Ian Kingsbury

I would have to go look to be sure, but I believe from memory that it's a pretty wide underpass and that a person standing where White was on the west side of the underpass over Elm could see someone behind the east winged banister at the south end.

FWIW, not if the sniper was crouched or prone

What difference would that make if the person was in White's line of sight behind the banister? If prone, the person could be even more likely to be spotted, since his body would be extended westward.

Ron:

I apologize. I have spent a lot of time in the south knoll area and know that it was a great spot to be concealed but I do not know who Officer White (what is his first name) is and where he exactly was allegedly standing.

Doug Weldon

Patrolman J.C.White was stationed on the bridge/overpass at the west end during his testimony to the W.C. he said he did not see the shooting as a train was blocking his view at that very moment .I thought it was several minutes befroe a train passed over the bridge?

So important a reply, it needs repeating IMO. First posted by Jim Fetzer and mirrored here by me...

posting by Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB, Vols. I-V (2009):

Date Sent: 01/23/2010

Subject: The "Beginning of the End" of the First Amendment?

Message:

I find the position taken by Cass Sunstein in his 2008 paper on the danger he perceives from those who espouse conspiracy theories not only reprehensible, but quite alarming.

His proposals that the U.S. government should not only infiltrate groups that allege conspiracies as the explanations for various historical events, but actively disrupt their communications---and that the U.S. government should also counter their claims through the use of third-party surrogates---are particularly alarming, when they come from a Harvard liberal who is described as a friend of Barack Obama. When one considers that he was subsequently appointed as the Head of Information in President Obama's administration, the positions he expressed in his 2008 paper are downright alarming.

I would have expected such attitudes from the previous administration---from Dick Cheney or George W. Bush---but to hear these proposals made by a liberal law scholar, who is now a member of the Obama administration, is downright alarming.

What Mr. Sunstein is advocating is a return to the situation prevalent in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s, in which Army intelligence had penetrated virtually every anti-war group that opposed the conflict in Vietnam. Civil liberties meant nothing to the establishment during the Vietnam conflict, and apparently, if Mr. Sunstein has his way, we will soon return to that climate of active government surveillance and infiltration. (Perhaps we are already there now, and this is the first open acknowledgment of it.)

If the courses of action proposed by Mr. Sunstein in his 29-page paper were to be implemented, it would constitute a crushing blow to First Amendment rights, and could usher in the beginning of a police state in the nation that for years has prided itself as "the world's leading democracy."

I will speak here only of the JFK assassination, with which I am familiar, as a former government official, historian, and author. Sunstein apparently has the arrogance to assume that any and all conspiracy allegations about the JFK assassination that posit any government involvement (in either the murder or in a coverup)are incorrect; from this breathtaking and unproven assumption, he proceeds to advocate disruption and suppression of any such views. I know, from my former role as a government official on the staff of the ARRB (from 1995-1998), that there is overwhelming evidence of a government-directed medical coverup in the death of JFK, and of wholesale destruction of autopsy photographs, autopsy x-rays, early versions of the autopsy report, and biological materials associated with the autopsy. Furthermore, dishonest autopsy photographs were created; skull x-rays were altered; the contents of the autopsy report changed over time as different versions were produced; and the brain photographs in the National Archives cannot be photographs of President Kennedy's brain---they are fraudulent, substitute images of someone else's brain.

I would like to pose a question for Mr. Sunstein: if a medical coverup of JFK's assassination were proven---and I believe I have done so in my 2009 book "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board"---do you believe those facts should be made public, or do you believe those conclusions should be supressed and/or discredited in the interests of "institutional integrity?"

What is at stake here really is trust in the government, but not in the way that Mr. Sunstein sees it. If, for example, the Zapruder film of President Kennedy's assassination was altered immediately following his assassination to hide certain facts about the shooting (i.e., evidence of shots from the front), does Mr. Sunstein (and the administration he serves) believe that evidence related to the film's alteration (while in the hands of the government) should be released 46 years later, or suppressed? This is no mere hypothetical question. My FOIA request for CIA records pertaining to the Zapruder film's apparent alteration remains unanswered---indeed, unacknowledged---over four months after I submitted it in September of 2009. President Obama came into office promising to show a new respect the Freedom of Information Act and all FOIA requests. Now that I have learned about Mr. Sunstein's attitude about those who allege conspiracies, I am wondering anew why I have not yet received a response to my FOIA request.

Sunstein's 2008 article amounts to an assault on First Amendment rights, and in fact has created a cloud over the White House. The mere fact that this man holds the position of Chief of Information in the Executive Branch casts doubt upon the credibility of the U.S. government, and threatens to make President Obama's professed respect for the FOIA process ring hollow.

Cass Sunstein should resign immediately, and President Obama should publicly renounce the positions taken in Sunstein's 2008 paper. I do not want to live in a United States of America where the government infiltrates groups who criticize past government actions, and uses third-party surrogates to attempt to discredit their views. President Kennedy was not afraid of the free marketplace of ideas, and in 1962 said: "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." I hope that the Obama administration is not afraid of the American people, or of our right to know, or of our ability to discern truth from falsehood. Retaining Cass Sunstein in his current position sends the wrong message.

Cass Sunstein, I say: "RESIGN NOW."

Doug Horne

Former Chief Analyst for Military Records,

Assassination Records Review Board

Obama has the man for the job of selling this to the public .........Sen.Arlen Specter

Long study of this seems to show that the animators put in a puzzling conundrum

as a joke or to confound us.

The man appears to have TWO LEFT ARMS, but the second LONG arm looks like

an additional ARM WITH A BLACK GLOVE carried under his left armpit. It could

be a jacket the same color as his shirt, with a black glove attached. (?)

In addition, several of the frames show the black ball with the stripe forming and

then disappearing. But for one full frame the ball is there

But...the ball with the stripe is there...and the long arm with extra black hand is

there. And the man does have a broad black belt.

Remember...none of this is reality...it is animation.

Jack

Its Duncan's monkey It looks to me to be a chimpanzee dressed as a human baby and the owner has a collection tin in his right hand If not I am off to specsavers

Partly they were directed by prominent Dallas persons, to what extent? Perhaps a scrutiny of the DCC top memberhip , and lower rung members, if found, could help with the answer.

There maybe a civil list or maybe in the local papers some event attended by all? .Its certainly worth a look ,No doubt we would find Mr Byrd owner of the TSBD

CSI Dallas -

Intentional or Negligent?

Was it intentional or negligence

1) That the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest boxes were moved before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

2) That the three shells were picked up from the floor by Capt. Will Fritz before being officially photographed by the crime scene investigators?

3) That the paper wrapping paper was not seen by the first to arrive and was said to have been removed before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators?

4) That the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper pop bottle were not seen by the first to arrive and were moved before being officially photographed by crime scene investigators, and have since disappeared?

5) That the rifle found on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD was misidentified as a "Mauser" by three officers in their official reports?

6) That the scene of the crime – the TSBD was not officially declared "secure" until over an hour after the last shot was fired and long after the assassin(s) had escaped?

7) That the officer who found a jacket allegedly discarded by Tippit's fleeing killer was never identified?

8) That the names and addresses of the witnesses to the arrest of the suspect and patrons of the Texas Theater were never taken, or the list has disappeared?

9) That after being searched, interrogated and placed in a lineup, four bullets were found in the pocket of the leading suspect Lee Harvey Oswald?

10) That no transcript or recordings were taken of the interrogations of Oswald?

11) That while in custody Oswald spoke on the phone for 30 minutes to someone who has never been identified?

12) That Jack Ruby was permitted to shoot and kill Oswald while in Dallas police custody?

13) That the limo was not impounded for proper forensic examination?

14) That the body of the victim was never secured for proper forensic autopsy?

15) That the prime suspect's clipboard was found on the sixth floor weeks later?

16) That it was weeks before the prime suspect's other jacket - worn on the day of the murder was found by the window of the first floor lunchroom, where the suspect claimed to have been at the time of the assassination?

And there's probably more. These were just off the top of my head.

Well, were these just negligent cops not doing their jobs as they were trained to do?

Or were these intentional screw ups purposely done in order to thwart justice?

What do you think?

An inquisitive mind wants to know.

BK

Yes, Bill it smells to high heaven, and can not possibly be excused by the assumption of many that the DPD didn't know any better. They DID know better. So why did they screw-up so tragically? I suspect that at least part of this list was not a screw-up, but a cover story designed to hide what really happened.

FWIW, the paper bag was supposedly never photographed by the DPD until it was sent BACK to the FBI on the 26th. The disappearance of the lunch sack containing the chicken bones, which WERE, if I recall, seen by the first officer on the scene, Mooney, is not as problematic, but is also interesting. I mean, if they assumed THIS bag was the lunch bag of the sniper, why didn't they forward it to the FBI for silver nitrate testing, as they did with a piece of wrapping paper they assumed top have held the rifle... I mean, what's the difference? So why the different treatment?

I beleive that the paper bag appears in a photograph of items the DPD released to the FBI taken the night of the 22nd.

I assume that a meeting was held with the DPD/secret service where Fritz/Curry were advised they will not be supplying the protection of the president of any kind . Who was present? .Were some of the unidentified SS men running interference? the SS? agent on the grassy knoll holding people back, The SS? agent that Craig gave his observations to .If the DPD were told they would not be needed for security, then after the shooting it would be up to the SS? to conduct and steer the investigation after all who would want to take the responsibilty on when you were'nt required in the first place .I think that the DPD took a step back and just became the foot soldiers for their controllers they gather the evidence and give it to the SS? we will take it from here.

I am convinced that assembly of the panorama DISPLAYS POSITIVE PROOF THAT THE BELL FILM IS A COMPOSITE

VIEW MADE FROM CAMERAS IN TWO LOCATIONS ALONG HOUSTON!

Note that just like the Z film, the camera tilts upward at the crucial time that the limo is in view. All we get is an

occasional glimpse of Jackie's hat or a cop helmet.

Films from two different cameras are morphed together at about mid-block, to create a total panorama in which

the first half has perspective, and the seconc half HAS NO PERSPECTIVE!

I believe this is a major identification of fakery of the Bell film.

Jack

Jack have any of these been cropped as the photographer appears to have missed his subjects ?

thanks jack you said it imo black is white and white is black,,lee .But as the AARB material started to filter through and Doug Horne became more vocal there appeared to be a change in attitude and the personal attacks more profound .I am not an educator but I do enjoy learning the rest of this site is incredible and there is much to be gleaned from it .But please lets get back to the research and leave the personal stuff where it belongs.. Ian

i fully agree ian as the truth has been spilling out from doug horne's great work i expected as did so many others, i am quite sure..that the levels of Attacks would resound loudly and become much more vociferous and often they did and they have as expected.it will continue.....the truth always has been and will be ..especially within the assassination of the president.. do not take all too seriously it takes one some time to get use to the noise levels on any of the forums..they rise and ebb with time...and try not to take what is said as being very seriously personal and really meant as such.... it usually is blowing off steam cause they whomever got out on the wrong side of the bed or just spilt their coffee or soda..do not dwell on such at all or you will never last grow a bit of a thicker shell if needed if it gets to you and often stay away from whom you see as provacateurs is good advice,,let them bury themselves they do so in the end..but stand up for yourself and your opinions....end of rattle..take care and best all b..

Bernice Thanks for the advice and assistance .I had spent most of my working life in a cold damp workshop or up on a roof in the elements ,This gives you a different perspective of view and of life .As you can imagine differences of opinion were settled in a vastly different way, and not always verbally. I think I should be able to handle it but if the going gets tough I will not rise to it and will seek a peaceful agreement, as there is so much hate in people I think that to add to it is unthinkable..Ian

If you dont like it dont read it

Ruining the forum is a bit of a stretch

If we cant debate the facts of what we believe in then what do you suggest we do?

Ignore all posts that attack your thoughts and theories?

I cant do that, but at the same time I can assure you I am not looking to debate, its a fact of life on all forums Justin, not just this forum

Dean

The "If you don't like it don't read it" tactic has become nearly impossible lately as it has spread far and wide to many threads or you guys just start other threads arguing essentially the same things or find roundabout ways to insult each other. It used to not be "a fact of life" at this Forum. A person has to search far and wide to find threads that are not infected with your guys horse xxxx. Although I replied to Dean's post this reply is not directed to him or any one person but (as I stated originally) to those that continue to engage in endless debate where YOU KNOW YOU HAVE ZERO CHANCE of convincing the other camp. I stand by my original comment. You guys are ruining the Forum.

I dont see very many members saying that we are ruining the forum

I think debating what I believe in is a must do

Again im not going to sit back and let the LNers and Anti-alterationists push me or my fellow researchers/students around

Dean

For what it's worth I thought I'd give my own thoughts concerning the forum and my introductory experiences upon joining:

I put off becoming a member of this site for a number of years. I felt the discourse lacked civility and was filled with egotistical and reactionary posts from a wide variety of members and on a personal level I didn't know what my own reactions would be if I was faced with some of the tactics and rudeness that was prevalant.

After finally "plucking up" the courage to request membership it took only 2-3 days for me to be accused of having some sort of sinister agenda. I was told in no uncertain terms that I was "wrong" on various points regarding what amount to "personal beliefs" about the assassination. I was warned off talking about certain topics through personal e-mails. I was insulted and pictures of my wife requested. If I expressed a view that didn't meet a specific individual's paradigm it was met with a hostile reactionary response that was ultimately contradicted through the "accusing" person's own behaviours. I ultimately became everything I abhor because I rose to a lot of this in the wrong way and used the same tactics.

There is a sense of "right and wrong", black and white thinking that most members suffer from (including myself although I do try to challenge my own bundles of thoughts most of the time). There is little acceptance of others alternative perspectives. There is no investigation of a "third" way. It is a "community" of separation, division and deep rooted suspicion. Propositional "truth" or objective truth is mixed together with "interior truthfulness" and has resulted in the type of environment on the forum that the Warren Commission so carefully crafted in 1964 - muddied waters, mixed messages, conflicting theories, and suspected ulterior motives.

Some of the closed-off thinking that exists is, ironically enough, the type of thinking that resulted in the "cold-war" firmly cementing itself into the consciousness of the people on opposing sides of "ideas." Wasn't this something that JFK fought so hard to unravel and was so brutally and barbarically murdered for on 11/22/63?

The way "bundles of thoughts" are expressed and defended on this forum remind me of Gordon Allport's Scale of Prejudice model:

1. Antilocution - Bad mouthing and name calling

2. Avoidance - Refusing participation in the group, ignoring them

3. Discrimination - Using your power to create a disadvantage for an individual

4. Physical Violence - Toward the individual or their property

5. Genocide

As you can see there are only five levels. Individuals on this forum use tactics that have climbed the first three rungs. I've heard that in certain "conferences" over the decades things have gotten so heated on occasion that the fourth level has almost manifested itself within the community. This is madness.

My first couple of posts were a call for the community to come together on the issues that united them in "propositional truth" but it seems that other issues are more important right now and the endless "debate" that has been going on for decades around these issues continues unabated.

I wholeheartedly agree with Justin. There are people that come to this forum to learn more about the assassination - to present their own ideas and let others who perhaps know more concerning certain topics help them develop their ideas into a more rounded "interior understanding" of events.

I am someone who has a medium level understanding of the assassination. I have gone after the testimony as my main area of interest and try to use that testimony to develop my own ideas of what happened.

After spending a month on the forum, I must admit that I feel quite deflated with the "conspiracy" community as a whole and have moments where I wish I didn't join.

I hope everyone understands that my thoughts expressed above are actually coming from a good place and not intended to "have a go" at any one individual but it is nevertheless a true and accurate reflection of my own personal experiences over the last 6-8 weeks. I must also say thanks to Pat Speer and Michael Hogan publicly for their calm and persuasive feedback that helped me create some space for myself whilst posting.

Lee

I agree with you on this Lee .This is my first post although I have been reading the forum for a while now.When I first came here the topics were lively and the research value was excellent.But as the AARB material started to filter through and Doug Horne became more vocal there appeared to be a change in attitude and the personal attacks more profound .I am not an educator but I do enjoy learning the rest of this site is incredible and there is much to be gleaned from it .But please lets get back to the research and leave the personal stuff where it belongs.. Ian

My name is Ian Keith Kingsbury I am 53 years old. Have been a stonemason for nearly thirty years. I have an engineering background/education (engine builder). I was born in Watford and have been interested in this case since the day my mother told me very sadly that JFK had been killed by the time RFK and MLK were killed I was hooked. My main reason for joining the Ed forum is mainly for the great photographic work done by Robin and Martin and also Bernice's collection we do not always get the same items here at Duncan's site. I do not think I will be posting much as the topics here are tend to run along different themes. But as the photographic evidence is going to be the way to illustrate to others what happened I think it would be a shame to miss out on all of the work done everywhere.