Michael Schweitzer

Michael, I also lost many relatives in the Holocaust, the family name was Cohn before my grandmother changed it, but I don't think people should be denied membership here based on their views, sanctions like being put on moderation or booted should be based on behavior. I initially opposed Michael Collins Piper joining this forum but realized that I was wrong. But you seem to have failed to notice that David L Sharp/Salvador Astucia is no longer a member here. He was kicked out before I joined but I assume John Simkin can tell you why. Len, I hadn't noticed Astucia is gone. I agree with you it's wrong to discriminate because of someone's views. But I know who Piper is. He wrote hate literature for the KKK via the Liberty Lobby. I don't think he belongs here either. Not because of his views, but because he lies, and this is a forum for seeking truth. Differing views can help illuminate the truth. Lies do not.

Please ignore. Coding error.

URGENT: SALVADOR ASTUCIA IS A THREAT TO THIS FORUM! GET RID OF HIM! Read his own words on his website jfkmontreal.com. Astucia's is the most virulent Nazi website I have even seen. Author of every article, Astucia claims Hitler was a hero, the Holocaust never happened, the KKK gallantly protects whites, Johnson killed Kennedy because Johnson was Jewish, Curtis LeMay was a Zionist who pushed for armaments to profit the Jewish arms industry, Nixon bombed Cambodia in an act of greatness, ad nauseum (and nauseous). http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18198

David, I appreciate your thoughtful response. But the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 elevated the CIA above the military. Peace to you as well, M. Thanks Mike... Hope you read "None Dare....." I believe if you have not, it will change the way you see the assassination and CIA.... With regards to your comment above.... would you quantify "elevated" please... I've read over the Act and while it allows Financial and personnel secrecy... the CIA still had to go thru the Military for anything they wanted.. If anything, the Act allowed the CIA to get into more trouble than the 1947 envisioned. I look forward to your response DJ Yes, under the Act, the CIA "had to go thru the Military for anything they wanted." But that's the point. The CIA got anything it wanted. The Act gave it unlimited access to military resources for its own purposes without accountability under certain circumstances, which it could (and often did) fabricate. The Act allowed the CIA to call the shots and not even the JCS would know what it was doing. That's a coup in itself: a secret agency obtaining use of all U.S. military power. Biography: http://educationforu...st&p=235641

Greg, many years ago, an elderly friend of mine met an intoxicated "Bo Bo" Rockefeller (wife of Winthrop, a brother of David and Nelson and the first Republican governor of Arkansas) aboard the cruise ship Rafaello on a trip to Italy. Bo Bo told my friend—and this is a direct quote: "The most dangerous family in America are the Rockefellers." Those are not my words. Those are the words of a member of the Rockefeller family. I think that they are extremely dangerous. David especially. (Is he even still alive?) And actually the person referenced mainly thinks LBJ was "the Mastermind" Yes to all 3 Rockefeller points: (1) extremely dangerous, (2) David especially, and (3) as Exhibit 1 for the proposition the good die young, David is alive and 98. P.S. - The Rockefellers are so evil, they deserve this disclosure – something else Bo Bo Rockefeller told my friend: Her husband Winthrop was homosexual, so he had his chauffeur impregnate her to bear him a child. You won't read that bit of news in any Rockefeller biography, but it's straight from the horse's mouth. Biography: http://educationforu...st&p=235641

Greg, many years ago, an elderly friend of mine met an intoxicated "Bo Bo" Rockefeller (wife of Winthrop, a brother of David and Nelson and the first Republican governor of Arkansas) aboard the cruise ship Rafaello on a trip to Italy. Bo Bo told my friend—and this is a direct quote: "The most dangerous family in America are the Rockefellers." Those are not my words. Those are the words of a member of the Rockefeller family.

David, I appreciate your thoughtful response. But the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 elevated the CIA above the military. Peace to you as well, M.

Very good presentation Greg. Wish it has been a bit longer. A little more focused on 273. (I thank Terry Mauro for bringing this to my attention yesterday in a moment of synchronicity.) Dawn Thanks Dawn. Did you recognize the voice of our favorite "Rockefeller did it" nut in the audience? Dawn, I have read your criticism. I await your contribution.

Jim...I agree with you that any copy labeled by National Archives as FORENSIC COPY is the best possible copy, regardless of GENERATION. While on that subject again, I should add one more important consideration: SECOND GENERATION (or third, etc.) does NOT MEAN INFERIOR. It is possible, IN FACT USUAL among photographers, that following generations may be SUPERIOR to the first generation! For instance, I can shoot a negative (first generation) that is imperfect...BUT I CAN PRODUCE FROM THAT IMPERFECT NEGATIVE a PERFECT PRINT (second generation). Among means of doing this on the second generation print are: 1. exposure control 2. contrast control 3. dodging 4. burning in 5. selective focus 6. perspective correction 7. filters etc,etc,etc. ALL RESULTING IN A SUPERIOR SECOND GENERATION! If you ever read books about the great photographer Ansel Adams, you often will find pages of explanation about how his negatives were exposed, and even greater illustrations of precise instructions for dodging, burning in, etc. to achieve a perfect print FAR SUPERIOR TO HIS NEGATIVE. Jack Jack, you're absolutely right. A print made from a photographic negative can look considerably better than the negative. But Zapruder used reversal film. It can be "timed" to create a copy with better exposure and color balance than the original. But reversal stock is contaminated in its first generation: grainy and low resolution. So even with timing, a copy suffers a generation loss (more grain and less resolution). If you add matte work to replace elements of the image with other elements, the image degradation should become pronounced enough to give itself away (absent digital enhancement not available then). Moreover, the grain and resolution in the matted-in image should differ from that in the "background plate." Please note I DO believe the Zapruder film was altered. But I don't see how the alteration could how gone beyond simple skip printing (removing frames in an optical printer) without becoming obvious. So Jack, you're right, enhancement technology existed. But I think Jim is right in stating the National Archives copy can't be suitable for forensic purposes – unless Jack can explain how it survived the matte process without self-disclosing that fact.

Bingo! I arrived at the same deduction about Kissinger last year, in an essay I posted on this forum. The essay is entitled "Q&A About the Assassination of President Kennedy." Here's the concluding section (excerpted), followed by a direct link to the essay: • THE MAIN THEORIES IDENTIFYING THE "MASTERMIND" OF THE ASSASSINATION 1—LYNDON JOHNSON: Many people, including Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy, believed it was Lyndon Johnson, who coveted the presidency and blackmailed JFK into making him next in line. Author Phillip F. Nelson espouses this belief in his scholarly but regrettably prurience-tainted book, "LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination" (2011 revised edition). FOOTNOTE TO CAVEAT – OTHER LBJ PROJECTS: Covering up the JFK assassination was only one of Lyndon Johnson's dirty projects as president. He was also the only president who forced a Supreme Court Justice to resign: Kennedy appointee Arthur Goldberg. Goldberg had worked in U.S. intelligence during WWII and spied for President Franklin Roosevelt on wiretaps (installed by British agents in New York) of Allen Dulles that monitored his Nazi activities. The cover story for Justice Goldberg's resignation was that Johnson urged him to replace the late Adlai Stevenson as Ambassador to the United Nations. Disclosed by a media outlet in the 1970s but never repeated is the way Stevenson died. During a brief stop in London on July 14, 1965, he suddenly fell to the ground dead on the steps of the U.S. Embassy, shot in the neck by a CIA ice dart. LBJ had ordered the first combat troops into Vietnam just three months earlier, on March 8, 1965 – an escalation Stevenson (like JFK) opposed. So down at the same time went a key Johnson and a key Dulles irritant. 2—THE CIA: Others believe the CIA itself initiated the assassination at a very high level because Kennedy was determined to reform it, stripping it of all but its intelligence-gathering functions. As long-time researcher Mark Lane posits in his "Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK" (2011), "in an act that the CIA likely considered self-defense, the agency . . . assassinated President Kennedy before he could take action against it." Lane specifically fingers Richard Helms as the mastermind, and also explains how the CIA made Oswald a "patsy": Oswald's friend "CIA operative George De Mohrenschildt . . . found a job for Oswald at the book depository located directly on the route selected for the presidential motorcade." 3—HIGHER POWERS THAN THE CIA OR LBJ: Author/theologian James W. Douglass, in his highly regarded "JFK and the Unspeakable" (2008), blames neither the CIA nor LBJ, but powers higher than the government, yet he characterizes them only as "the Unspeakable." Douglass acknowledges possible CIA involvement, but posits at most "CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard Helms and Counter-intelligence head James Angleton knew [about the assassination] beforehand." • MY PROPOSITION: A SPECIFIC "HIGHER POWER" INITIATED THE ASSASSINATION I consider Lyndon Johnson an unlikely candidate for "mastermind." LBJ was a masterfully crafty and even cut-throat operator. He certainly played an active part in the conspiracy by controlling the cover-up. But I do not find credible his having control over the power centers in the government whose willing involvement the plot required. Nor do I find credible the CIA deploying its vast resources to assassinate the President of the United States to serve Lyndon Johnson's personal ambitions. I also dismiss the thesis the conspiracy originated within the CIA. The CIA served the global geopolitical and profit interests of the most towering industrial and financial enterprises in the nation. Self-indulgence like killing an American president out of personal spite would have contradicted the very reason for its existence. Allen Dulles had molded the CIA to enforce the will of those private enterprises, who were his clients – and remained so after he was sacked. Their power exceeded Dulles' (just as Dulles' exceeded the president's), and Kennedy had initiated policies that imminently threatened their livelihoods. I believe Dulles gave the "green light" to his loyal top-echelon insiders to kill the president. But he was not the mastermind, either. I concur with Douglass that higher powers set the machinery in motion. Indeed, I consider Douglass' insight a major breakthrough in understanding the magnitude of the conspiracy. But where Douglass stops, I continue. His "unspeakable" powers are not amorphous or impenetrable. They are people who have names, and their names can be identified by deduction. Like puppeteers pulling strings, their positions can be determined by observing the movements that result when they pull the strings. Among the higher powers, I perceive three distinct candidates – each a highest-tier power in politics and finance with a Nazi past and an especially intimate relationship with Dulles: (1) Averell Harriman, who ordered the November 2, 1963 assassination of South Vietnam's President Ngo Dinh Diem behind Kennedy's back while Kennedy was vacationing in Hyannisport; (2) John J. McCloy, who controlled so many private and public institutions journalist Richard Rovere dubbed him "Chairman of the American Establishment"; and (3) David Rockefeller, Sr. – but at the urging of someone else. Rockefeller, patriarch of the multi-billion-dollar Rockefeller oil and banking dynasty, was the president of unsurpassable Chase Manhattan Bank. My personal choice is Rockefeller, for three reasons. ONE: Kennedy hit him directly in the pocketbook, not once but twice. Having already squeezed bankers and war profiteers with his peace initiatives, JFK struck the biggest bankers a second, harder blow on June 4, 1963, when he issued Executive Order 11110. The Order stripped the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of its monopoly power under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to create the nation's currency and loan it to the government at interest, and restored that constitutional power (Article I, Section 8, clause 5) to the Treasury Department. The Rockefellers, as key Fed shareholders, were burned worst of all. TWO: The Rockefeller-Dulles relationship was exceptionally close. Dulles' first OSS headquarters was in the Rockefeller Center, and he had Rockefeller regularly briefed on CIA activities. And THREE: Rockefeller had a private advisor whose word was taken so seriously, once given it was followed. Rockefeller's advisor was Harvard's star professor of geopolitical aggression Henry Kissinger – an unexcelled master of multi-level, strategy-oriented gamesmanship. (Kissinger was later President Nixon's national security advisor and a fantastically ruthless man with his own dark history of evil and corruption.) If Rockefeller made a request of his old friend Allen Dulles to kill the president, he would have acted not only on the advice but at the urging of Kissinger. Kissinger, more than any other player in the era of JFK's peace initiatives, would have fathomed the criticality of removing Kennedy at once. One can almost hear Kissinger's voice, in its grave Germanic accent, speaking the words, "Kennedy has to go." If this scenario is correct – and none seem more realistic – then David Rockefeller, Sr. was the man who tapped Dulles on the shoulder and set the machinery of the assassination in motion. But Rockefeller's action was initiated by the man behind the veil behind the curtain – the true mastermind of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy – Henry Kissinger. Link to full essay: http://educationforu...showtopic=18521

I do not believe the motorcade route was changed at the last minute, because no change was necessary. The Secret Service designed the route. They selected the Stemmons Freeway. An SS advance team always inspects an entire route weeks before a motorcade. It surpasses the bounds of credibility to think the SS missed the fact the freeway entrance was on Elm. The previous presidential motorcade in Dallas (FDR's) took Main Street all the way downtown. The only reason to use the newly built Stemmons Freeway was to force JFK's motorcade off Main and onto Elm, via a path that turned right onto Houston for one block, then left onto Elm – which was conveniently a 120-degree turn (almost a U-turn) at 11 mph – to plant the president like a sitting duck in the killing zone. Biography: http://educationforu...dpost&p=235641 I have no logical debate nor can I refute your theory, hence the president was killed there which is fact, the ongoing argument that the route has been changed within the eleventh hour of the "original path" would only raise the question as to (IF) there was indeed a chance (1) who suggested the change, (2) who approved the change, (3) how many knew of the change? Could the shooter(s) behind the "Grassy Knoll" have the same advantages had the motorcade continued down the route FRD took? Although, it would have seemed be be a much longer route to take to enter Stemmons Freeway the shooter(s) would have been at a disadvantage and clear head-shot would have been near impossible with as many spectators around. Has every name been accounted for on who had personal knowledge the apparent motorcade route? <Just saying>. Wondering too. This is my understanding: Kennedy advisor Kenneth O'Donnell made the decision to hold the 1963-11-22 Dallas luncheon at the Trade Mart. Eight days before the luncheon, on 1963-11-14, Gerald Behn, Secret Service Agent in Charge of the White House Detail, tasked Special Agents William G. Lawson of the Detail and Forrest V. Sorrels in charge of the Dallas office to design a motorcade route from Love Field to the Trade Mart. (They had first been advised of the Texas trip on 1963-11-4.) They planned a route that included the Stemmons Freeway, which necessitated the hairpin turn onto Elm to access the onramp. So no change in route was needed to make it pass the TSDB. And if Lawson and Sorrels had not chosen to use the freeway but kept the motorcade on Main Street, I do not find credible Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell or anyone else having authority to overrule a locked-in Secret Service decision.

I do not believe the motorcade route was changed at the last minute, because no change was necessary. The Secret Service designed the route. They selected the Stemmons Freeway. An SS advance team always inspects an entire route weeks before a motorcade. It surpasses the bounds of credibility to think the SS missed the fact the freeway entrance was on Elm. The previous presidential motorcade in Dallas (FDR's) took Main Street all the way downtown. The only reason to use the newly built Stemmons Freeway was to force JFK's motorcade off Main and onto Elm, via a path that turned right onto Houston for one block, then left onto Elm – which was conveniently a 120-degree turn (almost a U-turn) at 11 mph – to plant the president like a sitting duck in the killing zone. Biography: http://educationforu...dpost&p=235641

It is interesting that not one of your books was written by a historian. Is there any reason for this? It is also interesting that you have given us a Top Ten list of CIA mockingbirds.

We used to have a Peace Corps. Now we only have a War Corps. The assassination of President Kennedy assassinated the Peace Corps as well. Lasting consequence: Our worst enemies are the ones who are supposed to be protecting us Biography: http://educationforu...dpost&p=235641

http://educationforu...dpost&p=235641 Well said. "Confuse the public" is their job, isn't it? This is like a short-order cook saying "I ain't gonna scramble no eggs!"

Thank you very much. I've read Mr. Douglas' book and it was a profound experience. Not surprising, on reflection, is that a theologian led us on the deepest journey. I've not yet read Tony Summers' works, but will. Very good Michael, and I was wondering if you could put your legal background to good use on FOIA requests or other legal procedures? Tony's book on 9/11 was well received and I hope he will revisit JFK again before taking on another project. Gary Mack got back to me and insists that I straighten out the fact that he is a conservative, and provided me the following link that supports my contention that Limbaugh is a two-faced hypocrite and junkie and should be, as he puts it, "sent up" to prison for his drug infractions. "Drug use, some might say, is destroyingthis country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, usingdrugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doingdrugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they oughtto be sent up." - Rush Limbaugh http://en.wikipedia..../Rush_Limbaugh- Prescription_drug_addiction On October 3, 2003the National Enquirer reported that Limbaugh wasbeing investigated for illegally obtaining the prescription drugs oxycodone andhydrocodone.Other news outlets quickly confirmed the investigation.[94] Headmitted to listeners on his radio show on October 10, 2003 that he was addicted to prescriptionpainkillers and stated that he would enter inpatient treatment for 30 days,immediately after the broadcast.[95] Limbaughstated his addiction to painkillers resulted from several years of severe backpain heightened by a botched surgery intended to correct those problems. A subsequent investigation into whether Limbaugh hadviolated Florida's doctor shopping laws was launched by the PalmBeach State Attorney, which raised privacy issues wheninvestigators seized Limbaugh's private medical records looking for evidence ofcrimes. On November 9, 2005, following two years of investigations, AssistantState Attorney James L. Martz requested the court to set aside Limbaugh'sdoctor–patient confidentiality rights and allow the state to question hisphysicians, stating it was necessary because "I have no idea if Mr.Limbaugh has completed the elements of any offense yet."[96] Limbaugh'sattorney opposed the prosecutor's efforts to interview his doctors on the basisof patient privacy rights, and argued that the prosecutor had violatedLimbaugh's Fourth Amendment rightsby illegally seizing his medical records. The American Civil Liberties Union issueda statement in agreement and filed an amicuscuriae brief in support of Limbaugh.[97][98] OnDecember 12, 2005, Judge David F. Crow delivered a ruling prohibiting the Stateof Florida from questioning Limbaugh's physicians about "the medicalcondition of the patient and any information disclosed to the health carepractitioner by the patient in the course of the care and treatment of thepatient."[99] On April 28, 2006a warrant was issued for his arrest on the charge of doctor shopping. Accordingto Teri Barbera, spokeswoman for the Sheriff, during his arrest, Limbaughwas booked,photographed, and fingerprinted, but not handcuffed. He was then released afterabout an hour on $3,000 bail.[100][101][102] Afterhis surrender, he filed a "not guilty" plea to the charge.Prosecutors agreed to drop the charge if Limbaugh paid $30,000 to defray thecost of the investigation and completed an 18-month therapy regimen with hisphysician.[103] Limbaugh asserted that the state's settlement agreementresulted from a lack of evidence supporting the charge of doctorshopping. Under the terms of the agreement, Limbaugh may not own a firearmfor eighteen months and must continue to submit to random drug testing, which he acknowledges havingundergone since 2003. Before his addiction became known, Limbaugh hadcondemned illegal drug use on his television program,stating that "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And wehave laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs.... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to beaccused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." It would be my pleasure to assist with FOIA requests. I'd have to do some research first, because I've only filed one FOIA request in my life, and that was in the mid-1970s, when I was an undergrad at UCLA, to test the system. Re litigation, I can contribute but not handle entire cases. My specialization was writing pre-trial and appellate briefs for other attorneys, so I can offer those skills. If you have anything specific in mind, I think an email exchange would be more appropriate than a public posting. I'm at mikiestar@ca.rr.com and invite you to contact me any time.

Thank you very much. I've read Mr. Douglas' book and it was a profound experience. Not surprising, on reflection, is that a theologian led us on the deepest journey. I've not yet read Tony Summers' works, but will. Very good Michael, and I was wondering if you could put your legal background to good use on FOIA requests or other legal procedures? Tony's book on 9/11 was well received and I hope he will revisit JFK again before taking on another project. Gary Mack got back to me and insists that I straighten out the fact that he is a conservative, and provided me the following link that supports my contention that Limbaugh is a two-faced hypocrite and junkie and should be, as he puts it, "sent up" to prison for his drug infractions. "Drug use, some might say, is destroyingthis country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, usingdrugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doingdrugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they oughtto be sent up." - Rush Limbaugh http://en.wikipedia..../Rush_Limbaugh- Prescription_drug_addiction On October 3, 2003the National Enquirer reported that Limbaugh wasbeing investigated for illegally obtaining the prescription drugs oxycodone andhydrocodone.Other news outlets quickly confirmed the investigation.[94] Headmitted to listeners on his radio show on October 10, 2003 that he was addicted to prescriptionpainkillers and stated that he would enter inpatient treatment for 30 days,immediately after the broadcast.[95] Limbaughstated his addiction to painkillers resulted from several years of severe backpain heightened by a botched surgery intended to correct those problems. A subsequent investigation into whether Limbaugh hadviolated Florida's doctor shopping laws was launched by the PalmBeach State Attorney, which raised privacy issues wheninvestigators seized Limbaugh's private medical records looking for evidence ofcrimes. On November 9, 2005, following two years of investigations, AssistantState Attorney James L. Martz requested the court to set aside Limbaugh'sdoctor–patient confidentiality rights and allow the state to question hisphysicians, stating it was necessary because "I have no idea if Mr.Limbaugh has completed the elements of any offense yet."[96] Limbaugh'sattorney opposed the prosecutor's efforts to interview his doctors on the basisof patient privacy rights, and argued that the prosecutor had violatedLimbaugh's Fourth Amendment rightsby illegally seizing his medical records. The American Civil Liberties Union issueda statement in agreement and filed an amicuscuriae brief in support of Limbaugh.[97][98] OnDecember 12, 2005, Judge David F. Crow delivered a ruling prohibiting the Stateof Florida from questioning Limbaugh's physicians about "the medicalcondition of the patient and any information disclosed to the health carepractitioner by the patient in the course of the care and treatment of thepatient."[99] On April 28, 2006a warrant was issued for his arrest on the charge of doctor shopping. Accordingto Teri Barbera, spokeswoman for the Sheriff, during his arrest, Limbaughwas booked,photographed, and fingerprinted, but not handcuffed. He was then released afterabout an hour on $3,000 bail.[100][101][102] Afterhis surrender, he filed a "not guilty" plea to the charge.Prosecutors agreed to drop the charge if Limbaugh paid $30,000 to defray thecost of the investigation and completed an 18-month therapy regimen with hisphysician.[103] Limbaugh asserted that the state's settlement agreementresulted from a lack of evidence supporting the charge of doctorshopping. Under the terms of the agreement, Limbaugh may not own a firearmfor eighteen months and must continue to submit to random drug testing, which he acknowledges havingundergone since 2003. Before his addiction became known, Limbaugh hadcondemned illegal drug use on his television program,stating that "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And wehave laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs.... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to beaccused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

Thank you very much. I've read Mr. Douglas' book and it was a profound experience. Not surprising, on reflection, is that a theologian led us on the deepest journey. I've not yet read Tony Summers' works, but will.

Have you read Mark Lane's recent "Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK"? Of course, Mr. Lane has only been researching the Kennedy assassination since 1964. Your comment says you've majorly surpassed him. Mark Lane, like Vince Salandria and others, often blame the CIA for anything that was a covert action, when in fact, the military has been doing covert - need to know - plausible deniable operations years, centuries before the CIA came along. I have not yet read Lane's Last Word, but of course it won't be the last word we hear from Lane. Are you familiar with Lane's role at Jonestown? Or know of his defense of Posner's plagerism? I don't know what how long one has been investigating the case has to do with anything. I have been researching the assassination since 1969, when I was a teenager and didn't know anything. You may be right, depending on what majorly means. BK JFKcountercoup What are your conclusions based on your research? I think Elton John was paid to play for Rush. BK I asked you a serious question in good faith. Let's try it this way. If I could read only one book about the JFK assassination, what book would you recommend? And to what percentage do you consider it accurate?

Have you read Mark Lane's recent "Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK"? Of course, Mr. Lane has only been researching the Kennedy assassination since 1964. Your comment says you've majorly surpassed him. Mark Lane, like Vince Salandria and others, often blame the CIA for anything that was a covert action, when in fact, the military has been doing covert - need to know - plausible deniable operations years, centuries before the CIA came along. I have not yet read Lane's Last Word, but of course it won't be the last word we hear from Lane. Are you familiar with Lane's role at Jonestown? Or know of his defense of Posner's plagerism? I don't know what how long one has been investigating the case has to do with anything. I have been researching the assassination since 1969, when I was a teenager and didn't know anything. You may be right, depending on what majorly means. BK JFKcountercoup What are your conclusions based on your research?

Have you read Mark Lane's recent "Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK"? Of course, Mr. Lane has only been researching the Kennedy assassination since 1964. Your comment says you've majorly surpassed him.

No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." Michael, Have you read either of the biographies of Allen Dulles? And Greg is certainly an educated student of the Cold War history and not mistaken as to Dulles' limits as a lawyer and DCI. His brother, as Sec State, was more powerful and publicly influential. Do you know that his primary experience with Nazis was in Switzerland during WWII when he participated in the Valkyrie Plot to kill Hitler, which was a coup as well as an assassination? Sure he also permitted PAPERCLIP, which brought in the Nazi scientists to USA to begin NASA, and rehabilitated Gehlen and utilized his Operation WRINGER against the commies, but its certainly a great stretch to say that his primary experience was as a Nazi operative and financer. BK JFKcountercoup Dulles participated in the Valkyrie plot not because he disagreed with Hitler, but because many Nazis wanted to replace Hitler with someone more compliant.