Greg Burnham

Thanks for reminding me, Monk. Since I organized the session, I must have been laboring under the wrong impression. I certainly thought at the time that you were convinced of Chauncey's authenticity. I read his book manuscripts and watched his video series (made for his daughter), listened to his interview(s), and studied Lois Gibson's comparison. I remain convinced that Chauncey was the third tramp, which Karyn did a brilliant job illustrating with superpositions of family photographs over the Dealey Plaza ones. Alas, as I now seem to recall, Debra did not have the session taped. In retrospect, I believe it was a deliberate decision to make a unique event unavailable for the benefit of others, which is a shame.

Jim,

I am convinced of Chauncey's authenticity! However, some things are not "black and white" especially when it comes to "operational" matters. I'm not comfortable posting about this. I'll call you over the weekend or next week.

As far as the taping of the session goes, are you kidding me? Wow. If true, that's very odd. I thought they taped everything, if for no other reason than to sell it!

I guess I have a few additional comments that supplement what Monk has already posted. In my opinion, the CIA

was profoundly involved in the assassination, which the Chiefs appear to have supported, where Edward Lansdale

is the most likely candidate for having organized and executed the multiply-triangulated shooting sequence.

Jim,

We may or may not agree on this, but "to split hairs" (which is sometimes good for the sake of clarity), let me say, IMO:

"Operation Dallas" was carried out by several layers (at least 3) of gunmen and their spotters. The primary [out-sourced] team consisted of six individuals (three groups of two each--1 sniper and 1 spotter). The "second" team was similarly constructed, but unknown to the primary team. The ansillary team was placed in the event that the earlier attempts failed.

The "out-sourced" team was supplied by the CIA. No question. But, not for THAT "mission" as it turned out.

Lansdale was there to manage the cover-story, no matter the outcome. Did he have foreknowledge? No question about it! But, what did he think was going to take place that day? Huh? What?

Therein lies the key to this case...

Jim,

As you probably recall, I too was on the Chauncey Holt Panel at Lancer in 2000. I think the presentation is available for purchase from Lancer on DVD, but I don't know for sure since I never have seen it or ordered it. That said, I also knew Chauncey Holt for several decades. Well, let me re-phrase that: I first met Chauncey Holt in the very early 70's (about '71) and had contact with him for over a 2 or 3 year period (yes, my early teen years). Long story. However, I didn't see him again until about 1990, a year after I moved back to San Diego. I personally do not think the third tramp is Chauncey. I could be wrong, but that is my belief. Karyn and her (now late) mother knew this was my belief and we remain(ed) friends. However, I don't doubt the bulk of the remainder of his claims regarding providing Secret Service ID's and all the rest.

We discussed several "details" of his appearance on JFKresearch Forum 10 years ago. You asked me specifics about his height, which I confirmed--as they were accurate to the best of my knowledge. However, they alone do not convince me that he was or was not the third tramp--there is more.

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk did a good job of responding to your critique, so I am not going to pursue that here. But I am puzzled by the first paragraph of your post, in which you wrote the following:

First, let me preface this with what Tony Summers said when this story first broke: photographic identification is very iffy. Unless you have a very good close up shot, and preferably also full shots for height and weight comparisons, I would rather stay away from it. I don't have to detail why this is so. The history of these "sightings" in the JFK case proves that i e. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Harrelson, Conein, MIlteer etc. This happens a lot with photos. And everyone knows that.

While I agree that the third of the tramps was not E. Howard Hunt (but Chauncey Marvin Holt), the second and tallest was indeed Charles Harrelson, Lucien Conein was the person photographed above JFK's head, Joseph Milteer was (to the best of my knowledge) also photographed in the crowd in Dealey Plaza, so I find this remark very odd. Regarding Conein, for example, I had an extended thread on The Deep Politics Forum about this, eliciting Jack's assistance in comparing the alleged Robert Adams as Lucien Conein, when their featured were quite different. Moreover, as I noted in that extended thread, Allan Eaglesham supported this purported identification with a plaque that was OBVIOUSLY faked. I really can't understand why anyone would be taken in. The "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza" thread can still be accessed via http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2191 though it is unclear to me whether all of my posts about this issue remain. So I strongly disagree with your insinuation that that identification was mistaken.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&d=1261369572

In another post, "My concurrence with Lois Gibson, Houston Police Department", I explained why I am strongly of the opinion that Lois Gibson was correct in her identifications. If I could only locate it, I have a pamphlet from a missionary organization that shows a photo of Charles Rogers, who apparently served as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and was involved in an heroic rescue. Those who do not know the book should read THE MAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL, where I will do a search on amazon.com for more data about it to add here. Apparently, we all agree about Charles Harrelson, where Jack and I disagree, not only about the third tramp--whom he takes to be E. Howard Hunt--but also "Frenchie", where I should think some convergence of opinion ought to be possible.

When I organized a symposium at the Lancer Conference in 2000, as I recall, with Chauncey's daughter, Karyn, and his wife, who presented a portfolio of photographs from family albums and, in several cases, overlaid them with photos of the third tramp, Jerry Rose commented that, while he had been convinced in the past that it was E. Howard Hunt, he had now--based upon this presentation--changed his mind and agreed that it was Chauncey Holt. If Jack had been there, possibly he would have also changed his mind. Perhaps someone might be able to track it down and send a link for members to study? The book, THE MAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL (1992), which is extremely interesting, is by John R. Craig and A. Rogers Phillip. I recommend it highly. So if you doubt these identifications, I think you are simply wrong.

I take it your interest in the photographic evidence equals your interest in the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. No one can grasp the case without encompassing the medical and the photographic evidence.

Good work, as usual, Chris.

Something I think is never considered is that the original film used in fabrication MAY have been

shot IN SLOW MOTION using 16mm, giving fabricators much more material to work with in manipulating

frames...i.e., 48 fps to reduce to 16 (or fudge it to 18.3).

Chris...have you ever considered that possibility?

Jack

Thanks Jack,

Yes, I brought up a similar thought in this topic a little while ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16374&view=findpost&p=201602

You probably just missed it.

Jerry has pointed out that the clapping speed of Apron Man and his friend appear to be quite rapid.

He wanted a larger view of them.

I am waiting to hear what his thoughts are.

chris

Jeez Chris - I don't know. I can get myself to clap that quickly but it's not very natural. And the action on Houston street looks very odd.

Maybe the speed of the passing cars on Houston or a motorcycle? What are your thoughts?

Best,

Jerry

Thanks for the stabilization! If Jack and I agree you know it's got to be true. Nice work.

Jerry,

I would expect to see more of this speed (discounting limo).

Probably a pinch faster, but not much.

What did I do?

Took out the blurry frames in the sequence (about 12 of them).

Reduced FPS to 6, in the movie.

Thoughts!!!!

thanks,

chris

http://98.155.4.83:8400/4D37D/6FPS.mov

This is terrific work, Chris. Many thanks for the effort. I'm sure we'll all learn more from it.

Hey Greg, yes sir: chris is indeed, GOOD! Any nutters in this thread come up with anything of merit yet?

David

Not so far...

Something is warping DiEugenio's ability to reason clearly, which I suppose is psychological. I asked Brad if it might have been possible for the CIA to fabricate a family to discount the prospect that Campbell was at the Ambassador. It was a question for which the answer was obvious: OF COURSE! That would be child's play for the agency, yet Jim presents it as though I were making a false move. The fact of the matter is that the family's response was highly equivocal, as Shane reports on page 473 of WHO KILLED BOBBY?, where he son himself initially wasn't sure it was his father and one of his daughters questioned his appearance. The photograph of Roman that appears toward the end of "RFK Must Die", moreover, does not look like Campbell: he has too much hair and the shape of his face is different. It may be enough to convince DiEugenio, but his standards for acceptance are pitiful.

Jim, I sometimes observe what I perceive to be: JD's "odd reasoning", as well--but, I don't claim to know its source! That was humorous!

Take his discussion of the identification of Morales. He says "EIGHT PEOPLE SAID ITS (sic) NOT HIM" without bothering to take into account whether they might have had motives for denying the identity. They include his daughters! I can't imagine anyone who would have a stronger motive for denying that the man in the footage from the Ambassador was THEIR FATHER.

Yeah, I agree, that is weak--and inconclusive, at best.

Fernandez and Chavez worked with Morales, but are also not credible. Fernandez, for example, says "definitely that is not Dave Morales" when many others have said that it was.

Why is Fernandez not credible? (I'm not arguing that he is credible, but why isn't he?)

When even Tom Clines says "It looks like him but it's not him" (page 450), then a definitive rejection is not a reasonable response. Shane observes about Clines, who tries to minimize Ayer's competence, and Wilson, who also didn't identify Morales in a 1959 photo, that they appeared to have motives to protect Morales that Ayers and Smith did not.

IMO: Those are all red flags, and quite obvious.

Carbajal told Shane that Morales had been in Dallas and, in relation to his statement, "I was in Los Angeles when we got Bobby", he sought to defect its significance by claiming that he said, "when they got Bobby", which is highly implausible on its face. Morales was a very "hands-on" guy. The "evidence" DiEugenio cites is not only far weaker than he implies, but the evidence for their identifications is quite substantially stronger. Indeed, one of the glaring inadequacies of the Morley and Talbot article, "The BBC's Flawed RFK Story", is that they, too, minimize the number of persons who identified Morales, Joannides and Campbell to such an extent that it is difficult not to infer that they were deliberately suppressing evidence rather than searching for the truth. They mention FOUR SOURCES for identifications, each of whom they acknowledge as having identified EXACTLY ONE of the three men:

* Wayne Smith identified one of them as David Morales

* David Rabern identified the same person as Morales

* Brad Ayers identified one of them as Gordon Campbell

* Ed Lopez identified one of them as George Joannides

That's it! But something is wrong with this atrophied list of identifications, which was actually vastly more extensive. In THE ZENITH SECRET, for example, Brad identifies not only Morales and Campbell but another man he knew if not by name (Joannides). As he explains in the book, he undertook extensive research to track down Morales. So their list should obviously also include at least the following:

* Brad Ayers identified another man as David Morales

* Brad Ayers identified George Joannides but not by name

In additional, as Shane explains, Dan Hardway (page 458) and Tom Polgar (page 459) also identified Joannides, which should read:

* Dan Hardway identified one of them as George Joannides

* Tom Polgar identified the same man as George Joannides

Moreover, when Joannies' daughters were asked if their father was in the videos, they responded with "No comment!" (page 447), which suggests that they, too, recognized their father. If it was not him, after all, surely they would have simply said "No!"

Yeah, and even if they had said "No!" -- it still could be due to a misplaced loyalty to protect their father, in the same way Morales' daughters denied his presence at the Ambassador. I'm with you, Jim.

* Joannides daughters did not deny the identification

And Robert Walton (page 436) and Ruben Carbajal (pages 426-427) reported that Morales himself had implied that he was involved:

* Robert Walton reported Morales had said he was there

* Rube Carbajal partially supported what Walton reported

And there is more. In "RFK Must Die", Shane also interviews Harrison Smith, who confirms the identification of David Morales. And, while I am unable to verify the spelling, Chili Borha (?) confirms the identification of George Joannides. We should add

* Harrison Smith identified one of them as David Morales

* Chili Borha (?) identified another as George Joannides

The quality of the identifications also seems to have escaped DiEugenio, Talbot and Morley. Ayers served at JM/WAVE from May 1963 to December 1964 and worked with all three of them. The very idea that he would have been unable to identify Campbell when Campbell was his case officer verges on the absurd. If his case officer was not Gordon Campbell, he was someone who was using the name of "Gordon Campbell" and was the same person whom he identified in the videos from the Ambassador. Wayne Smith identified Morales immediately, even before Shane asked him if he recognized anyone in the footage. I am inclined to be more forgiving of DiEugenio's lapses in dealing with this issue, because he appears to have limited facility for critical thinking.

I agree that those who are not disinformation artists, but who nevertheless insist on discounting (out of hand) the reliability of identifications made by otherwise competent witnesses, are clearly not using their heads.

The situation with regard to Talbot and Morley, however, seems to me to be far more serious. They appear to have minimized the strength and the variety of the evidence supporting the identifications. In my opinion, their performance here has been simply inexcusable. While Bill Kelly has dismissed the issue because we have other evidence, that is grossly inappropriate if we intend to discover the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the assassinations of some of our country's strongest and most capable and inspiring leaders.

It is, in my opinion, unnecessary for a researcher to discount evidence. All evidence needs to be weighed and measured irrespective of how it impacts one's own pre-existing beliefs. So, dismissing "supporting" evidence because we have "other evidence" is not productive. That is partly the reason some CT researchers deny Zapruder film alteration or remain agnostic about it.

Our culture is so visually oriented that evidence of this kind has the potential to convince a large segment of the population that the CIA was profoundly involved, not only in the assassination of JFK but in rubbing out his brother, Bobby, and thereby denying the American people the right to determine who should govern the United States.

IMO, JFK was assassinated by a military ambush "operationally" -- not the CIA. However, the CIA and many other government agencies were deeply involved in the "cover up" (Obstruction of Justice) and continue to be. That is not to say that the agency lacked motive. They had plenty of motive. They just "suck" at that type of operation. They might oversee such a thing--at least limited aspects of it--but they are operationally incompetent on that level. In other words, they lack "the means" to directly do the deed. They can, and do, have "hired hands" to act on their behalf world-wide [read:abroad], but NOT here. I know it sounds naive for me to say that, but it's true. And there is a reason that they don't. There are many reasons that the military had to be involved operationally in Dallas, IMO. The agency "stuck a leg out" into the aisle--sometimes causing "a trip" is all that's required.

Moreover, the Secret Service and supplemental military protection provided by the 113th Army Intelligence Unit Washington, DC (112th 4th Army Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston), had to be "removed" from the equation to insure success. That "removal" is a function of the CIA...

But I digress..

Good work, as usual, Chris.

Something I think is never considered is that the original film used in fabrication MAY have been

shot IN SLOW MOTION using 16mm, giving fabricators much more material to work with in manipulating

frames...i.e., 48 fps to reduce to 16 (or fudge it to 18.3).

Chris...have you ever considered that possibility?

Jack

Thanks Jack,

Yes, I brought up a similar thought in this topic a little while ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16374&view=findpost&p=201602

You probably just missed it.

Jerry has pointed out that the clapping speed of Apron Man and his friend appear to be quite rapid.

He wanted a larger view of them.

I am waiting to hear what his thoughts are.

chris

Jeez Chris - I don't know. I can get myself to clap that quickly but it's not very natural. And the action on Houston street looks very odd.

Maybe the speed of the passing cars on Houston or a motorcycle? What are your thoughts?

Best,

Jerry

Thanks for the stabilization! If Jack and I agree you know it's got to be true. Nice work.

Jerry,

I would expect to see more of this speed (discounting limo).

Probably a pinch faster, but not much.

What did I do?

Took out the blurry frames in the sequence (about 12 of them).

Reduced FPS to 6, in the movie.

Thoughts!!!!

thanks,

chris

http://98.155.4.83:8400/4D37D/6FPS.mov

This is terrific work, Chris. Many thanks for the effort. I'm sure we'll all learn more from it.

...I said I don't know of any conspiracy by the American government...

We the People are the government. And since we are a democratic republic, we elect officials to represent us and protect our interests. Therefore, any crime involving the cooperation of 2 or more elected government officials (or their staff) is a CONSPIRACY by the American government's elected officials against "We the People".

Ever hear of Watergate? There are perhaps hundreds of other examples. The Teapot Dome Scandal, etc., etc., etc.

[edited error]

Except for John are ALL the moderatore LNs?

Hey, without evidence, the LN's need all the help they can get.

Monk...beware of snake oil salesmen.

Noted!

Thank you, my friend...I will.

Greg,

I'm sorry to see you seem to be following Jack into name calling. The issue is really simple.

You wrote....

"The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" --"

Since at least 2003 Roland Zavada and others have argued that it was technically impossible to create an undetectable forgery of the Zapruder film because of the grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film.

Certainly, copying (and in Horne and White's view) enlarging and recopying are part of the alteration process so I simply asked you to demonstrate how the techniques in "There it Is" refuted or even addressed this basic question.

Apparently that one's too hard so how about contrast and registration problems with mattes, not to mention traveling mattes? First, are there any mattes at all in "There is Is"? If so, where exactly do they appear in the film? Second, what specific matte techniques were used in "There it Is" that could be applied or extended to the Zapruder film?

These are simple questions that go to the heart of your clearly stated assertion - the nature of your response so far makes me think you can't answer but I could be wrong.

I am certain that calling names and posting circulars about pys ops isn't an answer. And I'm almost certain you didn't have a clue about the actual techniques used in "There it Is",

You shot from the hip and now it's uncomfortable to be confronted with questions about what's actually in the movie and how it could possibly apply to Zapruder.

In my experience everyone thinks better of you if you just admit a mistake and move on - there were lots of movies in the 20's and 30's that could actually apply at least tangentially to the Zapruder film. Why don't you pick one of those. "There is Is" is no place to make your last stand.

Jerry

This is not my last stand. Why suggest it is? In fact, why are you raising issues (that I didn't raise) and then attributing them to me? Knock it off! It's a poor representation of your intellectual prowess.

Seriously, Jerry...you are attributing WAY MORE to me than what I actually said. I don't like it. Even Jim D is getting swallowed up in it...not his fault. He is agnostically gullible on this issue. But you are not.

'nuff said--

Greg, this is what you said:

"Similar defense tactics have been employed by the CIA to support the WCR, although they appear innocuous on their face--just like your cordial nonsense does. "

You then posted the famous CIA memo on Countering the Critics of the Warren Report.

That's cutting it kind of close.

So be it.

Greg:

Let us try and be civil.

I don't think we should imply someone is a spook if they don't believe in film alteration. OK.

There are many decent people who are either on the fence or disagree about that issue.

Like say Gary Aguilar and Randy Robertson.

Those are people who full well believe in conspiracy. But just not that aspect of it.

What are you talking about, Jim? Nobody implied anyone was a "spook" -- sheesh. However, similar tactics can be employed by the un-employed...as they were in this case.

I do not require that anyone believes the Zapruder film is altered in order to "prove" they are honest, intelligent, sincere, etc.

Monk...beware of snake oil salesmen.

Noted!

Thank you, my friend...I will.

Greg,

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Interested parties can check here to learn more about the Bowers process and make up their own minds.

h**p://www.brightlightsfilm.com/68/68charleybowers.php

Just for my information, exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed, for example, the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film?

Jerry

No offense taken. How did your professionals address those irrelevant issues, Jerry? Mine didn't address them at all! They are more concerned with actual issues--content inconsistencies, and impossibilities. The Zapruder film is interestingly similar to the Warren Commission Report, in that it is "internally" inconsistent with itself.

Greg,

I'm not trying to be difficult (well..maybe just a little but not in a mean way). You're the guy who started the thread about how all the technology arguments were irrefutably rebutted by the existence of "There it Is" in 1928.

That is NOT what I said! Not even close. You are NOT cognitively impaired. Please don't continue to misrepresent yourself as such...it will gain little sympathy.

It's disappointing to learn you started a thread on "irrelevant issues" about which your film experts haven't even expressed an opinion.

Try again because that was LAME(son).

That's why I wrote (and I should have used kinder language) that the thread was embarrassing. Because there's an entire host of technical issues on which "There it Is" is completely silent and the first time I raise just one of them it's time to change the subject to content.

Huh? What are you talking about now? Several of the rudimentary techniques in use in this 1928 film demonstrate the technology (however accomplished in 1928) to ALTER FILM. The 1928 film displayed formidable "credibility" in its presentation. The Zapruder film was shot and processed 35 years later! So, even more advanced technology was available to our government in 1963, coupled with an unlimited budget to implement the technology.

Hey, I'm willing to go there - I thought the whole thread was silly from the very start. So if you've got something post it in a new thread and let's look at content.

Jerry

If you thought it silly, then WHY CONTRIBUTE TO THE THREAD AT ALL? You parrot the position of others in your post. Similar defense tactics have been employed by the CIA to support the WCR, although they appear innocuous on their face--just like your cordial nonsense does.

Countering Criticism of the Warren Report

1 April 1967

Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases

Document Number 1035-960

for FOIA Review on Sep 1976

SUBJECT: Countering Criticism of the Warren Report

PSYCH

1. Our Concern: From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addressees are requested:

CS COPY

9 attachments h/w

DATE 4/1/67

1- Satts

8-Unclassified

DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED

JFK 01, p.2

a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where contested by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private or media discussion not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attacks on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, A.J.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Van der Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been much more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual eyewitnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent -- and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistic, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the commission for good and sufficient reason.

JFK 01, p.3

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory; or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

JFK 01, p.4

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed-up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some more natural way: e.g., the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the Report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

Jerry,

Just to be clear, I did not say that I believe the same technology was used in both films. If you re-read my entire post, you'll note that I am only arguing against the position of some of the anti-alterationists who have claimed that (re-phrased for clarity): "The Zapruder film is legitimate because the state of alteration technology was not developed sufficiently to have pulled it off...believably in 1963." In my opinion, that argument is not well founded because film manipulation had come a very long way, even by 1928. If my original post lacked clarity, my apologies.

Greg,

I appreciate your clarification and apology. I have to admit that I don't see that in your original post but perhaps it was edited out.

In any case, I think your thoughts about "There It Is" in relation to the Zapruder film are way ahead of what's actually in the 1928 movie.

Of course! It is 35 years later, why wouldn't 1963 technology not be ahead of 1928? That's a no-brainer, Jerry!

... "There It Is" is one of his most famous films and rightly famous for the mentioned stop frame animation. As I've written before, stop frame animation is just the opposite process that would be required to alter the Zapruder film. [italics added]

Is it really the opposite process? Are you sure? I think not. I believe that stop frame was not the "end all" process, but was, in fact, incorporated when the film frames were individually re-shot.

In stop frame the film is completely unchanged. Instead, the camera is stopped and the underlying reality is changed. It's not the film that's altered - it's the scene that's changed and then recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion makes magical things appear to happen.

Well, that's only partially true, Jerry. Stop frame can also be used to alter images "frame by frame" in a studio... and you know it. The (pre-recorded) "scene" can be changed and then re-recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion making the source of "graphic violence" appear to be uncertain, too.

Honestly, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with things like retouching, compositing, matting, traveling mattes, emulsion matching or any number of other things required to make an authentic looking Zapruder forgery. It's a completely different and opposite process.

Uhhh, no that is not correct, as it is based on a non-sequitar.

I think I understand the point you were going for but you just picked a completely inappropriate and inapplicable example and that makes us all look foolish.

It might make you look foolish, my dear condescending one, but not me.

I know a number of professional film makers are monitoring the forum and they'd instantly recognize the obvious mistake. I know that you have some good stuff Greg, I just wish you could find a way to show it to us.

That is an insulting and quite embarassing (for you) statement! Why use intimidation as a deterrent if your case is so strong, Jerry? It is beneath you.

Sincerely, my best to you,

Jerry

Thanks...but, try again. Oh, and BTW: there are a number of professional film makers who do not agree with your assessment either. However, that proves nothing--except that we both know professionals with opposing views on the subject.

Greg,

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Interested parties can check here to learn more about the Bowers process and make up their own minds.

h**p://www.brightlightsfilm.com/68/68charleybowers.php

Just for my information, exactly how did your film professionals think "There it Is" addressed, for example, the issues of grain structure, contrast mismatching, and image structure degradation in duplicating Kodachrome II color film?

Jerry

No offense taken. How did your professionals address those irrelevant issues, Jerry? Mine didn't address them at all! They are more concerned with actual issues--content inconsistencies, and impossibilities. The Zapruder film is interestingly similar to the Warren Commission Report, in that it is "internally" inconsistent with itself.

Greg:

I actually think that Jerry is right on this point, or at lest more right than the film you produced from 1928 is.

In the film you were posting, most of those effects could be done with simple stop action or some animation. ANd they are all done on a very small scale. WHich I mentioned before since they were either close in or medium shots. Very little if any background to worry about.

What Horne is talking about is something quite different and dealing with matching many other people--who you could call extras--in a background against action in the foreground which also includes extras, and also what we could call main actors. And like I said, if this was done, it was an amazing job. No film I know of from that time period interweaved composite shots or traveling mattes as seamlessly.

If you know anything about how hard this stuff is to do to make it undetectable, it is truly a feat for 1963. I disagree a bit with Jack on this point. Although it is technically true to say that the techniques did exist to do the things Horne is saying was done, the point is if the proficiency had advanced by that time to do it as well as it was done here. Like I said, I used to be an avid film goer. I don't recall these effects being done as well until 2001.

I mean if what you are saying is true the traveling mattes had to be just about perfectly done and then the composite photography was also perfect. Because I cannot detect any kind of rear projection or blue screen process photography.

Jim,

The best and the most highly advanced techniques to alter and/or manipulate film in 1963 were, far and away, most readily available to the US Federal Government--as they are even today.

This should not even be in question.

If we accept the above as true, then is it really a giant stretch to conclude that between the Hawkeye and NPIC facilities, that TOP SECRET "STATE OF THE ART" technology was, in fact, available to the US Federal Government? Is it a stretch to conclude that the technology (TOP SECRET) that was available to the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT might have exceeded even Hollywood's best special effects?

Given the magnitude of the "cover-up challenge" to the perpetrators of the crime, and given an unlimited budget, when do you think such technology would have been employed for use on an URGENT basis? Seems like this would have been opportune, no?

Jerry,

Just to be clear, I did not say that I believe the same technology was used in both films. If you re-read my entire post, you'll note that I am only arguing against the position of some of the anti-alterationists who have claimed that (re-phrased for clarity): "The Zapruder film is legitimate because the state of alteration technology was not developed sufficiently to have pulled it off...believably in 1963." In my opinion, that argument is not well founded because film manipulation had come a very long way, even by 1928. If my original post lacked clarity, my apologies.

Greg,

I appreciate your clarification and apology. I have to admit that I don't see that in your original post but perhaps it was edited out.

In any case, I think your thoughts about "There It Is" in relation to the Zapruder film are way ahead of what's actually in the 1928 movie.

Of course! It is 35 years later, why wouldn't 1963 technology not be ahead of 1928? That's a no-brainer, Jerry!

... "There It Is" is one of his most famous films and rightly famous for the mentioned stop frame animation. As I've written before, stop frame animation is just the opposite process that would be required to alter the Zapruder film. [italics added]

Is it really the opposite process? Are you sure? I think not. I believe that stop frame was not the "end all" process, but was, in fact, incorporated when the film frames were individually re-shot.

In stop frame the film is completely unchanged. Instead, the camera is stopped and the underlying reality is changed. It's not the film that's altered - it's the scene that's changed and then recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion makes magical things appear to happen.

Well, that's only partially true, Jerry. Stop frame can also be used to alter images "frame by frame" in a studio... and you know it. The (pre-recorded) "scene" can be changed and then re-recorded on unaltered, un-manipulated film stock where the viewers assumption of continuous motion making the source of "graphic violence" appear to be uncertain, too.

Honestly, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with things like retouching, compositing, matting, traveling mattes, emulsion matching or any number of other things required to make an authentic looking Zapruder forgery. It's a completely different and opposite process.

Uhhh, no that is not correct, as it is based on a non-sequitar.

I think I understand the point you were going for but you just picked a completely inappropriate and inapplicable example and that makes us all look foolish.

It might make you look foolish, my dear condescending one, but not me.

I know a number of professional film makers are monitoring the forum and they'd instantly recognize the obvious mistake. I know that you have some good stuff Greg, I just wish you could find a way to show it to us.

That is an insulting and quite embarassing (for you) statement! Why use intimidation as a deterrent if your case is so strong, Jerry? It is beneath you.

Sincerely, my best to you,

Jerry

Thanks...but, try again. Oh, and BTW: there are a number of professional film makers who do not agree with your assessment either. However, that proves nothing--except that we both know professionals with opposing views on the subject.

Bernie,

Reason begets reason :>) Thank you for taking the time to think about my comments and offer constructive criticism.

Sure, people were manipulating photos and films long before 1928. They were, for example, inserting retouched photos into flip books in the 1890's to show "moving ghosts" visiting the living! So of course, taken in isolation, everyone should agree moving pictures can be and were manipulated prior to 1963 and anybody who's talking about film alteration should already know that. No problem. As you say, it's a truism.

However, I think you're mistaken when you say that " No one is saying that this video has anything whatsoever to do with what happened to the Z film. You are making that leap." That sentence is hard to reconcile with the first sentence of Greg's original post which was "The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film." I didn't imagine the leap, I didn't make it - Greg stated it clearly and directly just as he jumped into his own, personal version of reality.

Seriously Bernie, that's not an assertion about the simple concept of alteration. It's a specific claim that the technology used in the 1928 film could have produced the Zapruder film - and that's what seems to me absurd and counter-productive. The technology (tools and techniques) of the 1928 film have nothing whatsoever to say about the techniques and tools required to produce an authentic looking Zapruder alteration.

Given what you've written, I suspect you may agree with me on this. In our exchanges you've taken and defended a very reasonable position that, unfortunately, is not the position of Greg and some others. The kind of work that people like Chris Davidson is doing is actually useful and could be monumental.I think everyone who's interested in this sort of thing would do well to focus on serious questions and real evidence instead of trying to score cheap debating points that reveal their ignorance.

Obviously, I don't count you among that unfortunate group. I also suspect we disagree about the current state of alteration evidence but some of my best friends (Well...at least friends) are alterationists so there's still hope for the two of us!

Best to you,

Jerry

PS I think Avatar, by definition, implies the ability to alter film. I'm still kind of liking the analogy.

Jerry,

Just to be clear, I did not say that I believe the same technology was used in both films. If you re-read my entire post, you'll note that I am only arguing against the position of some of the anti-alterationists who have claimed that (re-phrased for clarity): "The Zapruder film is legitimate because the state of alteration technology was not developed sufficiently to have pulled it off...believably in 1963." In my opinion, that argument is not well founded because film manipulation had come a very long way, even by 1928. If my original post lacked clarity, my apologies.

OK,

As for being civil, yes, that's better for everybody.

It is a sad fact that some members come here only to try to play around with those whose opinions they don't like. Some members have been very disrespectful to me (one of them saying recently something about "my book coming off my a..", or something to that effect, which is a personal attack). I am a man, and always respond with force to any attack. Still, I'm here to debate in a serious way, and am fed up with those attacks, so I have decided that from now on I shall stick to the topics and discussions in a civil and constructive way, and IGNORE ALTOGETHER the few members who do not deserve my reading any word (let alone sentence) they write.

You and I certainly disagree on most things regarding the Kennedy assassination but you have shown to be a man with whom it is possible to talk seriously. Thank you for that.

Well, I don't doubt for a minute that Mister Bill Kelly's knowledge of the Kennedy assassination case is tremendous. And I'm sure he has scrutinized the evidence very thoroughly.

But why is it that he has not reached the same conclusions as other people who have the same amount of knowledge and have also worked hard on the evidence ?

It must be a question of method, don't you think ?

We all know the same basic facts, but we do not reach the same conclusions. Why ? Some of us must fail, somewhere. It should be interesting to wonder where, and how, and who ?

/F.C./

Francois,

I would say that this is perhaps a "cultural" distinction, except that many of those who support the official story are Americans, too--so that's not it. Rather than me speculate on why those who support the official version choose to do so, or speculate as to their "motives" which I have no way of knowing, let me instead point out one reason why many of us find the official version so suspect.

Initially, the main problem is that the officials "rushed to judgment" in their haste to claim: "Case Closed" for all the world to believe. To most Americans, such behavior--by their government--is inherently suspect because it defies our own rule of law. That isn't how we do things here. There need not have been any rush to close the case at all if there was, in fact, nothing to hide. Indeed, such governmental behavior backfired and kept this case open for nearly 50 years so far!

In America, our Declaration of Independence advises us to be ever vigilant over government. Our Constitution similarly acknowledged the rights of the individual; rights that are inherent to being human--not "granted" by any government, and therefore, may not be infringed upon by any government. It is within this environment that Americans must view the assassination of our 35th President. It is within this environment that we must evaluate all of the surrounding events (the investigation and handling of witnesses and evidence) before laying the case to rest. And, the problem is, too many things just don't add up.

Well, guess what ? I already knew that there had been no trial, no jury, no conviction. I did know that Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby, you see.

I also knew that OJ Simpson was found NOT guilty.

But I am not speaking "in terms of legality", in this forum. I though we were here to share our views on the evidence. And in the Kennedy case, as well as the Simpson case, I do claim that the evidence laid before us is enough to reach a sane conclusion.

I state here that to my mind it is safe to say that Oswald was guilty, and that Simpson was guilty, also.

If I criticize somebody for saying that Oswald is innocent, I mean that that person refuses to acknowledge the evidence at hand, that's all.

/F.C./

P.S. : I didn't copy your message. Please do not erase it again...

Thank you for being civil in your reply. However, I don't agree with you at all. Your mis-characterization of those who are thoroughly scrutinizing the evidence as "refusing to acknowledge the evidence at hand" is not accurate. Bill is demonstrating (as usual) an exceptional knowledge of the "evidence" that was advanced by the government. So, there is no "refusal to acknowledge" the evidence. However, he is scrutinizing that evidence in order to determine if it is valid. He has asked to be "persuaded" by those who support the official version. So far, the arguments in support of conviction have fallen far short of the mark.

Here we go again.

Mister Kelly, your questions do not make sense.

You seem to suggest that if we can't prove that Lee Oswald did a few precise actions that you list, then you can somehow turn him into an innocent man.

What a poor method of getting at the truth !

You're bound to fail.

Francois, Oswald IS an innocent man in terms of American jurisprudence because he was never found guilty by a jury. There was no trial. Here, a suspect IS considered innocent until proven guilty beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. We do not live in a Napoleonic Court System (guilty until proven innocent) in the United States. That is a French invention. So, Bill isn't "turning him into an innocent man" at all! Bill is merely alluding to the only accurate label by which he can be described.

This is one of the tell tale signs of intellectual dishonesty on the part of people who should know better. People like McAdams nearly flat out deny that Oswald is legally still presumed innocent because his guilt was never proved. If, as Bill points out, the evidence in support of his guilt is inadequate to persuade beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT then a jury would not have convicted him.

Unlike the inculptory evidence in the OJ Simpson case, the evidence in support of Oswald's guilt is very weak, and even the so-called "strongest" evidence against him is rife with gaping holes.

If cognitive dissonance is really what is the issue for you Greg, then why don't you leave it at that?

In sales, we call it "selling after the sale" ( has been made )

We call it "talking past the close..." but that's not what I did. I feel strongly that she was not lying to me, but that means little in terms of evidence. My dilemma might be resolved by elements in her new book--one way or another.

In this case you have really put out all your cards previously with that stance.

Huh? Don't be so condescending. That won't work with me.

Hello Chris,

Using your definition of alteration it would appear that the film clip you posted is unaltered.

It seems to be a simple stop frame animation where the camera stopped, the physical content of the scene is changed and the film is started to record the new physical reality.

When the film is played back it appears as though a mysterious transformation has occurred in a moment but what the film doesn't show is the time interval where an assistant stepped into the scene and removed the the fake nose.

It's not the film that has been altered in this instance, it's the scene that's changed. The film maker plays on your assumption that filming was uninterrupted and in real time.

But no frame was altered, moved or added - that's exactly what the camera saw while it was recording.

Assuming that the motorcade wasn't stopped along Elm to add or remove elements from the scene it's hard to see how stop frame animation could have played a role in the Zapruder film.

Best to you,

Jerry

Jerry if a single frame was removed from that 1928 film then that means that its altered

Im positive that the 1928 film has had many frames removed

Just like the limo turn being taken out of the Z-film

If a frame(s) have been removed that means the film was altered

Hello Dean,

I was referring to the clip Chris posted. It's obvious that clip was a stop frame animation so no part of the film was added or subtracted or changed - it was the scene which was changed between frames.

I haven't commented on the entire 1928 film because I'm no expert in 1928 movie technology - although most of it looks to me like simple stop frame animation, not alteration in the sense of using composites or mattes to create images of things that didn't physically exist or happen or retouching frame content to change the images in the frame.

Frankly, I find the entire thread kind of bizarre. Everyone (I think) knows that images have been retouched and composited since the very start of photography. The fact that someone in 1928 could use black and white professional negative film in a controlled studio environment to produce some limited special effects which look pretty good on youtube - that doesn't tell me anything about what's required to create a color positive 8mm film strip of a changing outdoor scene that's good enough to fool the guy who invented the film when he's examining the original with a 20x microscope.

It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16.

Best to you,

Jerry

It's sort of like saying having the technology to produce a gatling gun means you can automatically produce an M16.

Precisely! Er, which came first again?

Bernie,

It was a late night analogy so I'm not married to it. Plus, firearms history doesn't seem to be your forte.

How about this instead?

It's like saying that since Walt Disney animated Mickey Mouse in 1928 it was possible to produce Avatar in 1963.

Whatever analogy you prefer, the point is that concepts are around for a long time - a lot earlier that 1928. The real question is what specific techniques and tools are required to realize a specific instance of a general idea. Nothing in the 1928 film speaks to what's technically required to generate a highly plausible Z film.

Best to you,

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

I confess, that IS a better example. But still no where near conclusive. No one is saying that the Zapruder film is as complex as Avatar. You're stretching the goal posts and setting up straw men.

Take your analogy...it is indubitably correct that Mickey mouse was a forerunner for such films as Avatar in 2009. From simple grainy black and white animation right through to the ultra sophisticated Avatar.

Was there no midway point in all this technological development?

Thanks for all of your well thought out posts in this thread, Bernie.

Excerpt from a letter to Jim Garrison from Colonel Prouty:

"At about 1957 Lansdale was brought back to Washington and assigned to Air Force Headquarters in a Plans office near mine. He was a fish out of water. He didn't know Air Force people and Air Force ways. After about six months of that, Dulles got the Office of Special Operations under General Erskine to ask for Lansdale to work for the Secretary of Defense. Erskine was man enough to control him.

By 1960 Erskine had me head the Air Force shop there. He had an Army shop and a Navy shop and we were responsible for all CIA relationships as well as for the National Security Agency. Ed was still out of his element because he did not know the services; but the CIA sent work his way.

Then in the Fall of 1960 something happened that fired him up. Kennedy was elected over Nixon. Right away Lansdale figured out what he was going to do with the new President. Overnight he left for Saigon to see Diem and to set up a deal that would make him, Lansdale, Ambassador to Vietnam. He had me buy a "Father of his Country" gift for Diem...$700.00.

I can't repeat all of this but you should get a copy of the Gravel edition, 5 Vol.'s, of the Pentagon Papers and read it. The Lansdale accounts are quite good and reasonably accurate.

Ed came back just before the Inauguration and was brought into the White House for a long presentation to Kennedy about Vietnam. Kennedy was taken by it and promised he would have Lansdale back in Vietnam "in a high office". Ed told us in OSO he had the Ambassadorship sewed up. He lived for that job.

He had not reckoned with some of JFK's inner staff, George Ball, etc. Finally the whole thing turned around and month by month Lansdale's star sank over the horizon. Erskine retired and his whole shop was scattered. The Navy men went back to the navy as did the Army folks. Gen Wheeler in the JCS asked to have me assigned to the Joint Staff. This wiped out the whole Erskine (Office of Special Operations) office. It was comical. There was Lansdale up there all by himself with no office and no one else. He boiled and he blamed it on Kennedy for not giving him the "promised" Ambassadorship to let him "save" Vietnam.

Then with the failure of the Bay of Pigs, caused by that phone call to cancel the air strikes by McGeorge Bundy, the military was given the job of reconstituting some sort of Anti-Castro operation. It was headed by an Army Colonel; but somehow Lansdale (most likely CIA influence) got put into the plans for Operation Mongoose...to get Castro...ostensibly.

The U.S. Army has a think-tank at American University. It was called "Operation Camelot". This is where the "Camelot" concept came from. It was anti-JFK's Vietnam strategy. The men running it were Lansdale types, Special Forces background. "Camelot" was King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table: not JFK...then.

Through 1962 and 1963 Mongoose and "Camelot" became strong and silent organizations dedicated to countering JFK. Mongoose had access to the CIA's best "hit men" in the business and a lot of "strike" capability. Lansdale had many old friends in the media business such as Joe Alsop, Henry Luce among others. With this background and with his poisoned motivation I am positive that he got collateral orders to manage the Dallas event under the guise of "getting" Castro. It is so simple at that level. A nod from the right place, source immaterial, and the job's done.

The "hit" is the easy part. The "escape" must be quick and professional. The cover-up and the scenario are the big jobs. They more than anything else prove the Lansdale mastery.

Lansdale was a master writer and planner. He was a great "scenario" guy. It still have a lot of his personally typed material in my files. I am certain that he was behind the elaborate plan and mostly the intricate and enduring cover-up. Given a little help from friends at PEPSICO he could easily have gotten Nixon into Dallas, for "orientation': and LBJ in the cavalcade at the same time, contrary to Secret Service policy.

He knew the "Protection" units and the "Secret Service", who was needed and who wasn't. Those were routine calls for him, and they would have believed him. Cabell could handle the police.

The "hit men" were from CIA overseas sources, for instance, from the "Camp near Athena, Greece. They are trained, stateless, and ready to go at any time. They ask no questions: speak to no one. They are simply told what to do, when and where. Then they are told how they will be removed and protected. After all, they work for the U.S. Government. The "Tramps" were actors doing the job of cover-up. The hit men are just pros. They do the job for the CIA anywhere. They are impersonal. They get paid. They get protected, and they have enough experience to "blackmail" anyone, if anyone ever turns on them...just like Drug agents. The job was clean, quick and neat. No ripples.

The whole story of the POWER of the Cover-up comes down to a few points. There has never been a Grand Jury and trial in Texas. Without a trial there can be nothing. Without a trial it does no good for researchers to dig up data. It has no place to go and what the researchers reveal just helps make the cover-up tighter, or they eliminate that evidence and the researcher.

The first man LBJ met with on Nov 29th, after he had cleared the foreign dignitaries out of Washington was Waggoner Carr, Atty Gen'l, Texas to tell him, "No trial in Texas...ever."

The next man he met, also on Nov 29th, was J. Edgar Hoover. The first question LBJ asked his old "19 year" neighbor in DC was "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ thought that THEY had been shooting at him also as they shot at his friend John Connally. Note that he asked, "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ knew there were several hitmen. That's the ultimate clue...THEY.

The Connallys said the same thing...THEY. Not Oswald.

Then came the heavily loaded press releases about Oswald all written before the deal and released actually before LHO had ever been charged with the crime. I bought the first newspaper EXTRA on the streets of Christchurch, New Zealand with the whole LHO story in that first news...photos and columns of it before the police in Dallas had yet to charge him with that crime. All this canned material about LHO was flashed around the world.

Lansdale and his Time-Life and other media friends, with Valenti in Hollywood, have been doing that cover-up since Nov 1963. Even the deMorenschildt story enhances all of this. In deM's personal telephone/address notebook he had the name of an Air Force Colonel friend of mine, Howard Burrus. Burrus was always deep in intelligence. He had been in one of the most sensitive Attache spots in Europe...Switzerland. He was a close friend of another Air Force Colonel and Attache, Godfrey McHugh, who used to date Jackie Bouvier. DeM had Burrus listed under a DC telephone number and on that same telephone number he had "L.B.Johnson, Congressman." Quite a connection. Why...from the Fifties yet.?

Godfrey McHugh was the Air Force Attache in Paris. Another most important job. I knew him well, and I transferred his former Ass't Attache to my office in the Pentagon. This gave me access to a lot of information I wanted in the Fifties. This is how I learned that McHugh's long-time special "date" was the fair Jacqueline...yes, the same Jackie Bouvier. Sen. Kennedy met Jackie in Paris when he was on a trip. At that time JFK was dating a beautiful SAS Airline Stewardess who was the date of that Ass't Attache who came to my office. JFK dumped her and stole Jackie away from McHugh. Leaves McHugh happy????

At the JFK Inaugural Ball who should be there but the SAS stewardess, Jackie--of course, and Col Godfrey McHugh. JFK made McHugh a General and made him his "Military Advisor" in the White House where he was near Jackie while JFK was doing all that official travelling connected with his office AND other special interests. Who recommended McHugh for the job?

General McHugh was in Dallas and was on Air Force One, with Jackie, on the flight back to Washington..as was Jack Valenti. Why was LBJ's old cohort there at that time and why was he on Air Force One? He is now the Movie Czar. Why in Dallas?

See how carefully all of this is interwoven. Burrus is now a very wealthy man in Washington. I have lost track of McHugh. And Jackie is doing well. All in the Lansdale--deM shadows.

One of Lansdale's special "black" intelligence associates in the Pentagon was Dorothy Matlack of U.S. Army Intelligence. How does it happen that when deM. flew from Haiti to testify, he was met at the National Airport by Dorothy?

The Lansdale story is endless. What people do not do is study the entire environment of his strange career. For example: the most important part of my book, "The Secret Team", is not something that I wrote. It is Appendix III under the title, "Training Under The Mutual Security Program". This is a most important bit of material. It tells more about the period 1963 to 1990 than anything. I fought to have it included verbatim in the book. This material was the work of Lansdale and his crony General Dick Stillwell. Anyone interested in the "JFK Coup d'Etat" ought to know it by heart.

I believe this document tells why the Coup took place. It was to reverse the sudden JFK re-orientation of the U.S. Government from Asia to Europe, in keeping with plans made in 1943 at Cairo and Teheran by T.V. Soong and his Asian masterminds. Lansdale and Stillwell were long-time "Asia hands" as were Gen Erskine, Adm Radford, Cardinal Spellman, Henry Luce and so many others.

In October 1963, JFK had just signalled this reversal, to Europe, when he published National Security Action Memorandum #263 saying...among other things...that he was taking 1000 troops home from Vietnam by Christmas 1963 and ALL AMERICANS out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That cost him his life.

JFK came to that "Pro-Europe" conclusion in the Summer of 1963 and sent Gen Krulak to Vietnam for advance work. Kurlak and I (with others) wrote that long "Taylor-McNamara" Report of their "Visit to Vietnam" (obviously they did not write, illustrate and bind it as they traveled). Krulak got his information daily in the White House. We simply wrote it. That led to NSAM #263. This same Trip Report is Document #142 and appears on page 751 to 766 of Vol. II of the Gravel Edition of the Pentagon Papers. NSAM #263 appears on pages 769-770 (It makes the Report official). This major Report and NSAM indicated an enormous shift in the orientation of U.S. Foreign Policy from Asia back to Europe. JFK was much more Europe- oriented, as was his father, than pro-Asia. This position was anathema to the Asia-born Luces, etc.

There is the story from an insider. I sat in the same office with Lansdale, (OSO of OSD) for years. I listened to him in Manila and read his flurry of notes from 1952 to 1964. I know all this stuff, and much more. I could write ten books. I send this to you because I believe you are one of the most sincere of the "true researchers". You may do with it as you please. I know you will do it right. I may give copies of this to certain other people of our persuasion. (Years ago I told this to Mae Brussell on the promise she would hold it. She did.)

Now you can see why I have always said that identification of the "Tramps" was unnecessary, i.e. they are actors. The first time I saw that picture I saw the man I knew and I realized why he was there. He caused the political world to spin on its axis. Now, back to recuperating."

Which means what Greg?

Those are the technical specs of that film "FYI" -- in case "inquiring minds" wanted to know.

I know this will be made invisible, but, in a different thread Jack said:

I will agree to an Apollo discussion (not debate) with Burton only on these conditions:

1. Participation in this thread itself be LIMITED to Burton, White, and Fetzer.

2. All exchanges be civil and without personal remarks...only evidence,

3. The format consisting of the following:

....White will post one of his studies

....Burton will post his evaluation of the study

....Fetzer will respond to Burton's analysis

4. The procedure will be repeated until ALL studies are discussed.

5. A SEPARATE thread will be provided for anyone wanting to argue or debate either position.

6. Each study represents WHITE'S POSITION, so he will not comment further.

Without a LIMITED THREAD, the usual chaos would ensue with Lamson, Colby and others

tossing insults about. I want no part of such.

Those are my conditions. Take it or leave it.

Jack

So, it seems we have a discussion, no?