Daniel Meyer

Headquarters of Lykes in the early 1960s was at 821 Gravier, an easy 4 block walk from Lafayette Square.

A while back I was playing in a brass band in a parade in New Orleans. We were passing the Hale Boggs Federal Building. (For background you need to know they tore down the old Newman Building where Guy Bannister's office was to make space for it, and that former Warren Commission member Boggs who the new building is named after died under mysterious circumstances shortly after saying he was about to make some revelations.) A local "sick humor" joke sometimes calls it "the Lee Harvey Oswald Federal Building". I hadn't heard that "joke" for years, but as the parade was passing I heard someone in the parade say it and then several other people laugh and repeat the comment. The band leader heard this and immediately had the band swing in to "It Ain't My Fault".

No. Even if the entire space program was a waste, there have certainly been bigger and more expensive ones, mostly military related. The war in Iraq comes to mind. If that's too close to home, how about the Spanish Crown wasting the literal mountains of gold and silver they plundered from Mexico and South America on a series of wars to try to keep the Netherlands Catholic and to build an armada to invade England. Tang was a civilian commercial product developed for the consumer market by General Foods; it is only commonly associated with the space program because it was included in the provisions of a couple of Mercury and Gemini missions, and General Mills used this as the basis of a major advertising campaign. I would argue that the space program often has been useful. Putting humans into space as soon as it was just barely technically possible, however, was pure grandstanding, needlessly dangerous and expensive. It was already apparent in the earliest stages that from both scientific and financial standpoint, unmanned missions would be far more effective. Everyday life has been made easier and safer thanks to communications and weather satellites. Robotic probes and space telescopes have conducted valuable scientific work, making contributions which would not have been possible working only on Earth. NASA manned space program has been a different matter as to the ratio of investment to return. However I think JFK was pushing it for other reasons -- not just for national prestige and to "outdo" the Soviets, but also for domestic considerations: a chance to feed the Military-Industrial Complex enough expensive contracts to keep them from demanding unnecessary foreign wars to profiteer from. If this had worked, it might well have been worth it. However LBJ decided to keep the Complex as fat and happy as possible by giving them both the space program and unnecessary foreign war at the same time.

I think that film was based on a story published before '63 (which I haven't read), but I wouldn't be surprised that the image of a hidden gunman behind the fence on a grassy knoll had a different inspiration. One of my favorites is "The President's Analyst" from the following year. Although it's played as a comedy, I like the portrayal of sinister powerful forces working sometimes together and sometimes at cross purposes. And great wordless scenes as the psychiatrist comes out of the President's office clearly boggled and barely able to keep his composure -- what the President has said is left to the audience's imagination.

Look at the arrows towards the bottom right for possible film alteration.

No. One only has to entertain the possibility that an "official investigation" might have a goal other than complete uncovering and disclosure of the full truth.

The Wikipedia Carl Elmer Jenkins page has existed there since November of 2007, with a link to the Spartacus page since the start. (Click the "page history" link on Wikipedia articles to see edit history.)

In the edit history of the Wikipedia David Ferrie article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Ferrie&action=history It looks to me like the exchange of edits between User:Gamaliel and User:BrandonTR over the past month that BrandonTR is holding his/her own fairly well. While BrandonTR seems to be a fairly new user, they seem to be catching on to Wikipedia policies and practices quickly. Another illustration of the point I've made before: while a clique of "lone nutters" have had much success in gaming the system at Wikipedia to promote their view, progress in a more balanced and fact based direction can be made by those who bother to take the time to learn the system and work using it with calm patience.

I've always thought that Nix was being cagey or coy in this interview. Remember, this was at a time when witnesses with inconvenient details were being threatened, and several witnesses refused to go on camera at all. Basically, it looks to me like Nix recounts what he observed -- then says that if a US Government report says he didn't see what he saw, well, who is he to disagree with the U.S. Government, of course they know best. What do other people think?

Just to clarify things Jack. Are you saying that NIX is not genuine. ? And that because it is a fabrication i am wasting my time studying it.. ? Robin. Again, Orville Nix is on record saying the film he got back from the FBI was not quite the same as what he had originally shot. Mark Lane interviewed him on film in the movie version of Rush to Judgment. (Multiple copies available on line, eg http://youtu.be/wtqH60ivqgs relevant section starting at 3:20.)

Orlando Bosch dead at 84, says Miami Herald http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/27/v-fullstory/2188315/prominent-exile-militant-orlando.html

From the film "Watchmen", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen_(film) a 2009 IMO undistinguished adaptation of an unusually intelligent comic book of the same name from the 1980s.

When the "JFK" film came out, I hadn't seriously looked into the assassination. My attitude was, The House Assassinations Committee confirmed there was a second gunman like lots of people had thought, but they couldn't determine who it was, so golly, I guess we may never know, eh? I had, however, a long interest in history and had already done some historical research on other topics. The very vocal backlash against the film really astonished me. So much effort was being spent to denounce a Hollywood film, for not being historically accurate -- ABSOLUTELY JAW DROPPING!!! For folks with some familiarity with history and with popular films, Hollywood has been consistently playing fast and loose with history since the silent era! That after 90 years of this, that there was a sudden denunciation for "JFK" got my attention. Robert Morrow wrote: : "Wikipedia is lone nutter controlled and is considered a disinfo site" Again, I think it is better described as that the most visible assassination related Wikipedia articles are dominated by a small group of lone nutter mid-level functionaries who have been successful in gaming the system.

(text mirrored below, as the LiveJournal link above seems to be appearing and disappearing today. Author is Douglas P. Horne.) SUMMARY: In April of 1997 I personally located the large format LIFE magazine transparencies of individual Zapruder film frames---the transparencies that had featured so prominently in Josiah Thompson's 1967 book "Six Seconds in Dallas"---in the office of attorney Jamie Silverberg, who at that time was representing the film's owners, the LMH Company. At the time I was a Senior Analyst on the ARRB staff, and was conducting an official ARRB examination of the LMH company's holdings. On December 30, 1999 the LMH Company transferred both the copyright to the Zapruder film, and reportedly, all of its film holdings, to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. (After obtaining a windfall profit of 16 million dollars, plus interest, from the U.S. government---in just compensation for the taking of the film by the Review Board---the LMH company had decided it was time to get rid of the troublesome political albatross around its neck.) On January 26, 2000 the Dallas Morning News published an article about the LMH Company's donation to the Museum, which indicated all of the associated film items had been physically transferred to the museum "nine days ago," and which further stated: "Gary Mack, the Museum's Archivist, was all but whistling Tuesday as he examined what may be the gem of the bunch---oversized transparencies of each Zapruder film frame believed to have been made in 1963 or 1964." It seems reasonable to conclude that this statement by the article's author can only have referred to the same LIFE magazine transparencies which I had discovered in the office of Jamie Silverberg on April 10, 1997. In November of 2010, in response to a question about the whereabouts of the LIFE magazine transparencies made by a visiting researcher, Megan Bryant---the Sixth Floor Museum's Director of Collections---said that the Museum did NOT POSSESS the LIFE magazine transparencies. When she was asked about the January 2000 article in the Dallas Morning News, she stated that the article had been in error. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? I present the details of this mystery below. DETAILS: (1) I visited the Washington, D.C. offices of Jamie Silverberg, ESQ., on April 10, 1997 to examine the LMH company's Zapruder film holdings at the request of my boss, Jeremy Gunn (who was General Counsel and head of the research staff for the Assassination Records Review Board). Silverberg was wary of my visit, for he no doubt suspected that the Review Board might engage in a legal taking of any items we found worthy of preservation. (Indeed, the ARRB effectuated a formal "taking" of the so-called "original" Zapruder film---on storage in the National Archives---on April 24, 1997, just 14 days after my visit. To my regret at the time---now my profound regret---the Review Board's taking did not include the LIFE magazine transparencies.) The first time I showed up at his office a few days previous to this---by appointment---I had been rebuffed by one of Silverberg's secretaries; I was told he was too busy and that he would be unable to meet with me, in spite of the fact that I was appearing at a specified time set up by an appointment engineered with him by Jeremy Gunn. Jeremy registered his displeasure over this rebuff, and Silverberg did indeed meet with me the second time I appeared, on April 10, 1997. During the course of this long visit, I made two significant discoveries. First, I discovered that the LMH Company possessed the (at that time) missing first-generation copy of the Z film: the third of three first-generation copies known to exist. Second, I discovered that Silverberg possessed the famous LIFE magazine large format (4" x 5") color positive transparencies, which Josiah Thompson had written about so extensively in his book, "Six Seconds in Dallas." Not only were these transparencies crucial for study of the behavior and reactions of the occupants of the limousine during the assassination, but they were of historical interest because they were clearly the source material used to generate the beautifully clear color picture spreads of the Zapruder film in LIFE magazine in late 1963 (the Memorial Issue), and in 1964 and 1966 editions, as well. Silverberg did not readily produce the large format transparencies; as I now vividly recall, they were not on his typed inventory list, and he produced them as the very last item he removed from his safe, and did so only after repeated and persistent inquiries on my part. I recall thinking that this was odd behavior. On April 11, 1997 I wrote a memo detailing the items I discovered during the inspection the day before in his office. That memo is now on file at the National Archives, and was also published by Rollie Zavada in the Appendices to his report on the Zapruder film. By this time I was accustomed to looking at 4 x 5 inch transparencies, because the color positive transparencies of the JFK autopsy were also of this size. The transparencies of the Zapruder film that I saw in Silverberg's office were of an identical size. I do not recall whether they were Ektachrome or Kodachrome---I believe I failed to make this determination at the time. But they were definitely 4 x 5 inch color positive transparencies of a very high quality, and they were made from frames of the Zapruder film. I still vividly recall looking at the image content in many of the transparencies---and that image content was consistent with the sketches in Josiah Thompson's book (i.e., I recall frames of the limousine close to the Stemmons Freeway Sign). As I now recall, there were scores of transparencies---too many for me to count, at the end of a long day with an unfriendly attorney. (I now wish I had counted them, and had recorded the type of film used.) (2) On January 26, 2000 the Dallas Morning News published an article written by Mark Wrolstad, titled: "Zapruders Donate JFK Film, Rights." I have a copy of this article today. I attempted to access the article online today by going to the link: dallasnews.com, but could not do so because the article is over ten years old, and the online archives appear to go back only ten years, to calendar year 2001. I will therefore now quote verbatim from the passages in this article which are germane to this journal entry: The author explained that the Zapruder family had donated "...its last original duplicate of the film and the copyright to its coveted images to the Sixth Floor Museum." Items donated, the article explained, included "...the copy of the 26-second film clip itself---as well as other film, frame-by-frame slides and stills." The article continued: "Mr. Zapruder ordered three so-called first-generation copies of the film when it was processed the day of the assassination. The two he gave to the Secret Service...now rest at the [National] Archives. The third copy, the only one still privately owned, became the Sixth Floor's property when an agreement was signed December 30, capping four months of discussions." "Mr. West [sixth Floor Museum Executive Director] and an associate carried the film in an archival box on a flight to Dallas nine days ago, along with other materials." "Part of the 1,900 item donation may be exhibited later this year, but the material must first be cataloged." "Gary Mack, the Museum's Archivist, was all but whistling Tuesday as he examined what may be the gem of the bunch---oversized transparencies of each Zapruder film frame believed to have been made in 1963 or 1964." The reader of this journal entry will note that the article's author states as a FACT that Gary Mack had examined the oversized transparencies made in 1963 or 1964. (Presumably, Mark Wrolstad witnessed this examination himself.) Wrolstad then directly quoted Gary Mack, in direct reference to this examination: "These may be in better condition than the original film is today," he said. "We may have something that is better or sharper. Who knows?" And with this significant quote, the article ended. The article makes it very clear that in January of 2000, the Sixth Floor Museum possessed the large format Zapruder film transparencies made by LIFE, and that Gary Mack had examined them. I find it difficult to believe, and extremely unlikely, that the author, Mark Wrolstad, made up this story out of whole cloth, or was mistaken about such an important fact. (3) In November of 2010, over ten years later, in response to a question posed by a Museum visitor, Director of Collections Megan Bryant claimed that the Sixth Floor Museum did not possess the transparencies, and that the article in the Dallas Morning News had been in error. Something is terribly wrong here. If you want to know why the question posed by this journal entry is so important to me, keep reading. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? The ad hoc Hollywood Research Group (a label given to that ongoing, informal research effort by me alone, not by its participants) that is studying a 35 mm dupe negative of the extant (so-called "original") Z film (obtained from the National Archives) has discovered startling visual anomalies---what I have described in my book as a "black patch" seen in several frames on the back of JFK's head---that strongly imply that the images in the film have been severely (and crudely) altered. [see chapter 14 in Volume IV of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," pages 1352-1363.] Since the publication of my book, some in the JFK research community have stated that they see no such anomalies in other versions of the Zapruder film, or in other still images of the Zapruder film. The unseemly insinuations of many of these critics and skeptics are that the Hollywood Research Group may have manipulated or altered its own evidence, in an attempt to prove there was a government coverup of the true facts involved in the assassination (namely, that JFK had a large exit wound in the rear of his head caused by a shot from the front). Unfortunately, many of the critics of my book's reportage fail to understand that the 6K digital scans of the dupe negative frames are "flat scans," and have not been manipulated to make them more pleasing to the human eye---and that they reveal much more information than, for example, Z film images from a multi-generational bootleg copy of the Z film that suffers from contrast buildup, or than some manipulated video version of the Z film shown on television, or on a DVD. The best way for interested Americans to resolve this issue for themselves is to ask to see the LIFE magazine large format transparencies, and to compare what they show to the image of frame 317 (from the 35 mm dupe negative) published in volume I of my book. Frames 313, 321 and 323 of the dupe negative also show a large black patch extraordinarily well. Once the LIFE magazine large format transparencies are located, the frames that should be studied most closely are 313, 317, 321, and 323. The "black patch" should appear in each of these first-generation transparencies, if LIFE did not unduly manipulate the contrast when they were created. (Remember, if these transparencies are suddenly produced, to check their provenance: they should exist on film stock made no later than 1963.) Perhaps Megan Bryant made a mistake when she claimed that the Sixth Floor Museum does not possess these materials. Who knows? I prefer to place my trust, for the time being, in the unbiased Dallas Morning News reporter who wrote his article in January of 2000. I will never be traveling to Dallas again---it's too upsetting for me to go there, and in any case, I can't afford the trip. But those of you who wish to take on this issue could ask the Sixth Floor Museum, in writing (hint: use the Museum's website), whether it possesses large format transparencies of the Zapruder film made in 1963 or 1964, approximately 4 x 5 inches in size (and unmounted when I saw them in 1997). If the Museum still claims that it does not possess them, researchers who visit the Museum might ask to review both the Deed of Gift signed between the LMH Company and the Museum on December 30, 1999; and much more importantly, the full inventory or catalog made in 2000 of the items received. That inventory would have been made 11 years ago, before there was any controversy associated with what those images might reveal. I will sum up this entry by simply repeating the question posed at the beginning of this journal entry: "Where are the large format color positive transparencies of the Zapruder film made by LIFE magazine in 1963 or 1964?" The LMH Company, presumably, had no motivation to hold onto them when it transferred the film's copyright, and all of its film elements, to the Sixth Floor Museum on December 30, 1999. The evidence contained in the Dallas Morning News article---the best evidence I have at this writing---indicates that the Museum DID IN FACT receive these transparencies from the LMH Company. All members of the JFK research community deserve an honest, and accurate answer to this question. END

Very good review of a very good book, IMO. I agree that Douglass' use of some unsupported individual witnesses somewhat mars the book -- in a case with so much garbage and disinformation, I tend to hold any details that come only from a single person's say so at sceptical arm's length. However I think the overall picture given by the book is still mostly accurate and well rendered. For anyone interested in a general overview that plans to read only one book on the assassination, I think "JFK and the Unspeakable" is the best choice.

If JFK's civil rights policies seem tepid from the perspective of 50 years later, I think it is good to remember how radical it seemed at the time to the defenders of the segregated status quo. I can recall southern whites of the generation who grew up in segregation -- including educating ones I didn't usually hear regularly spouting racist bile-- talking about Kennedy more than a decade after his death, deriding his policies; I remember JFK being described as (please pardon my accurate transcription of the odious language) "shoving niggers down our throats". I've been to more than one Black household here in New Orleans that still has a photo of JFK on display along with MLK.

Google Dimona + Kennedy to find some other material of possible relevance. Personally I don't believe Qaddafi's explanation, but there are some days when I wonder if the JFK murder was something like Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express": The ALL did it. Not just the CIA, or the military-industrial complex, or the Federal Reserve, or big oil, J.Edgar Hoover, LBJ, the mobsters, etc, but a whole group with the shared interest of wanting the President dead. JFK certainly amassed quite a portfolio of powerful and ruthless enemies.

Oswald in New Orleans -- Anyone have anything on LHO applying for work work at Motion Picture Advertising, I believe also known as Alexander Motion Picture Corp, 1000 block of Carondelet Street?

Who cares? Well, I've watched Wikipedia go from an obscure wacky little website into one of the most prominent features of the web. Since many people read and use it regularly I think one should care about Wikipedia if one cares about the issue of the public being informed, if for no other reason. I see ample evidence that the site is being used as a tool to promote disinformation. That does not mean that it is "a disinfo site". I think the distinction might be very important. "anything relating to truth in the JFK assassination is immediately removed or destroyed." Simply false. There are some active on Wikipedia who probably wish it were true and endeavor to make it so. They've had notable success with a small number of high profile articles, and more success in discouraging editors with other viewpoints. Poke around a bit, however, and you can find quotes from and links to non-"lone nutter" sources, including links to articles on spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, that have remained in articles for years. If you think the proper response to seeing some lone-nutters gaming a system is to throw up you hands saying "it's all disinfo" and walk away, that's your choice. If on the other hand, you think there might be some value in seeing how the system is being gamed (which requires some understanding of the rules of the game board and the usual practices of play), and that there might be some benefit in modifying the outcome of the game in a different direction, join me over on the other thread. And even if there are Wikimedia Foundation secret disinfo guidelines that will doom any attempt to improve information on Wikipedia, using the rules of the game to make them show their hand might still be interesting.

Some tips on improving Wikipedia: For those interested in improving Wikipedia, I have some suggestions. (Note: These are of course just my own opinions, from the perspective of one long term experienced Wikipedia editor; I in no way am speaking for Wikipedia.) 1)Log in. Anon editing without logging in is allowed, but editors who haven't logged in have the lowest standing in Wikipedia, and such anon edits are automatically the most suspect -- some regulars will tend to assume anon edits are probably just something silly by some random junior highschooler (many such edits are), and are apt to be reverted. One need not give a legal name; pick any nickname or whatever if you wish for your user name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Logging_in 2) Spend a bit of time familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policies and practices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial The instructions fall in two broad categories. One is the technical side of how to edit -- Wikipedia article editing has a few distinctive characteristics, but the basics are fairly easy with a little practice. Presuming you already know how to type and get on the internet, you've already mastered more difficult and complex skills. The second involves the human factor. I'd say that broadly most of the important rules and regulations boil down to some simple common sense: Be truthful. Be accurate. And don't act like a jerk. This last point is considered one of the most sacred of Wikipedia, enshrined below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks You can disagree with another editor on facts or accuracy, but refrain from name calling. 3) The first edits of new editors are often spot checked by experienced editors. Be a "good editor", one who a casual spot check will show is clearly working to make Wikipedia better. The first edit by a newly created user account are the next most likely after anon edits to draw suspicion, so immediately jumping boldly into major rewrites of controversial articles is not recommended. Since edits may be reverted for simple technical reasons like improper Wiki formating, it's best to get one's feet wet gradually and uncontroversially. Quite possibly the article on your home town, or where you went to school, or your hobby, etc can stand a bit of improvement. Or if you have some ability at spelling and grammar, poke around at Wikipedia's "Recent changes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges and you'll probably quickly find some articles where your skills will be helpful. 4) Site your sources when information is not universally known or agreed upon. This last involves a bit more technical difficulty, but is well worth the effort for those who wish to eventually edit about "controversial" topics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources The amount of material on Wikipedia citing verifiable sources has certainly improved significantly in recent years. There are some useful easy tools for helping this trend along. For example, when an article has an assertion you consider dubious that is not specifically cited or referenced, add the tag "{{fact}}", which produces a tag in the text "Citation needed". If, after time is given for reply, no citation for the dubious statment is offered, the article may be safely edited to remove the dubious statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed Similarly, vague statements like "experts agree that" can be tagged {{who}}, a request to name specific names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Who More later if there is interest.

From my observations, there certainly is a click of "Lone Nutter" editors on Wikipedia who have been doing an effective job of gaming the system regarding a few assassination related articles, to make sure other viewpoints are minimized or marginalized when they are not completely suppressed. This is not the same thing as saying there is an official secret Wikipedia policy of pushing the "Oswald, and Oswald alone, did it" view. (There may or may not be such as well, but evidence for the former does not prove the latter.) It looks to me that the main Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK assassination articles are pretty biased. Some of the secondary and tertiary assassination related articles, however, are sometimes significantly less horrid, thanks to nothing more than a couple of regular editors taking occasional interest in them.

Interesting. Clearly the article was set up for 12, and one book was removed. (By whom? Why?) I'll guess JFK and the Unspeakable.

Thanks for the link. That "Part One" has links to the next 2 parts which complete the episode. I'm not a fan of the sensationalist television style with LOTS! OF EXCLAMATION! POINTS!!! ...but I have to agree that this is a pretty good episode, touching on many important issues.

Hm, think King will ask Poppy Bush some probing questions about his actions in November '63? Need I even wonder?

Interesting, including possible William Harvey link to "Why a Carcano?".