Martin Blank

in rail yards approximately 1:27 to 1:29 far right of frame under some kind of fixture/sign/light this is quick tsbd approximately1:35 until end in front of african american man

could it be this guy that lee bowers talks about to WC and who appears at the end of the hughes film not far from where tan jacket man was and later at the TSBD. older guy, white shirt, black pants. Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket. Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately? Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew. Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing? Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down. don;t know how to post photos or videos. may be someone can help. thanks don't know if he was put in a police car

In 1963 Kennedy remarked to his aide Kenneth O’Donnell: In 1965, I’ll become one of the most unpopular presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a communist appeaser, but now I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m re-elected. So we had better make damned sure I’m re-elected. To Larry Newman, Kennedy said: “The first thing I do when I’m re-elected, I’m going to get the Americans out of Vietnam. Exactly how I’m going to do it, right now, I don’t know.” from NYT Historians know that Kennedy directed the Pentagon to devise the withdrawal plans. But some believe they were a political facade erected for the 1964 elections; don't seem to jibe with preceding two statements Other anecdotal evidence: In 1968, (Ret.) General James M. Gavin stated: There has been much speculation about what President Kennedy would have done in Vietnam had he lived. Having discussed military affairs with him often and in detail for 15 years, I know he was totally opposed to the introduction of combat troops in southeast Asia. His public statements just before his murder support this view. Paul B. Fay, undersecretary of the Navy under JFK, stated: If John Kennedy had lived, our military involvement in Vietnam would have been over by the end of 1964. JFK also advised Robert McNamara: “We are not going to have men ground up in this fashion, this far away from home. I’m going to get these guys out because we’re not going to find ourselves in a war it is impossible to win. Senator Wayne Morse told the Boston Globe in 1973: There’s a weak defense of John Kennedy. He’d seen the error of his ways. I’m satisfied if he’d lived another year we’d have been out of Vietnam. Ten days before his assassination, I went down to the White House and handed him his education bills, which I was handling on the Senate floor. I’d been making two to five speeches a week against Kennedy on Vietnam. . . .I’d gone into President Kennedy’s office to discuss education bills, but he said, ‘Wayne, I want you to know you’re absolutely right in your criticism of my Vietnam policy. Keep this in mind. I’m in the midst of an intensive study which substantiates your position on Vietnam.’

LOL Jim YOU cited the NYT article now you dismiss it as "secondary spin" no one disputes that JFK wanted to get out of the mess he essentially had created. But there is reason to doubt if he would have let Vietnam fall when their own military proved incapable of saving the country. no one disputes that JFK wanted to get out of the mess he essentially had created. Is it accurate to say he (JFK) created it? i don't think so. there's a longer answer than that but this will suffice for now.

in my reading about the jfk assassination over the past 40 years or so, i have two moments that were similar to what col. kurtz described in apocalypse now when he said: And then I realized. . .like I was shot. . .like I was shot with a diamond. . .a diamond bullet right through my forehead . . .Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. ​one of those moments was reading newman's jfk and vietnam. mind and life altering to say the least.

i stand with the truth. i stand with mr. armstrong. i say let the DNA speak for itself.

thanks i'll send you a copy of what i'm doing when it's done.

"LBJ was given the choice - go with the Castro Cuban Cover story - and foreign communist conspiracy - and go to war over Cuba - or the Lone Nut scenario - and he chose the latter - between 7-9 pm while holed up in the VP EOB offices - and placated the Pentagon by telling them he would give them their war - but in Vietnam not Cuba." working on something and need source for this. thanks.

thankss everyone. what about ground (invasion) troops – army or marines?

does anyone know if troops were being marshaled for an invasion of cuba following the shooting? were there planes in the air headed toward cuba and russia? i guess i am asking did the situation approximate that of the cuban missile crisis when troop movements to florida, etc. were in plain sight, planes were ready. the millitary was on alert and preparing for war. basically what did johnson do in terms of getting our forces ready for a showdown. thanks

What reason does the U.S. Government have today to deprive the American people of the truth of his killing? Its legitimacy. JFK was killed for a specific reason. That reason still prevails. He was killed because he was going to cost some people a lot of money.

It changes everything! You think differently after reading it that's for sure.

appears to be a good hard push back

Martin, Which frames do you want? How many seconds into the youtube version? --Tommy roughly 1:10-1:16 and 1:30-1;44 if this is too much let me know. thx again

Martin, Which frames do you want? How many seconds into the youtube version? --Tommy i'll have to let you know. thannks will get back to you marty

anyone know where i can get prints of some of the frames thanks

not really incompetence per se but only disguised to look like that. in its failure the plan would succeed (with nixon but not jfk). that's what they dont want you to know. it was designed to fail for pretext's sake

oglesby's essay on assassinations and the closing of the frointier also excellent

not free to me

I dont know the anser but i do know as far as the assassination is conerned they are for the most part a lost cause.

as i said earlier i am not getting involved in that nonsense so i don't need to see any of it; i can disappear anytime

as i have politely asked those on the other side of the line to reconcile all of armstrong's and others facts about the two oswalds in some way -- the knife cuts both ways. so i will try if you promise to do so as well. i will go first but i need your word before i do. and remember i speak and represent only myself and any problems you have with others are your problems with them. Martin the vile accusation that I am in some way a xxxxx is an appalling slur by David. I don't want to fall out with anyone. I genuinely want to engage in an honest debate. You see Martin what I haven't revealed yet is that...wait for it...I myself was an Armstrong convert! I have posted on here several times supporting his theory!! I can prove it too. Admittedly it was over 5 years ago. But that's what happens doesn't it? You read the arguments for and you read the arguments against. Then you make your mind up. But it is conditional. It can't be set in stone. When better researchers effectively demolish its constituent parts one has to be honest to oneself and admit, I made an honest mistake. That's how I see my former adherence to Harvey and Lee as an explanation for this conundrum - an honest mistake. So to call someone who used to believe the theory, who hasn't posted on here for nearly two years, who has never been moderated and who has zero 'warning points' all the names I have been called says more about David Joseph - and by association his fellow supporters - than it does about me. I will glady engage with you Martin, and in a fraternal manner. I look forward to your response. all that is neither here nor there for me; my post will be forthcoming all in good time

as i have politely asked those on the other side of the line to reconcile all of armstrong's and others facts about the two oswalds in some way -- the knife cuts both ways. so i will try if you promise to do so as well. i will go first but i need your word before i do. and remember i speak and represent only myself and any problems you have with others are your problems with them.

give khruschev some credit, too

when was the last time "macbird" was staged?