Andric Perez

so old news, from an old source, on the 50th anniversary, quoting a dumbass like Ford...

this would have been interesting news 30 years ago.

If a revelation is new, it's not old news. If we had known that the former French President had previously said that Ford believed in conspiracy this would be old news. Can you explain why you said it's "old news"?

This is the kind of stuff that should make headlines in the New York Times and Washington Post. Don't hold your breath though.

Good find.

That is the often-bruited quotation I was referring to, Tommy - Thanks. It was an item in the US press - I have seen an image of a clipping describing Castro's remarks. It has been discussed on EdForum in the past

Why would Castro make a statement like that? I'm not accusing, just asking in the terms of my original post above.

Fidel Castro made it clear to Kennedy (via Kennedy's messengers in their secret talks) that he (Fidel) would said tough, hawkish things in public while pursuing normalization of US-Cuba relations in private. See this, for example, from a memo written by William Attwood, JFK's secret liaison in his communications with Fidel.:

""Meanwhile, he "(Lechuga) informed me that he would be making "hard" anti-US speech in the United Nations on October 7th. I remarked that it wouldn't help reduce tensions; he replied he couldn't help making it because of the "blockade"."

Fidel was wary of the more radical and hawkish Che Guevara, who would have tried to toppled Fidel if necessary: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/631108.pdf

An issue that should be explored here is the US newspapers' printing of Castro's statement that, if US officials were subsidizing assassination plots against Castro, then US officials had better watch out for the same. This seems to have been established as a verified Castro quotation - from a speech in Havana in 1963, yes?

The website Marxists.org has list of Castro speeches. Two speeches in 1963 are transcribed in this website: http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/

One is dated January 2, 1963; (Fourth Anniversary of the Cuban Revolution ) and the other is January 16, 1963.(At the Closing of the Congress of Women of the Americans ).

Can you find in any of those speeches a quote by Fidel Castro to the effect that USA better watch out if they are trying to kill him?

If you believe the website has omitted any of his 1963 speeches, can you point to a transcript on the internet (or to a book with such transcript) of the speech you believe was omitted?

In short: An FBI informant said that Castro claimed to know Oswald threatened to kill Kennedy.

People who claim the mob alone killed JFK need to start specifying in their headlines that they exclude everyone else. The argument can be made that every conspiracy researcher believes "the mob killed JFK" in the sense that they believe elements of several groups killed him. Therefore, if the CIA, the mob and cuban exiles did itin a joint effort , it follows that the mobsters in question are killers of JFK.

The poll did not ask people whether they were " liberal ", " conservative" or Martian, so one cannot conclude that labels determined the results. Also JFK stated that he did not like labels

The conclusion can be reached without having ideological breakdown in the poll. Only 3% of respondents answered that Kennedy's approval was "below average or poor."

Conservatives are the majority in this country, at least when it comes to self-identification. Even assuming that all 3% are conservative, that is a tiny number. Do you see now how my statement (i.e. there are very few people left that could hate him) is obvious?

The book promotes the idea that JFK was trying to kill Fidel Castro at the time of his death.

This is because liberals think he was a liberal, and conservatives have been fed the idea that he was a conservative; so there are very few people left that could hate him. Would conservatives approve of him as much if most of them knew that he had secret conciliatory conversations with Fidel Castro?

You did not address the following:

"When it was all over, Garrison had discovered about a dozen witnesses who certified that Shaw was Bertrand. (ibid, pgs. 210-11, 387) But it wasn't just Garrison who knew this in 1967. The FBI knew it at about the same time Garrison was about to discover it. In a memo of February 24, 1967, the Bureau "received information from two sources that Clay Shaw reportedly is identical with an individual by the name of Clay Bertrand." (ibid, p. 388) In another FBI report of the same time period, reporter Lawrence Schiller told the Bureau that he knew three homosexual sources in New Orleans and two in San Francisco who indicated that Shaw was known by other names, including that of Clay Bertrand. (ibid)

I should add, this was an open secret in the spring of 1967. Even Ed Guthman, an editor of the Los Angeles Times knew about it. And he told former Warren Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler that Shaw was Bertrand. (DiEugenio, p. 269) You will find none of this declassified information on the professor's site."

A poll with a sample of "thousands" of people will be released soon by the History Channel (link), in which 71% of respondents "reject the official theory of JFK’s murder" according to researcher Jeff Morley.

"The History Channel has announced it will air what it calls “the definitive guide to JFK’s assassination,” based in part on a new poll of thousands of Americans, which found 71 percent of Americans reject the official theory of JFK’s murder. “Public skepticism of the so-called ‘Lone Gunman Theory,’ supported by the Warren Commission in 1964, is shockingly high,” the History Channel says."

I find it remarkable that belief in a conspiracy has remained high forever, given the power and resources of those trying to convince the people that Oswald achieved this all by himself and was himself killed because Ruby felt sad about Jackie. CT researchers all over the world should be proud of their work. I look forward to reading the complete survey.

I hope someone is planning to post a video of this conference on the internet.

Mr. Von Pein, is it not true that the Government has had difficulty making up its mind on the location of the (allegedly) only entry? How could you be confident of "the" single entry if there is no confidence about its location? Was the entry wound location not moved several inches at one point?

Here's the problem with a scenario involving Danny Arce in a conspiracy: Arce testified (March, 1964) that the shots came from the railroad tracks: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter8%3Atherestofthepuzzle

A person involved in the conspiracy would have said that the shots came from the place where the patsy was located, obviously.

Sabato's twitter account: @larrysabato

Obama is pissing off the military, as reported by the Washington Post.

1) Two of his former defense secretaries just slammed Obama for not bombing Syria.

2) From the article: "Obama’s relationship with the military was indelibly shaped early in his presidency by the 2009 debate over whether a troop surge in Afghanistan that his generals were pressing for stood a good chance of turning around the worsening conflict. “From his perspective, he trusted the military and they betrayed him,” said the official.

3) From the article: "The administration’s inability to keep a residual U.S. military force in Iraq at the end of 2010 after a lengthy policy debate left some senior military officers feeling dejected. The Pentagon wanted to keep 10,000 to 15,000 troops in Iraq after the drawdown.

4) From the article: "But there was also trepidation about a White House that many career military officers say has monopolized decision-making in a tight circle dominated by civilians and that often deliberates endlessly, seemingly unwilling or unable to formulate decisive policies."

Regardless of whether S.V. Anderson is Bugliosi or not, we should ask, "Is S. V. Anderson" a fake name? If yes, is he/she a government agent"?

Infiltration of interrnet websites as a means to fight conspiracy theories was proposed in 2008 by Harvard Law professor Cass Susstein, who went on to become an Obama official. Read the excerpt below:

GLENN GREENWALD, (1-15-2010): "In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make

secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”

The biggest problem faced by your theory is the resemblance between the person in the composite sketch drawn based on Veciana's description and David Phillips:

On November 23, Nikita Krushchev wrote the following to LBJ:

"The death of J.F. Kennedy is a hard blow to all people who cherish the cause of peace and Soviet-American cooperation. The heinous assassination of the U.S. President, at a time when, as a result of the efforts of peace-loving peoples, there appeared signs of relaxation of international tension and a prospect has opened for improving relations between the USSR and the United States, evokes the indignation of the Soviet people against the perpetrators of this base crime."

Link

Why use the plural word at a time when it was already assumed in the US that one man was the killer? Am I reading too much into one letter "s"?

Can we please get the option to edit the title as well as the body? The hair was pubic, not public.

In a Washington Post article published today we learn that several death penalty cases are being reviewed because the forensic science or "science" behind the convictions is not very convincing. The WaPo begins by criticizing hair analysis and how FBI testimony makes up "matches" where none exist:

The unusual collaboration came after The Washington Post reported last year that authorities had known for years that flawed forensic work by FBI hair examiners may have led to convictions of potentially innocent people, but officials had not aggressively investigated problems or notified defendants.

At issue is a once-widespread practice by which some FBI experts exaggerated the significance of “matches” drawn from microscopic analysis of hair found at crime scenes.

Since at least the 1970s, written FBI Laboratory reports typically stated that a hair association could not be used as positive identification. However, on the witness stand, several agents for years went beyond the science and testified that their hair analysis was a near-certain match.

The new review listed examples of scientifically invalid testimony, including claiming to associate a hair with a single person “to the exclusion of all others,” or to state or suggest a probability for such a match from past casework.

Is the technique used to positively identify the pubic hair allegedly found in the Paines' house considered scientifically valid today? Can it be included among the exaggerations explained above?

CIA is saying CIA wanted the suspects to be put on their terrorist list over a year ago. Link

Why didn't they?

Guardian reports the suspect's parents say he "was under FBI surveillance as a suspected "extremist" for at least three years."

Link

Jack Ruby allegedly confessed to killing Oswald for a reason other than to silence him. The transcript exists here: http://www.jfk-onlin...bydeathbed.html

I believe the audio is on sale somewhere on the internet or off the internet. If anyone has the means to post audio and link to it here, please do so.

Relevant questions would be

1- Whether or not Ruby was sedated during this interview, and the degree of sedation.

2- Whose idea was it to deliver this confession. Ruby's or someone else's?

3- Is the voice in the audiotape actually Ruby's.

4- How much of a "deathbed" confession was this? That is, how soon after the alleged confession did Ruby die?

Because people have low to no motivation to lie when death is imminent, this confession (if honest) would be a blow to JFK conspiracy theories. Thanks in advance.

Obama and Biden want to limit the amount of bullets that these kinds of rifles can hold to 10. I don't think they have proposed an outright ban of the weapon. Doesn't the Mannlicher Carcano hold less than 10 anyway?

Maybe Dulles was simply pretending that it was better to wait until the Warren Commission released its final report before stating how many people were involved in the assassination.