Patrick Block

Very interesting stuff. I'm an artist, and am pretty lousy at mathematics in general- can you answer a couple of questions for me? Much of this thread is pretty obtuse to me. 1. Is the ultimate conclusion that this research points towards result in one, two or only the third of the "official" accepted shots happening further down the street? 2. Am I to understand that the traditional frame 313 impact might occur further down the street- closer to the steps than the mark on the street? 3. Have the after-assassination replacement/movement of various signs and possibly lampposts been taken into consideration? 4. Is anyone working with a copy of the film directly from NARA? While the evidence there is clearly not the original camera film, it at least has the pedigree of being accepted as the "official" version, which, one would assume, would keep critics from attacking the work as being the result of having been fussed with unintentionally in the interim before becoming the basis of study here.

And what if it isn't? I post very infrequently here, mostly because I only offer my opinions if I feel I have something specifically meaningful to add to the topic. I generally don't speak up at all, unless I feel like I am on extremely firm ground, because, most of the researchers, CIA moles and concerned citizens who write on the boards are quite serious and well read and don't need my two cents. Obviously, Ms. Baker's story is not "all untrue". She worked at the same outfit as Oswald, during this super critical time period in the events leading up to the JFK assassination. They lived in the same general neighborhood, undeniably walked the same sidewalks took the same busses, and visited the same stores, post offices, lunch rooms, etc. Ms. Baker can prove all of this. She can prove she was precisely the right age to be of interest to Mr. Oswald, and she even resembles in some ways his wife- and men do tend towards certain physical qualities in women. One of the most interesting aspects of Ms. Baker's provable tale is the way Oswald and Baker both left their place of employment so abruptly and nearly at the same crucial point in history. She was pretty. She was very, very bright, as was Oswald. It is quite fair to suppose both were well above average IQ and shared bookish interests, enough so that should they have met, it is easy to understand an attraction. It would be actually surprising for a man of his age, and his tendencies to follow his own course, to not have talked to her, should they have met. Is it really a stretch to believe they didn't? Beyond this, there is no proving or disproving anything- which makes it pointless, illogical, and downright wasteful a project to dwell on this as something that can not ever make or break the case of who killed JFK. Even the brightest of us cannot accurately remember where we were, what we were doing, or when things happened to any great accuracy over this sort of time distance. While Ms. Baker has the advantage of being a part of stupendously important moments in time, (if all of what she remembers actually occurred), it is very silly, in my opinion, to judge her recounting as if it can be either accepted in toto or picked apart and declared complete lies on the basis of known timelines. Even if everything she claims happened to her did indeed happen, her story could not possibly be retold accurately- because she is a human being. So, in the opinion of this citizen researcher, like so very much of the eye witness accounts- we cannot know Ms. Baker is lying, nor can we know if she is attempting to be truthful. How can we? I see this intelligent woman placing herself in a quite terrible position. She, of course, does incur the wrath of those who still lurk behind the controls of our country- the men and women who see America as a place to gain power and money at the cost of our most basic freedoms. That has always been what the JFK assassination was ultimately about- and they don't want the fat and complacent citizenry stirred up by some old lady making wild accusations about her first hand experiences of Oswald's innocence. She also has willingly placed herself on the chopping block for all of those researchers who realize that there was a conspiracy, but have a different idea of who committed it than her own story suggests- and these folks tend lead the charge in calling her entire story a lie from the "conspiracy" side. By declaring a final verdict about Ms. Baker's story- in either direction- we are letting our emotions, rather than logic and our powers of deduction decide things for us. It takes way too much faith to arrive at an actual conclusion on this subject, in my opinion. And faith gets you nowhere in the JFK case.

Roberts openly admitted to the Warren Commission that he ordered Hill and Ready to stay with the car right in the middle of the shooting. He perjured himself, claiming an outlandish distance between JFK's car and and the followup car that did not exist, and then lied again to the commission about the vehicles speeds to try and make an excuse for holding his agents back, (as well as claiming there were motorcycles in the way blocking the agents from being able to reach the Presidential vehicle without getting themselves run over.) It's really hard to believe Emory Roberts denied the President this most basic protection, and not only kept his job, but got promoted for his actions and for lying under oath- but he did. Great, great book Vince!

Mr. Groden's long awaited book will be available for sale any day now. It has been printed. I consider both of his pictorial books on the assassination very well done, with high quality images and production values, compared to most publications on the assassination. I've been looking forward to this one for a long while. I encourage everyone to support his work. He has been a tireless champion in his lonely quest to represent something other than the "official position" there in Dallas, and self publication of a book like this is expensive and difficult. There have been a number of rumors about the hinted at title content of the book, and I for one, will be buying a copy or two. Just a heads up.

Newman's work on Oswald and the intelligence chain of documents related to him is among the more intricate and subtle works extant on the subject of the covert operations leading up the assassination of our President. The book is demanding and very rewarding, for those who are truly motivated in unraveling the events that transpired which involved creating the legend of the patsy, and compromising the FBI and other institutions in a way that would insure that no real investigation would ever occur. There is no skimming through this work. It takes dedication, attention and a willingness to wade through a considerable pile of documents to understand that only one section of the CIA handled Oswald, that it wasn't the department that ought to have been handling him, and that much of the information that ought to exist on LHO disappeared into a black hole there in Counterintelligence's own private files. In my opinion, no other single book really points out and proves the real "smoking gun" in the case the way Newman's book does. The whole "Oswald worked for the Russians thus we can't afford to look for anyone else" shtick that Johnson and others used to pin all the weight onto Oswald at all costs came from a compromised Hoover who got it from the CIA. People within the CIA created this legend, and no one else- not Soviets, Cubans, anti-Castro Cubans, Mafia, FBI, Johnson, Lemay, Industrialists nor anyone else except for people in the CIA at the highest levels of Counterintelligence could have done this. In the end, one simply follows "Lee as a Soviet Assassin" backwards to unravel the truth-back through the witnesses told to change their stories to save the country from WWIII -back to the Secret Service and FBI footsoldiers, to Earl Warren and his cronies, to President Johnson, to J. Edgar Hoover, to his men receiving the "Oswald ticking bomb" before the assassination, back, back, back to David Atlee Philips who did ran the legwork of the operation and to James Jesus Angleton who masterminded the quite ingenious and complex scheme. There probably were others involved in the murky powers above them, and obviously, there were the actual shooters, at least some of whom were likely anti-Castro Cubans out for vengeance for being betrayed. But, those at the top and bottom cannot be proved in the way you can with the trail of bread crumbs in the form of solid intelligence agency documents the way you can prove it with Angleton. There simply isn't anyone else who had the access- and Angleton believed in a uber-Soviet master-plan of domination to the point that he actually tried to get the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and a half dozen other important Democratic countries leaders removed because he believed they were Soviet spies. What he must have through of JFK, with his talk of detente and world peace? The assassination is timed perfectly with Angleton's psychological upheaval as his good friend Kim Philby had been discovered to be a Soviet spy and had absconded with unknown secrets told to him by Angleton. Angleton had been compromised himself, falling for Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. Golitsyn fed Angleton's paranoia to the point where Angleton saw Soviet mechanisms everywhere...he likely would have been committed, if he hadn't been doing a job where being paranoid was an integral part of his job. A careful read of Angleton's biographies shows a man driven to the deepest, darkest paranoia. At this point, Angleton answered to no one...not even the Director. There has been very little written about this, but I think it is worth considering that the combination of losing his largest, most valued sponser in Allen Dulles, Golitsyn having Angleton's ear, and Philby's treachery left Angleton so unbalanced that he would have readily listened to anyone in power who made the case that JFK's actions towards a more peaceful world was tantamount to treason. Angleton often wisked himself off to other countries to try and bring down high level politicians/ high level intelligence officers in other democratic countries... how much of a push would it have taken to get him to act against Kennedy? . Perhaps he acted on his own, (I've not heard anyone suggest that, but, why not? Angleton himself lavished hundreds of thousands of dollars on Golitsyn with unrecorded CIA funds- he had the access to untraceable funds). Under Angelton, Counterintelligence ran it's own filing system outside of the rest of the CIA. We know that Oswald ought to have been run through the Soviet division, but instead, was run by CI. Newman's book is the smartest single work on the matter of Oswald's intelligence involvement. There is no doubt at all that he was being handled, that he was being made to "look" like a Soviet assassin PRE-presidential assassination. And there is no doubt that this information was dropped into J. Edgar Hoover's lap in a way that would not immediately come to light, until the big event on Nov. 22. This is a cornerstone book for anyone really interested in the truth. Instead of relying on witnesses or rumors, it's all based on existing released intelligence documents, which, speak for themselves.

I think that it is perfectly reasonable to believe Governor Connally may have had his rib shattered in these frames. Note, Connally himself has not "reacted" to the strike, because human beings take time to react, and we tend to forget how many frames actually fill each second in this film. The jacket movement seems about right to me, time wise. It will take time passing before Connally “knows” he is hit- and of course, the same applies to the President's reaction times. The doctors when queried by the Warren Commission lawyers noted that when a bullet strikes bone, it is very painful, and people tend to react "promptly". But this camera records something like 18 frames per second, so time needs to pass before the Governor reacts- he's a human being- just like President Kennedy. Now, move over to JFK..If he has been struck by the same bullet, he will react at the same time or after Connally. But what's this?? He has very clearly ALREADY reacted to a bullet quite a number of frames previously, which the Commission says passed ONLY through soft tissue, and enough time has passed for him to raise his hands to his throat, all the while the actual bullet is only right this moment passing through Connally. This is hard evidence of two distinct shots hitting the two men. Simply observe his hands. They already have reached for his throat area at the time Connally is being struck and he is not "reacting" at all. When we last spied JFK, he was in a much different position, waving, his right hand raised. Unless we want to slow the speed that the "magic bullet" down to say, an impressive flight speed of 2 or 3 inches per second we are looking at two distinct shooters. If, on the other hand, one believes the rest of what the "Magic Bullet" is represented to have done- made the "v" turn started upwards leaving JFK and then a crazy jog right, striking multiple bones while maintaining it's form in a way no bullet has ever done before or since, I guess it's perfectly reasonable to also have it slow down to a speed of 2 inches per second for a sort of "Matrix" style performance. Why not? The government’s version is draped in"bullet-time" performance anyways. In the end, both JFK and Connally are human beings. If both are struck by a bullet, and one guy sustains a more or less minor soft tissue wound, and the other a devastating multiple bone hit, they will seem to react at the same moment, OR, the guy with the more nasty, painful strike will react first. JFK reacts many frames before before Governor Connally, thus the briefing boards created by the NPIC state this evidence clearly, and the FBI also came to this logical conclusion in their report and never changed it, because, the Zapruder film clearly shows two distinct hits separated by too many frames for one shot, yet, too few for Oswald to reload. Anyone who carefully and objectively studies the film can see it. Only the desperate government investigations. it's clinging believers, and the intelligence assets dispute it. The Warren Commission, instead of using the evidence and coming to a conclusion, was working under the pre-decided conclusion that Oswald acted alone, thus, had to ignore the evidence and work up some "Magic"; leading medical witnesses, switching around pictures, scrubbing out signatures, and doing whatever they had to, to arrive at their pre-ordained "findings". All one has to do to understand the truth of the Warren Commission's predetermined bias is to take a look at how early the report's chapters, which assume the guilt of Oswald, were laid out. They had Oswald convicted before they ever listened to witnesses and searched for the truth. The Lone-nutters who let the Warren Commission "report" act as “evidence”, instead of looking at the actual primary evidence for themselves are forever trapped in a fantasy world of “bullet-time” physics and skewed perspective.

"If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself." -George Orwell, 1984

I'm not as knowledgable about the alleged Oswald attempt on Walker as in some other facets of the case, but doesn't all of the evidence collected pre-JFK assassination point to two shooters, both with cars, and an entirely different bullet caliber recovered with a different spectrographic makeup? Isn't 100% of the evidence suggesting Oswald was involved come from dubious sources- Marina threatened with the deportation of her children whilst held in isolation, or from known intelligence assets, the Paines and the Baron? I suspect a much stronger case could be cobbled together proving that those folks were handlers of Oswald, than Oswald trying to shoot anyone. The single bit of evidence outside of those "witnesses" is the photo of the car parked in Walker's driveway, which can be proven to have been altered by the police after it was "found" by them. It would have been thrown out as evidence, once Fritz lied about the licence plate, and pictures showed up with it intact in police hands. The only thing that photo would convict, is the Dallas police force. What else is there? Anything? I think the case against Oswald as Walker's assailant is by far the weakest of the crimes the government attempted to pin on him. Well....maybe his alleged attempted assassination on Nixon is weaker, but not by a lot. You might as well hang Mussilini's demise on Lee. After all, Oswald owned a carcano, and that's Italian. Hunter of Facists, indeed!

The question is, what reliable evidence is there, at all, that Oswald even knew about the trek to Mexico until after the assassination? There is more solid proof that he wasn't there, than he was...photos of someone else said to be Lee, recordings of someone impersonating him badly, and proof via documents-witnesses putting him back in the states at that time. What is there- a bus stub of questionable origin? I feel that the entire production was created to force Hoover to accept Oswald as the sole assassin, and provide everyone else the excuse not to investigate the assassination. Knocking over Hoover by making his bureau look incompetant and tying his pudgy little hands started off a domino effect- Johnson,Warren,Russell, et al. Everyone toppled over and looked away from the truth in real fear that the Soviets killed JFK using a Castro-friendly American assassin. It was the height of the Cold War, and only guy working towards ending it was now dead. I think Mexico City was created expressly for Hoover. I suspect the plotters only real worry was that the FBI would be unleashed upon them, which would start a domino effect in the other direction- everyone investigating towards them rather than away following the FBI's lead. Hoover was naturally jealous of other intelligence organizations working in his turf. He would have glady ended the CIA if he could. He feared his beloved Bureau looking foolish above all else. By dropping Oswald, who probably had ties to the FBI that past year in New Orleans, into the FBI's lap together with details of the imaginary Mexico City trek with all it's Soviet shenanigans, the plotters created a movie quality evil-genius masterstroke to insure their own security. FBI refuses to pursue the investigation because of the Mexico City fable, everyone falls into line. Which way does the honest evidence tilt- in Mexico, or not?

I've been reading with interest the threads discussing coming together for some sort of presentation on the year of the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, and also on the matter of a timeline to be published this year. In my opinion, the most valuable sort of presentation for public consumption would be some manner of graphically rich combination of multiple timelines and prezies which included clips and photos. A sort of dedicated and updatable website, or maybe a section of an existing site, dedicated to presenting in a straightforward fashion a relatively uncluttered and simple depiction in a modern form what occurred. If the timelines were carefully thought out and constructed in a fashion to cut the fat down to basics and provable events that matter, that would be much preferable than to the generally scattered attempts that generally are worked up. Researchers tend to aim at researchers in their presentations. That is not what is called for here. Less is better-clarity, the aim. This project needs to have a modern appearance- it ought to be colorful and easy to read. It should form a narrative that can be followed without the viewer having too much previous background in the case. The presentation's various parts, the timelines, clips and prezies need to work together in a logical fashion to form a "big picture", but also need to each stand alone as a discernible separate and logical entity on their topic. For instance, an entertaining prezie showcasing JFK's accomplishments and attempts away from colonization towards a more peaceful globe working together would make a useful section, complemented by one showing the military/industrial complex's opposite aims. I think that the "center" of the product ought to focused on the most provable link to the planners who set the operation into motion and the second group who then covered up the diabolical scheme out of a sense of patriotism. This is the crux of understanding the assassination, and the place where timelines would best work. Timeline "A" would follow Oswald through his handling in intelligence operations and the way he was used by the active conspirators to create the "Soviet Assassin with Cuban ties" myth. This sequence of events climaxes with the CIA dropping the Oswald package into the arms of Hoover and the other intelligence agencies around the country just prior to the assassination. Timeline "B" begins the day of the assassination. Hoover is aghast to find the "Soviet backed Assassin" sitting right in the recent files in his beloved bureau. As much as the CIA is his rival and enemy, he is stuck. If he investigates, he has to deal with the Soviet fake connection, and decides to stick with Oswald at all costs. This begins to take hold the day of the assassination, with a few actual conspirators getting the aid of well meaning others worried about a nuclear war, Doctors are compromised and witnesses threatened on this basis and crucial evidence is altered to pin it on lonely Oswald to save the USA from annihilation. The real conspirators are lost in the mix of who is acting out of malice, and who is simply trying to save the globe. Timeline "A" and "B" come together briefly and having the two timelines running side by side would illustrate what actually occurred beautifully. Hoover passes the Oswald hot-potato to Johnson in the now singularly running Timeline "B", and Johnson deputizes Warren, Russell, who pass the phony but brilliant investigation crushing patsy down to every level of the "investigation". This allows widespread fraud in the work the commission does. Most people realize Oswald did not act alone, and are suspicious of the government's version of events, but are confused about how widespread the conspiracy must have been. Focusing on the fact that there was an active conspiracy and a passive one composed of people who thought they were doing the best thing for the country, needs to be the highlight of explaining what happened.

In my opinion, Mr. Fetzer is brave in his willingness to put life and reputation on the line to protect the American Constitution and the Liberties then-in offered to it's citizens. I agree with some of what he says about basic, simple alteration of the Z film, but am not convinced one way or the other about the complex parts of his theory. I would offer the observation that now is not the time to try and squeeze questionable answers out of the evidence. The "center" of the plot was long ago revealed. Why do we insist on trying to prove details that are not needed to convict those who planned and put the operation into motion? The truth is that it is much, much easier to keep on looking and never arrive at the logical conclusion of acting to do something about it. Mr. Fetzer is ill advised in his approach. I am sure he is well meaning in his actions, but I think all of these seperate factions- each with a "stand" that share much in common with everyone else, but always falls apart in insisting on describing details no one can ascertain for certain, need to realize that the vast majority of researchers are in complete agreement on the culprits at the center of the case. Most also realize that there were two conspiracies- one before the assassination involving active particpants, and one after formed around the nucleus of preventing a new world war because of the planners bogus "Soviet Assassin" investigation-stopper. We mostly all agree on the big picture. Think for a moment of the list of researchers who agree with the above general description. Every major person would be on the list, as long as one kept the less easily discernable top and bottom, and particulars of the altered evidence to a minimum. There is enough evidence to present this to the American people. The American Government, especially the intelligence agency involved in the assassination want us to keep focusing on impossible to answer questions. The media is in the pockets of those with the money and power in charge. The American people need to hear a compact, digestible telling of the facts in the case. Forget car stops, it is not relevant to the big picture. Keep it simple. Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to stop worrying about their place in the drama of speaking the truth, and concentrate on what is important- presenting a united front, stepping forward, and offering up the bare and simple truth. Getting attention from a media circus by making wild assertions will get you on television, but such things are unproductive in getting to the Truth. It's ridiculously easy to prove that after the assassination, much evidence was altered, was purposely lost, that evidence was carefully selected to only show Oswald's "guilt" and that evidence to the contrary was simply ignored. There is no need to use "newly discovered" altered evidence when so much is available that cannot be contested by the other side. What logic exists to argue the above point? It's only when people start putting on blinders and concentrating on things impossible to prove or disprove, for the sake of the pride of discovery, that arguments insue. The evidence for conspiracy is already well established. There is agreement already on enough important points to act on those in the middle of the plot, and proving the Warren Commission was a complete scam. Is that not enough for everyone?? It's time to grow up, people. Being a patriot isn't about getting laurels, attention, glory for yourself. Real patriots sacrifice and often don't live to be called patriots in their lifetime. And, that's the real problem, isn't it? The time to bicker about what evidence to show is long, long past. The time to present the case, to put the guilty on trial is slipping away. It's time to work together- and the sad thing is- you all know this is true- even as you continue to bicker and duel in the same old manner. This is the fifteth anniversery of the assassination. At 75 years, everyone who remembers it as an actual event will be gone, or so advanced in age that they won't make any difference. It's time to throw away your carefully fortified positions, defending this or that, this constant, endless debating and fighting about unprovable theories is being actively supported and propped up by the very organizations involved in the assassination. It's high time to realize you guys are on the same team and have exactly the same goal and the means to achieve it are in hand.

I have had a number of researchers who write regularly here on this site privately ask me why I don't contribute more often. I have to admit I sometimes begin to...I will read something I have thoughts about, and begin a lengthy response, only to erase it after a lot of work. I sometimes feel terribly guilty at not doing more, because I do feel strongly about the assassination and it's consequences to our country. What stops me isn't insecurities about what I have to say or how I write it. It isn't fear either of an Imperial starship with Darth Vader giving me the old evil force choke hold. What keeps me from contributing more here is the fact that the Kennedy Research community reminds me so much of the kiddie play area at the local mall. Many of the children want to sit atop the plastic mountain, or drive the immobile molded convertible. There are more kids than mountains and cars. The noisiest, oldest, toughest kids tend to just knock the smaller and weaker kids off the top of said pinnacle with a rather nonchalant, almost innocent shoulder or hip bump, and they tumble down. A few share nicely, but often the ones that are the most charismatic and outgoing hog the toys and the more introverted kids end up crying. The real world can be somewhat like this too...but here on these boards it's much more pronounced than in our daily lives. There's a complete lack of manners, of respect to people who have given their all to discovering the truth about who really killed JFK. These are people who have sometimes forgone better jobs, that have lost marriages in their pursuit of the truth. It's one thing to be attacked by intelligence operatives hiding behind the cover of the internet, or having to deal with government agencies bent on destroying evidence showing conspiracy, and it's quite another to find out that a researcher that you respect, have read, and feel a kinship to, is misrepresenting what you wrote, inventing stances you never took, or just wallowing in their own egos, pretending that they never used anything in their printed books that amounted to unprovable and wild theories. In the end we are all human beings, and we all have and will in the future use sources we wish we hadn't. JFK researchers tend to be more intelligent people than maybe your average Joe on the street, and certainly most are much more stubborn, focused and questioning of authority than your average reality show watcher. But sadly, in this guy's opinion, we are for the most part, most unwise. Everytime we attack anothers book or stand without reason, it effects our own karma. No one comes accross as an objective researcher when they say someone said something as if it were a "fact" when they clearly expressed that it was a possible "theory". That is called lying, and it shows that the researcher in question is operating out of ego driven motives, much like that big kid on the mountaintop. This is the only reason why there is no concensus, no workgroup, no progress, towards some united project to present the truth to the American people on the 50th anniversery of JFK's death...and you all know it's the truth. Most everyone has a theory, and you each defend it like an armed camp in little, isolated clusters like dumbf**ks. You let your egos dictate whom you kick around. If someone believes in X's general theory where JFK was flown to Australia and turned into a kangaroo, Z hates that guy, because he has it in for X. It come to the point where the facts in the case mean less than the personalities involved....and it's remarkably clear to see, watching from the outside. So, remember, before attacking another researcher who actually is on your side in the "big picture", just whose reputation it is that you are actually harming, and who it is that is on the recieving end of all that bad karma.

I believe the source of this quote may be Mark Lane, who gave a PBS television interview in New Orleans the day the California polls closed, before Robert was assassinated. He publically spoke about Kennedy's message, passed to him via Jim Garrison, that if he was elected President, he would open a new investigation and blow the whole case open. Writer Jack Anderson was in the audience, a guest that same day, and asked Lane questions. Anderson later told Lane he had written a column about Lane's announcement, titled "Ominous Prophecy". As far as Lane is aware, it went unpublished. Lane wrote about this event in his recent book Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK. While this certainly doesn't count as a public statement by Robert Kennedy, (it's heresay the way it was passed on), the event's incredible timing- Lane giving the televised interview virtually as Kennedy is about to be shot, really left me gasping when I read it. I have to think Mark Lane felt dreadful and a bit guilty as well as very frightened at the time. Think about how it would make you feel, if you were the one deciding to spill the beans with such a disasterous thing happening immediately thereafter. The book is an interesting read, as is his even more recent autobiography, Citizen Lane.

When a writer or movie maker wants to deliver information to an audience, deliver a message that the audience will truly understand and integrate into their lives, the best way to accomplish this is to offer them the message from a unique, interesting perspective in a form that forces them to reflect upon the film or book to puzzle out the answer for themselves. When you just drop the info into their lap, it's boring and feels preachy. The writer needs to provide them the basic structure and integral points on the topic, and let that lead the reader or watcher to the conclusion via their own brain. If this is done in a fascinating way, it gets the audience to think about the topic for days until they find their own answer. If you have watched the documentary Virtual JFK, the film maker never mentions who assassinated JFK- he only points out various proofs suggesting that Kennedy was at heart a dove, who continuously pushed for world peace and who was certainly not going to escalate Vietnam. But the resulting effect on the audience, when they consider all the ways Kennedy went against the Joint Chiefs and Industrialists, is to ponder about the fact that JFK got wacked right as he was about to pull out of Vietnam, and the way Bundy and Johnson turned it around to escalation while the body was still warm leads the viewer towards the truth about JFK's death without ever even mentioning the assassination in context with the events the film is theorectically covering. It's an adroit film technique to get the audience to ask specific questions without even bringing up the specific subject, and Oliver Stone, having already tackled the subject head on, is simply buttressing his past work with extremely relevant material on the subject of where the actions of our Industrialists, Military and Intelligence Agencies have led us after their little foray into treason. Good thread, utterly relevant to the topic of the death of JFK, in my opinion. God Bless Oliver Stone, and kudos to Piers for have the Stones to dare to say what he actually thinks, instead of cow-towing the propagandized version of history.

August 4, 1965 They're selling postcards of the hanging They're painting the passports brown The beauty parlor is filled with sailors The circus is in town Here comes the blind commissioner They've got him in a trance One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker The other is in his pants And the riot squad they're restless They need somewhere to go As Lady and I look out tonight From Desolation Row. Cinderella, she seems so easy "It takes one to know one," she smiles And puts her hands in her back pockets Bette Davis style And in comes Romeo, he's moaning "You belong to Me I Believe" And someone says, "You're in the wrong place, my friend You better leave" And the only sound that's left After the ambulances go Is Cinderella sweeping up On Desolation Row. Now the moon is almost hidden The stars are beginning to hide The fortunetelling lady Has even taken all her things inside All except for Cain and Abel And the hunchback of Notre Dame Everybody is making love Or else expecting rain And the Good Samaritan, he's dressing He's getting ready for the show He's going to the carnival tonight On Desolation Row. Now Ophelia, she's 'neath the window For her I feel so afraid On her twenty-second birthday She already is an old maid To her, death is quite romantic She wears an iron vest Her profession's her religion Her sin is her lifelessness And though her eyes are fixed upon Noah's great rainbow She spends her time peeking Into Desolation Row. Einstein, disguised as Robin Hood With his memories in a trunk Passed this way an hour ago With his friend, a jealous monk He looked so immaculately frightful As he bummed a cigarette Then he went off sniffing drainpipes And reciting the alphabet You would not think to look at him But he was famous long ago For playing the electric violin On Desolation Row. Dr. Filth, he keeps his world Inside of a leather cup But all his sexless patients They're trying to blow it up Now his nurse, some local loser She's in charge of the cyanide hole And she also keeps the cards that read "Have Mercy on His Soul" They all play on penny whistles You can hear them blow If you lean your head out far enough From Desolation Row. Across the street they've nailed the curtains They're getting ready for the feast The Phantom of the Opera In a perfect image of a priest They're spoonfeeding Casanova To get him to feel more assured Then they'll kill him with self-confidence After poisoning him with words And the Phantom's shouting to skinny girls "Get outa here if you don't know" Casanova is just being punished for going To Desolation Row. At midnight all the agents And the superhuman crew Come out and round up everyone That knows more than they do Then they bring them to the factory Where the heart-attack machine Is strapped across their shoulders And then the kerosene Is brought down from the castles By insurance men who go Check to see that nobody is escaping To Desolation Row. They be to Nero's Neptune The Titanic sails at dawn Everybody's shouting "Which side are you on ?" And Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot Fighting in the captain's tower While calypso singers laugh at them And fishermen hold flowers Between the windows of the sea Where lovely mermaids flow And nobody has to think too much About Desolation Row. Yes, I received your letter yesterday About the time the door knob broke When you asked me how I was doing Was that some kind of joke ? All these people that you mention Yes, I know them, they're quite lame I had to rearrange their faces And give them all another name Right now I can't read too good Dont send me no more letters no Not unless you mail them From Desolation Row. Bob Dylan *** This has always been one of my very favorite songs. The finest art always leaves one pondering unanswered questions while addressing the human spirit, it doesn't serve it's message on a silver platter, but causes the viewer or listener to think about it's message long after the piece has been left- this tune, in my opinion, calls up specfic images of the assassination in the larger context of the destruction of the American Dream due to the lust for power, greed, and general secrecy brought about by the shredding of our Constitution by secretive men behind the scenes. To me it is America's best songwriter's greatest effort. Interestingly, the author admits during the telling of changing names. One does not have to ponder why very much. Some telling points about the song. 1. "Their selling postcards of the hanging" What event is better described by this simple description? How many postcards and momentos of this event were made? How like an execution was the assassination, really? 2. The "beauty parlor" which is full of "sailors" (naval personal in Bethesda) is where JFK's autopsy and head resconstruction afterwards, to make him look nice again, were done. 3. "The Circus is in town" Indeed. 4. "Here comes the blind commissioner- they've got him in a trance" Does this not perfectly describe the situation with Earl Warren? If ever there was an investigator who did not wish to see the truth, it was Earl. 5. "One hand is tied to the tightrope walker, the other is in his pants". Warren being lead down the tightrope while he is playing with his own huge ego fits perfectly. 6. "As Lady and I look out tonight from Desolation Row" Told from the perspective of the new President and Ladybird, of course. 7. "Cinderella", I think, is Jackie in ashes. 8. "In comes Romeo, he's moaning, 'You belong to me I believe" is Bobby, who thinks the Presidency ought to be his, is threatened that "He better leave". 9. Interestingly, Dylan predicts more deaths in the line- "And the only sound that's left After the ambulanceS go Is Cinderella sweeping up On Desolation Row." 10. In the television footage of the funeral, as JFK's coffin marches off under a flag, we pan up to see an American flag, fluttering in the breeze with it's stars only partly visible on the national wide news. The star studded coffin marches sadly out of sight. In my opinion, the following line is pure songwriting genius, doubling America's falling freedoms up with the funeral flag stars "begining to hide". "Now the moon is almost hidden The stars are beginning to hide" 11."And the Good Samaritan, he's dressing He's getting ready for the show He's going to the carnival tonight On Desolation Row." The Carnival is generally the investigation by the Warren Commission. Arlan Spector a lovely candidate for The Good Samaritan. 12. "Now Ophelia, she's 'neath the window For her I feel so afraid On her twenty-second birthday She already is an old maid To her, death is quite romantic She wears an iron vest Her profession's her religion Her sin is her lifelessness And though her eyes are fixed upon Noah's great rainbow She spends her time peeking Into Desolation Row." This whole verse is purely Oswald who is "Ophelia 'neath the window". "On her twenty-second birthday" he is really 'born' to the public eye on Nov. 22. Think about that! "she wears an iron vest" and "her profession's her religion" suggests a nod to Oswald's supposed communist ties, or perhaps a sly hint at Oswald's intelligence operative status. Very cool writing here, masterful, puzzling and understated. Very beautiful. "And though her eyes are fixed upon Noah's great rainbow She spends her time peeking Into Desolation Row" In my opinion, the above is suggestive of Oswald loving his country, and it's promise about having to do with goodness and God, but that Oswald spends his time being involved in the shady underpinnings of American Intelligence, which is the exact opposite of the promise of our Constitution. I consider this the finest moment from this memorable classic. It is so very sad, compelling, and tragic. I'm going to stop here with my intrepetation of the song. The rest of it obviously deals with a lot of the horrible crap that is done in the shadowy world that has been overtaking our country. I think it's no wonder Dylan had to be so vague about the intentions of this profound and moving song in order to see it published with doing mayhem to his own life. I am not saying my thoughts on this song are a widespread theory about what Dylan means to represent- in fact, I know of no one who has offered this sort of viewing of this classic tune. But, if you consider when it was written, and what was happening in the country at that time, I think it is as valid an opinion as any. There are a few key phrases that are extremely strong hints about what it is really referring to. I will be interested to see if anyone agrees with me on this.

As someone with almost 40 years of regular rifle shooting experience hunting with a partner in the field, I can tell you with authority that only someone who is unfamiliar with bushwacking type On-stand hunting would offer the notion that people waiting on and firing at the same target from different positions are unlikely to fire near-instantaneously. This is a super common occurance between my dad and I, or my son and myself. When deer hunting from stands some distance apart, there have been many- more than a score of times, when we both happened to see a deer walk into a field at the same time, and fire within the same second- much the same way Kellerman describes the "volley" that sounds like fast handclaps. It is not wierd. It is not uncommon. It would also carry over from shot to shot if both persons began shooting at about the same time, and worked a bolt and fired a second time. As long as they were using bolt actions, and had similar skill levels, the chances of firing at nearly the same instant are quite high. That isn't any sort of mathematical calculation, or a guess from someone idly considering the probabilities without any actual facts. My opinion is based on a a huge amount of experience in the field- practical knowledge about the subject. If the teams doing the shooting had any sort of coordination at all.....yellow lines painted on the curb, someone opening a door, unbrella or using radios to begin the firing or signal a "go", I should think the chances of simultaneous shots would be even more likely. Over the years I've seen many offer the observation that it was very unlikely or even impossible that shots could happen so close together from shooters at different locations. I've never commented on this subject before, but that is a silly position to take, and I think all serious experienced partnered hunters would agree with me, having experience this themselves repeatedly.

I followed Mr. Horne's and Mr. Zavada's complete discussion as it was published. I've read both sides of the entire debate perhaps 9 or 10 times now, it's quite daunting in the details, even for someone familiar with shooting and editing 8 and 16mm formats. I can assume you have Doug Horne's books, Mr. Lamson? The discussion is quite detailed, but it seems to me that in the end, it comes down to Mr. Zavada- someone who never handled or saw the original material in 1963- stating that his guesses trump the experts who actually handled the film, who are mightily qualified to make their claims, and who have no bias either way as to whether the film was tinkered with or not. Those experts being Dino Brugioni (the NPIC's Chief of Information) and Homer McMahon (the Head of NPIC's Color Lab), Mr. Brugioni, since Mr. Horne's book has been published, has gotten to carefully look at an excellent, 3rd generation copy of the film purchased from the National Archives. He has stated rather boldly that there is something amiss- that the film we take today as the forensic original has different content at crucial points than the film he handled. Which is fascinating when considered in light that more than a score of unbiased film industry professionals believe there is obvious and rather crude artwork added into the film. Combine that with the completely false history we have been fed all these years about the film's whereabouts. The chain of evidence completely collapses. Suddenly, immediately after the assassination, we have two carefully controlled visits of two different versions of the Zapruder film to the NPIC. Entirely different people handled the events, and the control of these events was such that neither party working under the same roof had any idea the other visit had occurred until recent times, 40 odd years later. The simple matter of this veil of secrecy created between these NPIC experts on the weekend of the assassination, is damning in itself, is it not? Why the compartmentization on the creating of two sets of briefing boards? For Mr. Zavada to be correct, he asks us to believe that both of these film experts- working in one of the top photographic and film companies in the world, were so incompetant, that they couldn't recognize a first generation film when they looked at it under magnification. Weren't you the one telling me, some months back, how easy it is to see generational disintegration in copies of small 8mm frames? I think that portion of Mr. Zavada's proposal is a joke. When you start taking into consideration other areas of fraud perpetrated after the assassination with evidence- stuff like blatantly switching around frames of the head shot as published by the Warren Commission in the 26 volumes- of newscasters seeing the Zapruder film, like Dan Rather, and then actually daring to relate to America that the Zapruder film showed JFK being knocked violently forward in his viewing of the film- combine that with LIFE MAGAZINE spending what amounts to a huge fortune to acquire the motion picture rights and then attempting to squirrel them away forever from the American public- -When you take all this into consideration, Mr. Lamson, doesn't even someone as firmly entrenched in his trust of the American Government's complete honesty start to have some doubts?

It is a little unfair to treat a group of men as an entity, but certainly by the time the Commission published, everyone aboard knew that they hadn't "investigated" anything. They were rubber stamping the Government's official verdict. No one believed it was true. And I would disagree slightly with Mr. DiEugenio's assessment that it was Hoover, Dulles, McCloy, and Ford that wrote JFK's obituary. That fictional epitaph was written by the CIA, who tossed in into the lap of J. Edgar Hoover before the assassination without him even being aware of it. He then tossed the treasonous football to President Johnson, who passed it to Earl Warren, et al. I think it is that tale of Mexico that is the key to understanding why so many people lied so very easily in a great, patriotic path of incredible fibs and altered and destroyed evidence. Everyone who needed to be told were advised that the Soviets were behind it, that WWIII was lurking in Dealy Plaza, so do your duty and purjure yourself for your country. And so many did. Follow that same tale of spies and assassins back the other direction, friends, and it leads to those who actually concocted the plot, which was a work of very dark genius of the domestic variety. Since the chapters of the Warren Report were decided on so very early in the Commission's existance, it seems clear to me that there never was any intention of looking for who did the deed. The WC's purpose was to make sure the world bought the unlikely left-leaning patsy as killer of left leaning liberal Presidents. From the start, it was a ridiculous task. Each of those men knew that the conservative right hated JFK. One of them knew perfectly well who the real assassins actually were. One has to believe Dulles was aboard specifically to make sure that the most honest amongst them, the ailing Russell, wouldn't decide to get wise and actually look. At the end Russell refused to sign the damned thing, so, the rest of the bunch lied even to their own comrade, in order to get him to set his name on that pile of refuse. That's how rotten the whole mess was.

There is quite solid evidence the film was slit on the same day it was developed, but only after the unslit 16 mm double-8 film was taken to the Jamieson film lab so that three contact prints could be run off. After the three contact prints were developed back at the Kodak lab in Dallas early that evening, where they, and the camera-original, slit to the normal 8 mm width. You have many people who testified to watching it soon after it was slit on an 8mm projector and even reporting they did so. You have Mr. Zavada's interview with the Kodak employees who claimed it was slit. Obviously, Mr. Phil Chamberlain (the Production Supervisor of the Kodak Plant in Dallas) who Mr. Zavada interviewed, ought to be a witness one could take as the best proof available- yet Mr. Zavada has been forced to choose to believe these people who watched the film, and those who developed it, are are all mistaken in order to arrive at a "safe" and non-altered conclusion of the film's non-slitted status at this point. Mr. Zavada has to be aware that if the film was slit at the Kodak plant in Dallas- (which was Mr. Zavada's initial conclusion until he discovered that meant hanky-panky elsewhere), there is really no other digestible alternative than film alteration after this event- which is why he chooses to ignore or make little of the strong evidence that it was slit, in my opinion. On the physical film itself and it's length, after the assassination footage, the "blank" part of the film is not attached to the rest of the film- there is some 24 feet of black, unexposed (D-max) film actually spliced onto the existing footage, which means, there is no way whatsoever to determine if it belongs to the extant film, or was obtained elsewhere and added separately. Doug Horne's superb recent paper on the subject is the state of the art, current status of where we are in learning about the nature of Mr. Zapruder's little movie. For everyone interested in the film, this is a must read. It contains the absolutely stunning new revelation that Dino Brugioni, who was an actual expert intelligence film image interpreter and was involved in stuff like finding missiles on those Cuban U2 photos, having recently viewed the new, clear, digital images from the 3rd generation copy, has come to the realization that this is not the same content as he saw when he handled the film the day after the assassination. He claims the film has been altered, from what he saw- that the original showed a much longer, gorier, "head explosion" among other very important differences. Which is obviously, a huge find of great portent. Do check it out! http://lewrockwell.c...rne-d1.1.1.html

I've seen this photo a number of times before over the years. It's interesting as it is one of two photos with Greer having opened his door. The second photo shows his door open momentarily, I seem to recall, near the fatal turn. Can anyone confirm my memory of that second door opening?

Superbly researched, very important article with some brand new revelations from Doug Horne. It's very sad that it's largely ignored here in favor of 100 pages of people who enjoy belittling one another over a photograph of a person that isn't clear enough to ever positively identify. This paper, and the recently discovered Air Force One tapes are, in my opinion, the most interesting new material on the subject of the assassination so far this year.

http://historical.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=6086&lotNo=38196#Photo Heritage has an interesting and quite substantial lot of early photos, letters, hand written book or article material on the assassination all owned by that good ol' spy everyone loves to speculate about, Frank Sturgis. While the notebooks about JFK's assassination sound like moneymaking stuff culled from JFK researcher's material- and of course promote the "Oswald as Soviet Spy-Aassassin" line favored by the CIA, there are enough period photos and letters here to make this an extremely interesting looking lot that I'd love to peruse- maybe it's interesting enough that someone here might be rich enough and curious enough about to take the plunge. I thought it was worth posting and discussing. Auction ends soon, in May.

This young lady would have been in an ideal position to note whether or not Presdiential driver Greer made the often suggested overly "wide turn". With her attention so focused on the car, she might have noted whether Greer bumped the curb or had trouble making the turn. She's in a great and unique spot, being slightly above the proceedings. Also would be interested if she noted Greer opening and closing his door about this time, and if she is a witness to the "Lambchop" stuffed doll sitting on the seat with Jackie seen by Ms. Hill.

Bolden is a true pioneer, patriot and indeed a hero actually worthy of a large scale documentary about his life. His story rings true, and I highly reccomend his book, The Echo From Dealy Plaza to anyone who wants a most unusual and truthful perspective from his point of view within the Secret Service protecting the President. Abraham Bolden was hand selected by Kennedy himself for the Presidential detail. He criticised the Secret Service drinking before the assassination, and paid a huge price after he spoke up again shortly after the assassination. Had he been on the car, it's just possible JFK would have survived. Mark Lane made the comment that Abe Bolden showed as much integrity as any witness he has ever interviewed in his very long career. I've traded a few emails with Mr. Bolden, and he is a real old school gentleman of the nicest sort. Yet, here our media will go, supporting what amounts to a treasonous rewriting of the truth about what happened to a President who tried to work towards change of the best possible sort- away from spending on pointless and unneccessary war for the sake of dollars for the rich- in favor of a lasting Peace for the world, where dollars would be spent in more humane pursuits. Bob Marley said it best- How long shall they kill our prophets, while we stand aside and look?

A very interesting thread on one of the most perplexing pieces of evidence in the case. For a very long time I've thought it likely Oswald mailed this package to himself as a last ditch sort of insurance against the plotters framing him. It's more than silly that he would have put wrapping paper from his workplace in it- surely that's among the most idiotic of the planted pieces of evidence in the case. I have to admit I never considered the possibilities that the label itself might be a message. It's a remarkably good idea. I will offer my two-cents on this if I might. Mr. Hume goes to great lengths to find complicated codework in the label. Oswald was probably very pressed for time to get this insurance policy out at the right moment. One also needs to consider his age and general way of doing things. Consider his reading habits that summer and fall, when trying to decipher this. It seems to me that Oswald has left us with a real key to how he felt about himself, what he was doing in this label. You can see with whom he tries to identify with by what he has left us with. That second "O" within the first "O" of his last name...am I the only one who immediately sees what he means by this? It gives Double O Oswald seven letters in his last name, for his hero and patron, "Double O Seven". Lee, in one of his last efforts, is leaving the world notice that he was a good guy, a hero, and not the villain of the piece. I suspect he played the double agent throughout his short career. The CIA recruits him, sends him to the Soviet Union where he plays the bad guy, giving away American secrets on order from his handlers in the CIA. He comes back, and plays the part again as a pro-Cuba activist, perhaps this time for the FBI. He gets involved in an anti-FPFC campaign run by the CIA and FBI, which is part of the CIA's plan to dump a seemingly Soviet-run assassin into the FBI's lap in order to halt any post-assassination investigation. Along the way, Oswald doubles again, infiltrates the plot and saves the day in Chicago. It's long been rumored a tipster named "Lee" saved the day there. Oswald sees Dallas coming, does what he can, but the assassins have his number. It's Lee's last play at being Double O Seven. The writing is on the wall. He makes an effort- perhaps a bank safety deposit box is likely- to save himself by mailing himself a package with...something in it. A safety deposit box key? If honest men had fetched the package, Oswald might still have prevailed even in death. Just my thoughts of course. Oswald I think, was unlikely to need obscure and hard to decipher code. He needed something that would appear to be an address that couldn't be delivered, yet, could lead to whatever evidence he had in his possession by people willing to look. If it was really hard to decipher, it was useless. Anyways, my thoughts on this fascinating matter.