.
Dave
O.K. you got me just show me the order for the 40" rifle and I and many others will disappear.
Ian
-
The guy Myers quoted did not even testify to the WC.
LOL. So what?
It's still a quote from the REA VP.
Davey, did the WC call anyone who worked at the REA office in Dallas to the stand? If not, why not?Probably because the Warren Commission knew that the question of "How Did LHO Pick Up His Revolver?" was merely a side/peripheral matter (at best).
IOW--Who cares how he got the gun? The WC knew for a FACT that Revolver V510210 was Oswald's gun and that that same gun was in Oswald's hands at 1:50 PM on Nov. 22 and that that same gun was the gun that killed Tippit.
Case closed on this issue. And it doesn't make a damn bit of difference which precise method was utilized by Oswald to obtain that gun in March. And it also doesn't make a bit of difference WHERE and WHEN he purchased the four bullets that he pumped into Tippit's body with that V510210 revolver.
Only in the world of "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy mongers is such trivial information the slightest bit important. But to reasonable people--no.
Dave
If Ruby had'nt shot him you would have been waiting outside with a rope and a posse of L/N's. Innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I would bet money you own a white Stetson?.
Ian
-
Reading your posts is a total waste of time
Responding to them is also a total waste of time. I'm responding to the responders just to ask why they're responding. What's the point? Shouldn't CTs be totally immune to this kind of ad hominem garbage (we're all just a bunch of irrational idiots) by now?
Ron
I agree some targets are just too easy .Perhaps I look for the humanity in people and do not like to leave topics with a bad taste .But point taken.
Ian
-
There is a major problem with conspiracy theorists, which is very well illustrated by this little story :
A psychiatrist was consulted by a patient with a very peculiar delusion. He was convinced that he was dead, and nothing could be done to dissuade him of this. The psychiatrist tried to reason with him. "Tell me", he said, "do dead men bleed ? " "No, of course not ! " cried the patient. "That is a stupid question ! " The psychiatrist pricked the man’s finger with a needle, and a drop of blood appeared. "And what do you conclude from that ? " asked the psychiatrist. The patient paused for a few seconds to examine the wound. "Obviously I was wrong", he murmured quietly. "Dead men do bleed…"
Just like the patient in this story, conspiracy theorists are so enclosed in their world of make-believe, that there is absolutely nothing a reasonable person can say to help them see things differently.
That's very sad.
But even sadder is the fact that conspiracy theorists would stop at nothing to claim their beliefs. They dare DENY anything. They deny reality, and that doesn't bother them.
Jack White denies that Americans went to the moon in 1969.
Jim Fetzer denies that an American Airlines plane crashed into the Pentagon in 2001.
And yesterday, Jim DiEugenio tried to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald ever owned a rifle !!!
It's so easy : denying the obvious facts will allow you to display any belief. Indeed if you deny reality, then you have an open field, and you are free to tell whatever story pleases your own beliefs.
That's bad !
And my experience in this forum showed me that conspiracy theorists NEVER answer the simplest questions.
When I asked if anybody had read the critical-thinking books I listed, NOBODY answered, because NOBODY had read them, but they were ashamed to admit it.
Nonetheless, that is a very serious matter. How can they hope to sort things out if they do not have the tools for that ?
I can think of an analogy.
Conspiracy theorists have bricks. Some one them have lots and lots of bricks. But they don't have the mortar to build a wall, so they end up standing in front of a huge pile of bricks, but they are still outside in the cold.
A reasonable person has as many bricks, but like a mason or bricklayer, he has the mortar, so he can build a wall, so he'll be able to build a house and spend the winter in the warmth of his home.
That's a good image.
Here, bricks are books, and mortar is critical thinking.
Without critical-thinking skills, conspiracy theorists are unable to sort things out, they do not know what to do with the evidence. They fly to hundreds of directions. It's a mess.
Some of them say the body was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Zapruder film was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Cubans did it, when others say no, some of them say Johnson did it, when others say no, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Anybody can say anything. Everybody is right.
Boy, John Kennedy must have been assassinated a hundred times !! It must have been very painful to him !
But as I said more than ten years ago, conspiracy theorists are in the business of ASKING questions, not ANSWERING them. I can understand : it is way easier….
(They are also in the business of ACCUSING people. When Jim Fetzer accuses some members the New York Fire Department of having something to do with 09/11, or when others accuse President Johnson, I want to vomit.)
For instance, these are very embarrassing questions for them (among many others) :
Why is it that Robert Groden, a very well-known conspiracy theorist doesn't believe that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is he dumb ? Does he work for the CIA ? Has he been paid to tell a false story ? Or is the Zapruder film authentic after all ? In that case, is Jim Fetzer wrong ? But if he is wrong, how come he has published anthologies that he claims "prove beyond any doubt" that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is Fetzer stupid ? Is Mantik wrong too ? Then is he wrong in his claims about the medical evidence ? How come Fetzer and his friends have managed to "prove" something that never existed in the first place (an alteration of the film) ? Can it be that some people can write conspiracy books that lead nowhere ?
Who is right ?
And why can't James DiEugenio give us a clear-cut answer as to whether the Zapruder film was altered ? Hasn't he read Fetzer's books ? Or has he read them but was unable to understand the evidence shown before his eyes ? Or he is paid by the CIA ?
Well, as long as conspiracy theorists will believe in as many theories as there are members of that community, refusing to debate reasonable people, afraid of being shown they had been wrong all along, they'll continue to spread their lies.
That's very sad !
/F.C./
Jesus, Francois. You couldn't keep your pledge for five minutes, could you?
Reading your posts is a total waste of time and unless you start discussing the evidence in the JFK assassination sometime soon instead of attacking people for their beliefs I'll urge other members here to ignore you in the hope you'll go away. Because that's what I intend to do.
Francois
I was going to ask how the dead guy thought he got to the psychiatrist. And I am going to be Critical of your thinking
you put too much faith in others the only enthusiasm you have shown in any thread is when referring to your critical thinking authors.Stick with them and you will be ok .Otherwise its a Frenchman having a dull day (see Mark Twain).
Ian ( the stupid stonemason)
-
Let it be known that I shall from now on IGNORE ALTOGETHER four people in this forum : Bill Kelly, Dean Hagerman, Lee Farley and Bernie Laverick.
Are you going to ignore yourself for the same reasons that you listed?
Yes for the next 10 years anyway
I guess that means no Elvis tickets for anybody...... bugger!
-
From an internet website:
Within days of the assassination the photo of Oswald in the doorway was available for all the world to see. The Dallas Police, FBI and Warren Commission said the person in the doorway was not Oswald but was another employee of the depository named Billy Lovelady. That defies not only people's own eyes when looking at the photos but the evidence of these agencies themselves. In an FBI report of an interview with Billy Lovelady, he told them he was at the depository watching the motorcade and was wearing a short-sleeved red and white vertical-striped shirt and in the photos taken by the FBI that is exactly what Lovelady is wearing.
In the photo Lovelady is sitting in profile at the police station as Oswald is being escorted out of the room, his back to the camera. Notice Oswald's shirt is pulled down off his left shoulder with just his white tee shirt showing. An employee of the depository testified before the Warren Commission that he was Lovelady's superior and that he saw him sitting on the steps of the depository as the motorcade went by not standing in the doorway. Other depository witnesses testified before the Warren Commission that Lovelady was sitting on the steps of the depository not standing in the doorway.
Thats not what Jarman said happened he said Truly let Oswald go but detained them
http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html
-
No idea. Hopefully IPS can tell John what happened.
It said "server not found " in UK yesterday for about 2 hours mid afternoon, I got depressed with nothing to read and thought about going to McAdams site.But the mouse refused.So glad I got a mac.
I would watch the weather channel before "going to McAdams site".
Dawn
Dawn
I agree McAdams is infinitely more predictable.
Ian
-
So anybody who claims (like you) that the Zapruder film is altered go against all evidence.
Francis Coli
Do you know what evidence is?
I dont think you do
Send me 9 more emails and I will tell you what evidence is
Dean
Don't antagonise the guy, Maybe he can get us Elvis tickets?
Ian
-
Well, Drittal certainly isn't spelled with an "LE" (Drittle) as William Kelly suggested in an earlier post.
It looks like DRITTAL to me (via CE790).
What's it look like to you, Tom Scully?
The person that filled the form in could have misspelt Drittal for Drittle having only heard it or from a mental note to use that name and not seen it in print.
Hidell is not hidall is it ?
-
No idea. Hopefully IPS can tell John what happened.
It said "server not found " in UK yesterday for about 2 hours mid afternoon, I got depressed with nothing to read and thought about going to McAdams site.But the mouse refused.So glad I got a mac.
-
Baker shouldn't have permitted anybody to leave the building at that time.
Of course, Baker is only ONE cop. He couldn't very well seal the whole building by himself by 12:31 PM; so that's another thing to take into account.
Dave
None of the others were armed were they?.And there were plenty of officers on hand outside even superman James Powell was on his way in .Why not stop the guy nearest the 6th floor its like he knew where the shots came from?.Perhaps the chap in the brown jacket on the 4th floor oh no he just let him go at the entrance.
If Only we could tie Baker down to which testimony he prefers or the one that suits you.
Ian
-
~yawn~
(Short enough for ya?)
Dave
Perfect.
Are you sure you would not like to form a double act?. we would go down a storm in the clubs you are a great straight man.
Ian
-
Yo! Dave, if you're such a true believer in Free Speech, then how come you supported John McAdams when he refused to post my response to the hijacking of the thread from this forum to his, when I came to his defense and said that he wasn't a Disinformation Agent, but a Disinformation Idiot?
You only support freedom of speech here, but not over at McAdam's forum?
Hi Bill,
Well, actually I think you've misrepresented my position a little bit on that particular matter. I never said I "supported John McAdams" decision to reject any posts over at his aaj newsgroup. In that discussion with you, I was merely pointing out the basic rules that McAdams lives by at that forum--i.e., you can't get by with calling a current forum member an "idiot" or a "kook" or a "xxxx", etc. He just won't allow it. But I don't recall ever saying that I, myself, endorse such restrictions on posts.
In fact, I'll tell you right now that I, for one, think Mr. McAdams is a fool for wanting to take on the task of "moderating" a JFK forum like he does every single day. IMO, such a moderation job is just silly and needless. I say let people say whatever they want.
I would absolutely dread the task of turning on my computer and finding 96 new posts in the queue for moderation. And then being forced to read all of them to make sure that no "liars" or "kooks" slip through the cracks. Yuck. What a horrible job.
I can, however, kind of admire McAdams for taking on such a xxxxty job. But, IMO, he's nuts for even WANTING to do it every day.
BTW: I got a kick out of this part of your above comments, Bill:
"I came to his [McAdams] defense and said that he wasn't a Disinformation Agent, but a Disinformation Idiot..."
If coming to someone's "defense" is achieved by calling them an "idiot", then remind me to never hire you as my defense lawyer the next time some CTer takes me to court on the charge of my being a dirty rotten CIA Disinfo Agent.
~wink~
BTW #2: Just "for the official record", here's exactly what I said to William Kelly, via two recent e-mails, regarding the topic of John McAdams and the alt.assassination.jfk Internet newsgroup:
Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots"
Date: 7/30/2010 6:26:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Bill Kelly [exact e-mail address deleted]
BTW, Bill,
After looking over the post that McAdams rejected at aaj, I can only ask you:
Why on Earth are you the least bit surprised that such a post of yours was rejected at McAdams' moderated aaj newsgroup?
You, in effect, called John McAdams an "idiot" in your post. Of course it was going to get rejected. What did you expect?
"Unless the CIA is paying McAdams to play at his fourm [sic] and publish his book, he's not a disinformation agent. He could be a disinformation idiot, though I like the word Cracker." -- William Kelly
DVP
========================
Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots"
Date: 8/1/2010 11:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Bill Kelly
Yes, he did. That's exactly why he rejected that post of yours. I'd almost bet on it.
John McAdams doesn't allow anyone to use that type of remark ("idiot") at the moderated aaj newsgroup if it's aimed directly at a CURRENT MEMBER of the newsgroup/forum, which McAdams, himself, is.
I can call DiEugenio and Fetzer "kooks" all day long at aaj (which they deserve to be called all day long too), and the posts won't get rejected--because those people aren't current members at the a.a.j. forum.
But I can't ever say that you're a "kook" anymore at aaj, because you're a currently-active member.
That might seem like an odd rule--being able to only call people "kooks", "liars", and "idiots" who aren't around to defend themselves from the aaj onslaught, while not permitting those types of descriptive terms to be utilized against people who ARE members, who CAN defend themselves on the forum--but that's the way it is at McAdams' aaj.
DVP
Dave
Its sad that you feel you have to resort to name calling, Try modifying and shortening your posts thats why nobody reads them you are too obvious.
Ian
-
But , hey, there is always the testimony of Brewer at that phony TV trial.
I asked the "other side" why it took the DPD until the 4th of December 1963 to take a statement from Julia Postal, and why it took them until the 6th December to take a statement from Johnny Brewer.
The only answer they could come up with was; the DPD were busy.
I asked them why the DPD or the FBI didn't interview, look for or even ask for the names of the friends of Johnny Brewer (who worked for IBM) who were in his store when Oswald walked in all "scared" looking. Their answer? None.
I asked them why during the fast frisk that Gerald Hill, in an interview with CBS's Ed Barker, describes as;
"--an officer checks under your arm pits, your crotch, your pockets, your -- your shirt, your waistband of your trousers, and any place that a weapon could be concealed, that -- even as small as a razor blade, or anything of this type that you could conceivably get to and either hurt the officer or hurt yourself."
and they didn't find five .38 bullets in his trouser pocket. The "other sides" answer? They've yet to come up with one.
Let's put it this way. Everywhere Gerald Hill is over the course the first 2 hours of the assassination dodgy evidence turns up. We also have testimony that states that Gerald Hill moved the chicken bones and sack before it was photographed.
Lee, wouldn't Hill calling in the wrong type of weapon tend to go against his having planted the pistol on Oswald? To put it another way, wouldn't he have described the planted weapon in his call, instead of the one he did describe (an automatic, IIRC)?
With the chicken bones, are you saying he moved them around on the 6th floor, or from the 5th to the 6th? I now have extremely strong evidence that the chicken was eaten by Williams on the 5th floor. It is a transcript of the HSCA inteview with Harold Norman, and it will be posted on my website soon.
Already posted is the transcript of the HSCA interview with Marion Baker. http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html In this, Baker once again has trouble keeping his story straight and reverts to the truth in one gleaming instance where he states it was the officer who took Truly's deposition on 11/23 who told him his encounter in the TSBD was on the second floor and it had been with Oswald. Prior to that, neither of those contentions existed - that is - not Oswald - not 2nd floor. So much for his testimony that he recognised Oswald, who was sitting in the same small office as him while he gave his statement over the phone to Marvin Johnson. He did not recognise Oswald because it was NOT Oswald he encountered - nor was the encounter on the second floor. It was changed to the second floor bcause of the statement made by Mrs Reid -- and you can see her name hand written at the bottom of Truly's statement. The encounter was also changed from a 30 year old with dark hair weighing 165 and wearing a tan jacket to Oswald for obvious reasons... http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encounters-t42.htm
I urge everyone who hasn't read the CBS interview with Ed Barker to do so. It is fascinating. I am intrigued by the adhesive tape marks and lint he finds on the revolver shells that he removes. He also talks about how he urged Joe Poe to not pass him the shells that have been found at the Tippit scene because he didn't need to be added to the evidence chain. And then goes on to describe how he takes the gun off Bob Carroll in the theater (later to change to in the car during his Warren Commission testimony) when he didn't have to insert himself into the "chain." I think Greg and Duke have hit the nail on the head as to why he did though.
Hi Greg,
With regard to Gerald Hill radioing through an "automatic" rather than a "pistol", I don't believe that he had any great detailed knowledge of what was actually happening around him and the Oak Cliff events were made up on the fly. I think he only knew he had to make sure there was enough evidence to corner and seal the fate of the "cop killer" on the orders of Captain Fritz. This is why Fritz wasn't in much hurry to go and find Oswald once he was given his name by Truly and Shelley. I even think Fritz was "making it up" as he went along to a certain degree, hence the pocketing of one of the MC shells until it became apparent what the damage was to the President.
I am right when I state that according to the dispatches, Hill rang his ID of the weapon through much later than when he had observed the shells with Joe Poe? Hill didn't actually call this through until 1:34 according to the transcripts?
So this is before Hill is at the Abundant Life Temple. If Hill is the one collecting "something" at the ALT he wouldn't have known what the "type" of firearm was that he was going to throw on Oswald until he actually had it? If he did pick it up there then he didn't actually have it until after he'd rang the "automatic" call through.
As far as Hill moving the bones around, I don't know, I'm just going off what Jim Ewell says he saw. He claims he was outside the TSBD looking up and Hill popped his head out of the sixth floor window shouting that they'd found the snipers nest and had hold of the food items showing them to the crowd below. If we take Hill's testimony as being accurate he had left the TSBD long before Studebaker had turned up to photograph anything, so he is moving evidence around illegally.
The evidence you say you are going to post about Bonnie Ray Williams is really intriguing me. I've never believed that BRW was on the sixth floor and have always wondered why the cover-up artists needed him moved onto that floor. I think it opened up some difficulties for the FBI and the WC so there they must have had a damn good reason to want him on the 6th floor. I've just never been able to figure out why? I speculated it was to get rid of the non-Oswald fingerprints on the Dr. Pepper bottle but am I right in assuming that you think these items were still BRW's. They just decided to move them up a floor?
The Marion Baker HSCA deposition is a great find and very interesting. I agree with you 100%, the person Baker accosted wasn't Oswald. I think he saw Oswald with Truly on the first floor and it was Truly who, recognising Oswald, switched the people. I still think Truly had something to do with the logistics and planning of the assassination.
When will the BRW transcript be on your website? Keep us posted.
Lee
Lee
Craig's reporting of Qswald really did throw a spanner in the works as any truthful report would upset thier proposed timelines for Oswald.Whereas the Mauser report did the same thing Hill did with the auto .Fritz was still working "on the fly" .But if Brewer did not see Oswald who else knew he would be in the theatre?.
Ian
-
White House launches new website to debunk conspiracy theories
Aug 2 2010
THE White House has launched an official bid to shoot down conspiracy theories.
A new website aims to counter claims that the US government have been involved in top-secret plots and sensational cover-ups.
The "Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation" page - posted by the US equivalent of the Foreign Office - insists that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy alone, and that the Pentagon was not hit by a cruise missile on 9/11.
The site also says officials have not covered up the existence of aliens and the moon landings were not faked and filmed in Hollywood.
The internet has led to an explosion of outlandish theories and rumours about the US Government.
But the site says: "Conspiracy theories exist in the realm of myth, where imaginations run wild, fears trump facts and evidence is ignored."
Robin Ramsay, an expert in conspiracy theories and editor of political mag Lobster, said: "It will have about as much effect as a site appealing for sexual abstinence amidst the internet's oceans of porn."
I wonder if they will also be supplying the proof?. I would imagine the pentagaon to be one the most secure and security minded of places on earth and surveyed by the minute by a myriad of cctv cameras, but as yet no film of the incident apart from the Wiley Coyote excuse with more cuts than a slaughtered pig.I live in a relatively small town in England and last count on my high street 9 cameras in less than a fifth of a mile .Maybe MI5 has a building there we do not know about?.Mind you it has never been hit by a missile so perhaps the cameras are doing thier job.
-
This is not a Zfilm alteration question.
Does the limo slow down using the relationship of cycle to limo, as a measuring tool?
The upper ghost image shows a similar action, although it is not the same cycle we see at the bottom of the frame.
chris
Chris
Are you using the 18.6 FPS ?.
Ian
-
During the five months I've been a member on this site, I've often noticed an almost complete lack of humor. Now, I know subjects discussed are serious matters, no question about that. And serious it is, no doubt, the way the arguments flow.
Even in discussions where the debate has reached boiling levels, I've seen a few attempts to lite things up little, without much response - or any at all. It is hard to imagine that the format of written language is all to blame, I doubt that if most of these discussions took place in a round table environment, things would be comparable. There's always room for some irony or humor. I've myself been in such moments many times in my professional career. Often times, a bit of distance and irony can solve the most stubborn positions when people are in strong disagreements. No, not in the sense that positions have to be given up, but in the sense that the climate for discussions improves dramatically. Which sometimes can be the path to a hugely improved environment for debate, if nothing else.
As many participants on Edu certainly gives the impression of being serious about their stances in various issues, is this part time occupation excluding us from being a bit less serious about this, about ourselves and about our opponents?
Where is the irony, folks?
What's irony?
Old trains were irony
And I have known a few Brasses but always on my mettle when dealing with them .
-
During the five months I've been a member on this site, I've often noticed an almost complete lack of humor. Now, I know subjects discussed are serious matters, no question about that. And serious it is, no doubt, the way the arguments flow.
Even in discussions where the debate has reached boiling levels, I've seen a few attempts to lite things up little, without much response - or any at all. It is hard to imagine that the format of written language is all to blame, I doubt that if most of these discussions took place in a round table environment, things would be comparable. There's always room for some irony or humor. I've myself been in such moments many times in my professional career. Often times, a bit of distance and irony can solve the most stubborn positions when people are in strong disagreements. No, not in the sense that positions have to be given up, but in the sense that the climate for discussions improves dramatically. Which sometimes can be the path to a hugely improved environment for debate, if nothing else.
As many participants on Edu certainly gives the impression of being serious about their stances in various issues, is this part time occupation excluding us from being a bit less serious about this, about ourselves and about our opponents?
Where is the irony, folks?
What's irony?
Old trains were irony
-
I do not think, that this is a good idea, because other persons often add things which the two debaters are not aware of...
BTW: "Restriction" always sound bad regarding to any forum..."
It would be a step backwards...
KK
There would be nothing to stop people sending PMs or emails to one of the debaters. There would be nothing to stop them putting this information on another thread.
I think it would work if certain rules and principles are agreed on, as well as the questions being debated.
The Vermont Rules of American forensics are based on British Parlementary Rules that allow for a wide variety of participants, including teams, judges and evaluations of evidence and even audience participation.
The Queensbury Rules only allows for two and the best man always wins.
http://iml.jou.ufl.e...ntura/rules.htm
Queensbury Rules
1. To be a fair stand-up boxing match in a twenty-four foot ring or as near that size as practicable.
2. No wrestling or hugging allowed.
3. The rounds to be of three minutes duration and one minute time between rounds.
4. If either man fall through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, ten seconds be allowed to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner; and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired. If one man fails to come to the scratch in the ten seconds allowed, it shall be in the power of the referee to give his awart in favour of the other man.
5. A man hanging on the ropes in a helpless state, with his toes off the ground, shall be considered down.
6. No seconds or any other person to be allowed in the ring during the rounds.
7. Should the contest be stopped by any unavoidable interference, the referee (is) to name the time and place as soon as possible for finishing the contest, to that the match can be won and lost, unless the backers of the men agree to draw the stakes.
8. The gloves to be fair-sized boxing gloves of the best quality and new.
9. Should a glove burst, or come off, it must be replaced to the referee's satisfaction.
10. A man on one knee is considered down, and if struck is entitled to the stakes.
11. No shoes or boots with springs allowed.
12. The contest in all other respects to be governed by the revised rules of the London Prize Ring.
Bill
Its a great idea but I fear some of them would need aid getting INTO the ring let alone being carried out .But yes I would love to see the Heavyweights square up to each other ,Perhaps a call to Mr.Don King would help proceedings?.
ps.Please do not stop being funny it gives you an edge.
Ian
-
I would not have said a word about your emails because I dont share emails and as you can see I did not post what you said to me, nor would I post what you said to me because I agree that emails are private
However I recieved 9 of the same email from you, of course its either a bug or you kept hitting send over and over
Bottom line is that you can have any views that you want, but dont come in here guns blazing claiming to know more about the assassination then anyone that posts on this forum
Thats just an insult to pretty much all of us
I would love to debate you just to show you up and make you feel like you know very little about the assassination
Any time my friend
And please debate Jim DiEugenio first because I have no problem with the fact that Jim knows more then I do, so let him spank you first and I will clean up what ever Jim leaves behind (Trust me it wont be much)
Francois
If you are having a dull time you could always turn in and write another book.
Excuse moi but the little bit on the c dropped off I believe you call it the English disease?
etienne
-
Any info on this please i.e. who is it? where is it from? etc. Thanks
David
The face has a ring to it YELLED IN SPANISH SIEZED BY THE POLICE LET GO.I am sure I have seen that face in Dealey pictures somewhere .I will have to go and have a look .
Ian
HOW THE 1960 OLYMPICS CHANGED AMERICA
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Bernice
That brought back some good memories .I was an impressionable young boy in the sixties and I did not believe there was anything that the Americans could not do .I was mad about science and was allowed to stay up late to watch the launches by NASA and listen to the BBC updates early in the morning.Alas here we are 50 years on and both our countries have struggled to achieve the aims of its peoples.But there is always the future.
Ian