Glenn Nall

I have to agree with you on this one, Pat. I never noticed the ladder moving in the opposite direction until you pointed it out. These connivers will do anything to perpetuate the lone nut myth.

Bob:

I have come up with yet another example to help readers understand, from the point of view of elementary Physics. See this image:

The golden bullet denotes the actual direction of the projectile and the red vector denotes the task that we are given: it is the net movement of the subject, after all forces have been accounted for (see the vacuum described by Pat, gravity, air resistance, etc.). Those who want to achieve Case No. 3 have two challenging sub-tasks:

(1) Reverse the angle by 180 degrees. That is the easy part.

(2) Have a strong momentum (long red arrow): no way on earth this is achievable.

When I was a kid, we had a school break, national holidays, called "Carnivals": there were beauty queens being elected, people wore costumes, dances, etc. In the US it is known as Mardi Grass.

The practice that degenerated along the years was throwing water balloons. Let me put it this way: it started with confetti, then liquid water, next frozen water and people ended up shooting each other. The last time I did this, we were still learning how to drive, went around neighborhoods and every time we spotted a target -preferably a girl- we unloaded our arsenal.

Note: This time, the car is the bullet.

In one of those sorties, we spotted a group of older students chatting across the local university. My older brother was driving, I was in the passenger seat. I am right-handed. The car must have been going about 20-30 mph and I made a perfect pitch, hitting one of the students in his rear bottom. I was surprised at the impact (it is a good thing he had an ample derriere to absorb the hit). Obviously, the speed of the car was ADDED to that provided by my arm. That was a clear Case 1.

If we want to achieve Case 3, we must do the throw AFTER the student is passed. The speed of the car is SUBTRACTED from that of the swinging arm.

Again: No way this is possible. Not to the extent required.

ps: Jet Effect for Dummies

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22353

Jet propulsion requires thrust.

from where is this thrust coming?

Absolute nonsense, Pat. Lattimer's test skulls were long gone off the ladder before there was any "recoil" (i.e., backward movement) of the ladder.

Let's try this again. The bullet never touches the ladders, and yet they tip forward. This proves that the forward momentum of the skull is being transferred into the ladders.

Think of it like shooting pool. The cue ball is the bullet. The cue ball strikes the 13 ball at an angle when it's an inch or so away from the 8 ball. The 13 ball then strikes the 8 ball. Upon striking the 8 ball, the 13 ball rolls backwards, but the 8 ball rolls forwards. Lattimer claimed that the backwards motion of the 13 ball replicated the movement of Kennedy, and proved the Jet Effect, but totally ignored that it had transferred its momentum into the 8 ball. It was a trick.

I have to agree with you on this one, Pat. I never noticed the ladder moving in the opposite direction until you pointed it out. These connivers will do anything to perpetuate the lone nut myth.

I would be humbly delighted for someone to show me one instance of an object pool ball striking a second object ball and reversing direction.

300 fps is remarkably low velocity. It is in fact the industry standard highest fps allowed in paintball.

somehow we have come to the conclusion that this shallow penetration in flesh might be possible at 300 fps

Tom, would the shape of the projectile have any bearing on this ability? i.e. pointy-tipped vs. rounded?

i don't quite remember the speed of sound, but i know that there are guns that are made specifically to not break the sound-barrier - not that that's what was used, but if we're talking such a short distance, muzzle velocity would not have been an issue.

i'm of the opinion that the problem lies more in the autopsy procedures and ensuing testimony than in a bullet stopping within an inch of the surface of soft tissue.

was it Lipsey? who described an unsuccessful four hour search for a missing projectile? i tend to believe lower enlisted than higher officials in this case. his story rings true. a one inch deep wound where an MD simply did a precursory probe does not.

theoretically, we have MOST CTers who believe that at least four shots were fired. we have ambiguous wounds and a navy man with little to lose telling of a certainty of a missing bullet. why make this more complicated?

The late Tom Purvis offered the theory that the bullet passed through a branch of the live oak tree outside the TSBD, which flattened it somewhat, slowed it down, caused some of the lead core to extrude from the base, and sent the bullet on a tumbling track. He believed that the reason the bullet wound in JFK's back was the shape it was [not round] was because the bullet was still tumbling...and that the tearing of the cloth of the jacket and the shirt in the fashion it did was due to the bullet striking the jacket base first, and acting more like a "wadcutter" bullet than the round-nosed projectile that started its flight. Purvis then claimed that this bullet was CE399, which did NOT strike Connally.

Many have disagreed with Purvis' theory, but Purvis also noted that at the time of the WC re-enactments in Dealy plaza, some branches from that live oak tree were trimmed...begging the question, for what purpose?

Mr. Purvis is no longer around to answer any questions about this, but there are several of us here to whom he sent copies of his work on the topic. Perhaps one of the other recipients of the Purvis materials could explain this in greater detail.

Hi Mark

The odds of a tumbling bullet just happening to strike JFK's back as the base of the bullet, in mid tumble, was presented forward are, at the very least, astronomical. Also, there would be nothing to stop the bullet from continuing to tumble as it entered JFK's back. Instead of a neat little hole, a tumbling bullet should leave a much larger furrowed oval wound, despite having entered base first.

I hate to speak ill of the dead but, I found serious flaws in a great deal of Mr. Purvis' writings, especially on the subjects of firearms, ballistics and, in particular, the 6.5 Carcano rifle.

this is a significant point. bullets do not strike objects and maintain their same trajectory. period. (except for melons placed on ladders by hollywood sleight-of-hand artists).

if the shooter were anywhere on target and the bullet struck the tree branch en route (some say one hit the traffic-signal) then i do not believe for an instant that it would have stayed true enough to hit K. No way.

PT will be delivering crickets at this point.

Tommy,

Ok we'll add that to the list of "things that were too complicated" for Lee Harvey Oswald:

1. Driving a car

2. Doorknob functionality

3. Buying a decent weapon

4. Loading a complete clip of ammo

5. Buying a ticket to the movies

Tommy, Chris, that's VERY funny. thanks for the levity.

Paul, please explain Marina's "locking Lee in the bathroom" story. i'm sorry - stories.

I'm also curious to know how someone gets locked in a bathroom. Bathroom door locks don't normally work that way. In fact, I don't ever recall seeing a bathroom door that could be locked from the outside that did not have a latch or device to allow the occupant to unlock the door from the inside.

Some institutions like hospitals and places of business have the ability to lock their bathrooms but in a normal domestic household this would be a unique (and dangerous) feature.

coupled with the fact that her story switched from her having to push on the door to contain him to pulling on the door to do so.

someone earlier mentioned her respite in the hotel with a couple of Feds and a couple of lawyers - this is hardly the situation that occurred. One might look at the history and owners of this hotel, then look at the lawyers present (Brown and Root ring a bell?) then speculate about the timing of this event and her willingness to participate.

and by the way, let's take a look at the bloke who quit his job with DHByrds Radio company within a day or so of JFK's death in order to marry Marina Oswald.

is there a brain cell anywhere that will persist that this is but coincidence?

Absolute nonsense, Pat. Lattimer's test skulls were long gone off the ladder before there was any "recoil" (i.e., backward movement) of the ladder.

Let's try this again. The bullet never touches the ladders, and yet they tip forward. This proves that the forward momentum of the skull is being transferred into the ladders.

Think of it like shooting pool. The cue ball is the bullet. The cue ball strikes the 13 ball at an angle when it's an inch or so away from the 8 ball. The 13 ball then strikes the 8 ball. Upon striking the 8 ball, the 13 ball rolls backwards, but the 8 ball rolls forwards. Lattimer claimed that the backwards motion of the 13 ball replicated the movement of Kennedy, and proved the Jet Effect, but totally ignored that it had transferred its momentum into the 8 ball. It was a trick.

I'm sorry Pat but i have to disagree with this analogy of basic physics. I've been a "real" pool player for many years, and have lost loads of money to prove it - but i'm glad to say I lost my money to some recognized pool players.

.

In that scenario (assuming the lack of english), the 13 will NOT roll backwards, it will veer in the directly proportionate angle opposite the direction the energy transferred to the 8 rolls the 8, (as well as the value of energy spent).

Just like those silly desk contraptions consisting of steel balls hanging from strings from a frame, when you drop Ball #1, the effect is that Ball #6 collects the energy, and it's an absolute transferral of energy. Aside from outside stimuli (there is always external stimuli) Balls 2 thru 5 sustain no effect of energy whatsoever.

the same thing happens when one pool ball strikes another - excusing the geometric parts of it all, the energy transference is nearly perfect.

The ONLY reason a cue ball, or any pool ball, would reverse its course in the face of physics is if it were given extraneous influence. Straight bottom english would accomplish this - left and right english on the cue ball can be transferred to the object ball to a degree, but not purely.

But straight top english will be very difficult to transfer a reversed backspin on the object ball. the 13 will veer, or most likely, from the distance of just an inch, like those silver balls, stop dead, transferring its entire energy to the 8 (if hit straight on, assumably). But it won't reverse course.

my real concern is why you're shooting at the 8 ball using the 13, which will forfeit the victory if the 8 were made.

maybe we're playing 9 ball. now that makes sense.

so, as i've not had the nerve to watch these inane videos, i have no idea how a supporting platform that is not attached to the target would move at all. i will watch the videos. if they're the ones with Penn and Teller (anyone seen their first movie, My Chauffeur?) i'll have no faith whatsoever in the published results. I'll even suspect that the ladders are rigged.

I know what, Let's get David Blaine to conduct some research. not THAT outcome would be of interest.

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today:

Thanks to my friend Oliver Stone for his kind words about "The Devil's Chessboard." Oliver's "JFK" was the shock to the system that got many of us rethinking the national disaster in Dallas. To this day, Oliver remains the only top-tier Hollywood filmmaker with the courage to honestly explore the dark side of American history and politics. I'm very excited to see to his dramatic take on Ed Snowden, now scheduled for release in 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUWFm6b1IPI

retweet. no question Oliver Stone's film was the catalyst, and at just the right time. as was discussed earlier, higher powers have some control over the information dispersed, but they don't have THAT much control. If someone with the proportionate set of huevos wants to make a statement, then it seems that it can be done. What appears to be missing are significant numbers of huevos.

Didn't know he was doing something on Snowden. Shoot, i haven't even made up my own mind on this man - I think what i know i can get from Mr Stone is some real reliability amidst his brilliant drama. I think one of his skills is making the differences between the two pretty clear. i.e., Jim Garrison was nowhere near as handsome as Kevin Costner.

rest assured of one thing: Marina Oswald knew very much.

when she came to know it is a side item, but by November 23, she was in knowledge of very likely a lot more than she wanted to know. probably long before Nov. 23 she was taught exactly what to know,

I don't think that Marina Oswald was "taught" anything that she reported to the WC. We all know that Jim Garrison accused her of repeating what she was "taught" by the WC. But Garrison had his own agenda.

It was sheer dumb luck on the part of the WC that Marina Oswald knew so little about LHO's life and activities. She knew nothing about any of his many political friends. LHO kept her in the dark about everything. LHO lied to Marina continually.

Now -- things are somewhat different with the Walker shooting -- but here again, Marina actually TRIED to tell the WC everything she knew, and the WC simply pushed back at her! Here are some examples:

(1) Marina said she took ONE and ONLY ONE photograph of the Backyard pose of LHO with his weapons. The WC refused to accept this, and practically shouted to her that they had three poses, and so she MUST have taken all three. She denied it. This is a major clue to the BYP, and the WC didn't want to hear it!

(2) Marina said that LHO told her that "Michael Paine knows I shot at General Walker." The WC shut that down as quickly as they could. The WC didn't want to hear it!

(3) Marina said that George De Mohrenschildt knew more about the Walker shooting; and advised the WC to ask him. They did, and George denied it quickly, and the WC just stopped right there. However, in his HCSA affidavit (I'm A Patsy!), George DM admitted that he and Lee used to go around calling General Walker, "General Fokker." George DM knew a lot more about the Walker shooting than he wanted to admit -- BUT THE WC DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR IT. The "Lone Nut" was all they wanted to hear about!

Also, Marina told the WC all about the photographs that Oswald made of the Walker residence, and of the scrapbook that he kept, with maps, and so on.

Also, Marina told the WC LHO's story of the shooting -- as if it were true -- namely, that LHO was (i) alone; (ii) on foot; (iii) buried his rifle. All three of those factors were LIES, and this is true to form -- LHO lied to Marina continually.

Marina's ignorance about LHO's activities and associates was the greatest luck for the WC who *insisted* that LHO had to be a "Lone Nut." As far as Marina was concerned, this jerk who tried to assassinate one of their neighbors really was a friggin' nut. He never did anything that stupid in the USSR.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, please explain Marina's "locking Lee in the bathroom" story. i'm sorry - stories.

just curious. is there any debate that OBL is dead?

if not, then what's the problem with obscure details? I personally find it ridiculous that the current "administration" takes credit for it, (especially as he busted out ST6 as he did so), since the mission was the culmination of a decade of intel and legwork. that notwithstanding, i delight in that Osama Bin Laden froze while three bullets entered his skull, like real cowards do.

how it happened and who approved and disapproved matters none whatsoever to me. i believe the shooter's story of the encounter, because i believe his eyes and his motive. it's that simple.

the horrible simplicity is that the death of OBL does nothing whatsoever in diminishing the evil in our world

but revenge does feel good.

every card is "a card"

every card has two sides.

every side is "a side"

every side has an "other side"

"If a card has a vowel on one side.." etc - refers only to "a card" not "all" or "any" card.

anything else is an assumption.

Correct.

In the exercise at hand, it's not necessary (in fact it doesn't help at all) to turn over the "K" card or the "4" card to find out whether or not the rule, "A card with a vowel on one side must have an even number on the other side" was actually followed by the person who wrote the letters and numbers on the four cards, but it is necessary to turn over the "E" card and the "7" card.

--Tommy

bingo.

Glenn's problem boils down to this testable proposition: If A, then B.

One can test the truth of this proposition by examining samples that present either A or B.

If a sample presents A, we know the proposition is true if the sample also presents B.

If the sample presents X, we know the proposition is false if the sample also presents B.

What we don't know explicitly from Glenn is the sample size. Glenn has presented four cards. The E card might have a 4 on the other side, and the proposition would be true so far. The 7 card might have a G or might have a U. A G means the proposition is correct so far. A U means the proposition is incorrect so far.

Glenn hasn't told us how to test the truth of his proposition. If truth is established by one instance out of four, that's one thing. If truth requires consistency among among all four instances, that's another thing. If truth requires consistency among the infinite number of possibilities, that's quite another thing.

Why an infinite number of possibilities? There is a finite number of vowels: a, e, i, o , u. As for even numbers, there are infinitely many.

Dear John,

We can reasonably assume that the question applied to only the four cards mentioned in the exercise itself.

How could / would he have worded the exercise if he'd wanted us to consider all possible cards in the universe that had a rational number on one side and an upper-case letter from the Modern English alphabet on the other? Does the fact that he didn't do this suggest that he wanted us to infer that that was what he had intended?

"Which of the infinite number of cards in the universe would you have to turn over...." LOL

Or then again, we can unreasonably quibble, split hairs, and apply "if, then" "then, if" logic like so many of us do in our JFK assassination "research" and "analysis."

A perfect microcosm (or is it macrocosm?).

Solution for an infinite number of cards: Turn over all of the cards showing a vowel, and turn over all of the cards showing an odd number. If any of the former have an odd number on the other side, or if any of the latter have a vowel on the other side, then God is either messing with you or has made an honest mistake.

--Tommy

edited and bumped

Solution for an infinite number of cards (OR the four-cards corollary): Turn over all of the cards showing a vowel, and turn over all of the cards showing an odd number. If any of the former have an odd number on the other side, or if any of the latter have a vowel on the other side, then God is either messing with you or has made an honest mistake. --T. Graves

For an infinite number of cards, the options change. the falseness of the antecedent can be proved, but its accuracy can never be. This is why the solution is stated to be the "least" number of turns that need to be made in order to prove true or false. with an infinite number of cards, as soon as a vowel is turned with no even #, or as soon as an even # is turned with no vowel, falseness occurs. and to the contrary, the trueness of the problem can never be proved. --G. Nall

Of course you're right, Glenn.

I was just messing with you.

--Tommy

How about if you turn over both cards (one showing vowel, the other showing odd number) at exactly the same time, forever?

fascinating. i did more harm trying to clarify things than i did clarify things.

what's fascinating is the many various ways persons read and understand a particular sentence.

i promised myself to go through the different interpretations later, and I intend to. it pumps me up.

i've encountered hospitals and new homes and other assorted variables; but i'll get back to this.

the one thing that jumps out at me is that ONE person got the answer correct immediately - SO - it's not an insurmountable exercise, except that one might wish it to be...

PT: Yet here are the facts: The ARRB released "The Lopez Report" in 2003, which confirms Jim Garrison's theory of LHO working with Guy Banister in New Orleans to assemble a resume specifically to take to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City to obtain *immediate* passage to Cuba -- as FPCC Directors regularly obtained.

Then, in 2009, the ARRB released Douglas Horne's careful work showing that David Lifton's suspicions in this landmark book, "Best Evidence" (1986) were entirely correct. The Bethesda autopsy was indeed deliberately falsified, and a JFK Cover-up can be proven scientifically. The actual medical evidence (the Best Evidence) proves that there were multiple shooters at Dealey Plaza.

Paul, the above is a perfect example of why I say I am hesitant to debate you since we end up going in circles.

​The Lopez Report was not first released in 2003. And in 2003 the ARRB did not exist. Also, how does the Lopez Report confirm LHO working with GB in New Orleans? The only way it even tangentially touches on the issue is negatively, because Duran said LHO was not at all prepared to get the in transit visa. If GB had prepped him he would have been prepared.

​But beyond that, the Lopez Report's main thrust is that Oswald was not in Mexico City. Or if he was, he did not do the things the WR said he did. I won't go through all the evidence in that magnificent volume that touches on this, but I will say that Shenon has to avoid it like the plague to make his horrible work viable.

​Second, how could the ARRB release Horne's work in 2009 if it had folded up in 1998?

​If you are talking about the famous Two Brain Memorandum, that was during the ARRB, but about ten years earlier.

James -

don't hesitate. make a decision.

just refrain. it'll add years to your life.

G (IMHO)

PT: It is only your WISH, James, that the WC Portrait of the Paines as Good Samaritans has "collapsed into a hundred pieces."

​You are dead wrong on this one Paul.

​See, in the official inquires, the Paines pretty much got off free and easy. The WC featured them as star witnesses. In fact, no one except Marina delivered the goods on Oswald like they did. In fact, they may have done even more than Marina to aid Dulles and McCloy and Ford on their preordained verdict of Oswald as lone assassin.

​The HSCA committed an utter disgrace by not even examining them.

The ARRB compounded this by doing the same. They expended so much of their resources on the medical evidence and the Z film, there was little left over for the Paines. That is what Tunheim actually said when questioned on it.

​The only official inquiry that did anything with Ruth was Jim Garrison's New Orleans probe. And as noted above, he came up with some very interesting responses from both her and Marina on this issue.

​But it turns out that Garrison was only scratching the surface. For finally, in the nineties, toward the end of the Third Decade of research, Carol Hewett appeared, a crackerjack lawyer from Florida. Assisted by Steve Jones and Barbara LaMonica, those three finally began to strip away the carefully upholstered veneer off the "kindly Quaker couple". This trio was responsible for about six devastating articles in Probe on the Paines, which examined them in all aspects. They were the first to do it. After about 30 years. And things have literally not been the same.

First, there was the Evica book.

Second, there was the Douglass book.

​Then there were my two books.

​Now there is Talbot.

​And if you look around at various web sites on the internet you will see that Ruth and Mikey are mentioned prominently now. This is why DVP and Holland have had to come to their aid.

Its open season.

"...Carol Hewett appeared, a crackerjack lawyer from Florida. Assisted by Steve Jones and Barbara LaMonica, those three finally began to strip away the carefully upholstered veneer off the "kindly Quaker couple". This trio was responsible for about six devastating articles in Probe on the Paines..."

James, i would really like to see these articles. are they readily available? would you mind sharing any links, please?

...None of [the] crap DiEugenio [has ever written] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder.

DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening...

David, two things.

First, I truly appreciate your sympathetic approach to Ruth Paine. I agree with you fully on that.

Secondly, however, I want to ask you kindly, with all due respect, to please help me tone down the ad hominem attacks on this thread.

Jim DiEugenio has a following, and so a bar room brawl is a possibility in this thread -- and that only wastes time and space.

So, please help me raise the tone of this thread above ad hominem attacks, David. This will help to highlight when others are using ad hominem

I appreciate your intense energy, David. Now, just elevate it one notch, and it will be more effective, IMHO.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

explain to him what ad hominem means. that might help your cause,

quote Paul Trejo: "My objection was this -- if a person was in a hurry, or worried or nervous, about to commit a crime and perhaps get arrested"

like if you shot the president unlike the cool calm collected unflappable harvey oswald

i would like to ReTweet this...

PT: But I also say that by jumping to conclusions about the CIA killing JFK, the CT Community has been letting the Real Killers get away scot free!

You know, sometimes I wonder.

​The idea that the CIA has been the only group or agency the JFK critical community has accused is simply wrong.

​I mean Farewell America accused the radical right in Texas of killing Kennedy way back in 1968.

What about, A Texan Looks at Lyndon? Way back in 1964.

​What about the Torbitt Document, (1971) which has a very wide ranging plot including the hard right in Texas and the Mafia.

Have you missed the Johnson mania craze started by Barr McClellan? Including people like Philip Nelson?

​Did you miss the Mafia did it books by Blakey, Davis, Scheim etc.

​Why are you so only a CIA apologist?

My reasoning, James, is threefold:

(1) the CIA-did-it theories far outnumber any other theories. There is hardly any comparison, really.

(2) The Mafia-did-it theories, led by Robert Blakey (1981), are weak as dandelions. All suspicion and virtually Zero Facts. They are a literary diversion -- like Pulp Fiction.

(3) The LBJ-did-it theories, led by Craig Zirbel (1991, the best of the lot), again, are all suspicion and virtually Zero Facts. One of the later writers in this fiction genre, Barr McClellan, famously said that his "proof" that LBJ was the "mastermind" of the JFK murder was that LBJ knew almost Nothing about the details. That's the sort of weak logic we get from *that* Pulp Fiction.

The CIA-did-it theories are the best of the lot in the past 50 years, because they tend to build upon the Warren Report, which is the source of First-Hand Information.

We begin with Jim Garrison's investigation, which began as a prosecution of David Ferrie and the Radical Right in NOLA, and when Ferrie was killed, Garrison quickly turned to the prosecution of Clay Shaw, a former CIA informant. With this switch -- and to explain the failure of his shaky case against Shaw -- Jim Garrison just blamed the JFK murder on the CIA.

Then Mark Lane -- who was himself a *witness* for the Warren Commission -- got into the CIA-did-it theory, and gave us his tour-de-force, Plausible Denial in 1991, which blames Howard Hunt and stands pat.

Of course, we know that some ROGUES in the CIA were involved, because they actually confessed. Howard Hunt confessed on his death bed, and David Morales also confessed. But that's it. We have only TWO -- and they weren't Top-Level in CIA.

All the others that the CIA-did-it theorists name were Street-level Mercenaries -- like Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, David Ferrie, Frank Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Jack S. Martin, and so many more.

While all these street-level mercenaries would take money from the CIA to try to eliminate Fidel Castro, they would also work for *anybody* who gave them money -- including the Mafia, the NSRP, the Minutemen, or whomever. Street-level mercenaries craved money -- and the Underground had far more than the CIA.

The reason I like Jeff Caufield's new theory, is that he traces the same people traced by Jim Garrison -- but he is willing to set the CIA aside for a few minutes, and recognize patterns among the principals -- aside from the CIA.

That's when General Edwin Walker -- the only US General to resign in the 20th century, forfeiting his 30 year pension -- rises to the top of the heap.

The link with Ruth Paine is zero. However, the link with Michael Paine is significant, and involves Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt with regard to *opposing* General Walker.

So, James, I want to meet you half-way here -- and admit that Michael Paine remains suspicious to me (with regard to the Walker angle) but Ruth Paine shows nothing more than Quaker Charity from early 1963 through late 1963.

Remember, too, that the Paine's were separated for 1963, until the JFK murder. It's the blind effort to mush them together and try to add the CIA to the mix -- it really isn't working, IMHO.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

"Then Mark Lane -- who was himself a *witness* for the Warren Commission -- got into the CIA-did-it theory, and gave us his tour-de-force, Plausible Denial in 1991, which blames Howard Hunt and stands pat."

um, begging your pardon, but it wasn't Mark Lane who cast the blame, it was the preponderance of evidence. As far as I know, Mark Lane was not a jury member - who were the ones who ultimately decided the verdict AGAINST E Howard Hunt.

objective participators in this thing do not "get themselves" into a theory - we are led to it by data. No one said, "hey, i'll start with the CIA and see if that fits." it's the other way around.

for the more logical ones, i think.

such a tiny box you live in, Paul. No offense, but you've so closed your mind to any kind of variation by your strict concept of labels.

IMHO

a little interrelationship nachtmusik:

Mary Bancroft, Allen Dulles' mistress & primary OSS contact with the "20th of July" assassination plotters against Adolf Hitler.

- close friend of Michael Paine's parents.

-- According to researcher Gus Russo, FBI and ONI documents reveal that Michael Paine's wife, Ruth, had made inquiries of Lee Harvey Oswald in 1957 -- six years before the Warren Commission claimed they had met

Allen Dulles' uncle, Robert Lansing, had been Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State.

· Woodrow Wilson also had several powerful University of Texas personalities in his cabinet:

o David Franklyn Houston

o Albert Sidney Burleson

o Thomas Watt Gregory

o Colonel Edward M. House, then a kingmaker in Texas politics was the man principally responsible for Wilson being nominated for and elected President.

· Hugh Bancroft married Jane Waldron Wallis Bancroft, his second wife, stepdaughter of Clarence Walker Barron, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, who appears to have had foreknowledge of President Warren G. Harding's death. (story available as told by Mary Bancroft)

· Mary Bancroft first husband, Sherwin Badger, had a job lined up at United Fruit (CIA) prior to 1923,later went to work for the Boston News Bureau, then transferred to The Wall Street Journal, eventually became editor of Barron’s

· Michael Paine was descended from the Cabots on both his father's and his mother's side; he was thus a second cousin once removed of Thomas Dudley Cabot, former President of United Fruit who offered another of his companies, Gibralter Steamship, as "cover" for the CIA during the Bay of Pigs. also a cousin of Cabot's partner,

o Paul F. Hellmuth, VP of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, was a trustee of the J. Frederick Brown Foundation, a CIA "conduit", along with G.C. Cabot.

· Michael Paine’s uncle, Eric Schroeder, a friend and investment associate of Dallas oil man, Everette Lee deGolyer;

o cousin Alexander "Sandy" Forbes, former director of United Fruit, member of Tryall Golf Club retreat in Jamaica with former deGolyer associate

o Paul Raigorodsky, a financial patron of the St. Nicholas Parish

1943, Mary Bancroft was asked by Dulles to translate a book on the Third Reich by Hans Bernd Gisevius, a member of Admiral Canaris' Abwehr –

post July 20 failure: By July 23 Gisevius had managed to find a hiding place where he waited for Dulles to smuggle false papers to him. On January 20, 1945 the papers appeared.

On her relationship with Dulles, Mary Bancroft. says, "He knew that there was nothing he could say or do that would affect in the slightest my deep affection for him. He was also aware that I knew his dark side and that it didn't bother me in the least."

In the fall of 1953, Mary Bancroft. moved back to the States permanently and Sherwin, Jr. started working for Time magazine. Of particular interest, Bancroft reveals that "Gisevius married his Fräulein Braut, spent some time in Texas, then returned to Germany where he published several more books; he finally settled on the Lake of Geneva near Vevey. We kept in touch until his death in 1974."

In Leonard Mosley's 1978 book, Dulles. Mosley says that in 1948, a year after her divorce from Jean Rufenacht, "Mary Bancroft was still a friend of Allen Dulles, as she would continue to be until his death, but the intimacy they had achieved in wartime Switzerland had now gone out of their relationship. Mrs. Bancroft had turned her strong personality in other directions and lighted upon Henry M. Luce, president and editor-in-chief of Time magazine [and...?], whom she set out to "convert" from his right-wing ways to her more liberal philosophy."

Mosley says about Allen Dulles: He had periods when he was out on the tennis courts owned by the Belins (challenging and beating Bill Bundy, Jim Angleton, and Bob Amory, or other members of the Agency's top echelon bold enough to take him on.")

Now, either this is the family of

§ David Belin, Warren Commission attorney,

or the family of

§ Gaspard d'Andelot Belin, acting Secretary of the Treasury at the time of the assassination (making him the head of the Secret Service because Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon was out of the country) and husband of Harriet Lowell Bundy, niece of McGeorge Bundy...

George de Mohrenschildt (in 1940 worked briefly for distant cousin, Baron Constantine Maydell, the top German Abwehr agent in the U.S.) had introduced Oswald to Volkmar Schmidt, who had lived and studied with one of the July 20 plotters.

Schmidt, After talking to Oswald wanted him to meet Michael Paine, and arranged the Magnolia Labs party where, allegedly, Oswald and Ruth Paine met (and eventually got him the job in the School Book Depository)

§ Oswald also met, at the party, a man whose father had worked for C.D. Jackson's Radio Free Europe. Jackson, along with having bought the Zapruder film for Henry Luce's Life magazine, was the CIA's propaganda mastermind

And just what is the rest of the story of Gisevius' grandiose ideas that required currents of power in the United States? Was this his motivation for a trip to Texas? Researcher Bruce Campbell Adamson discovered that, by 1953, Hans Gisevius was working for Dresser Industries, a Dallas-based oil equipment company.

· Henry Neil Mallon, Dresser Industries long-time chairman of the board, and newly appointed CIA Director Allen Dulles were mutual friends of Gisevius, who was "handling" a worldwide economic development program called the "Institute on Technical Cooperation."

o Prescott Bush, the father George HW Bush, had just ended a 22-year stint on Dresser's board to take his seat in the U.S. Senate in 1952.

§ International Derrick and Equipment Company (IDECO), a Dresser Industries subsidiary, George HW Bush got his start in 1948 (Bush's third son: Neil Mallon Bush was born on January 22, 1955, in Midland, Texas)

· Neil Mallon helped introduce Allen Dulles to the wealthy and influential in Dallas society.

· when George Bush was founding Zapata Oil (which later explored for oil near a Caribbean base used for CIA raids against Cuba), Prescott Bush and Neil Mallon were meeting in Washington, D.C. with CIA Director Dulles to discuss a "Pilot Project" in the Carribean.

There's more. loads more. it's what appears to me to be what's known as a "network."

So, Paul, care to explain with a few more details how Mary and Allen and the Paines' are of absolutely no relevance to the assassination of JFK?

With baited breath,

Me

Boy, that Edwin A. Walker was sure one lucky SOB, wasn't he? He was plotting to set up Oswald as a patsy back in April '63 (per Mr. Trejo), and LHO just happens to get the TSBD job on Oct. 15 (with the help of someone who cannot possibly be looked upon as a "co-conspirator", Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle of Irving).

And then, on top of all that, LHO decides he's going to act like a very guilty person on 11/22/63 shortly after 12:30.

You've got to admit, Paul, good fortune like that doesn't come along every day of the week. General Walker must have had TWO crystal balls working for him in the summer and fall of 1963. Maybe three.

Tell me, Paul, what makes YOUR theory re: Walker any more FACTUAL and any LESS SPECULATIVE than any OTHER theory offered up by any other conspiracy theorist?

Have you got any hard evidence---as opposed to just outright speculation and guesswork? I certainly didn't see anything besides speculation and conjecture in your Post #25 above.

And General Walker's papers hardly qualify as proof he had JFK killed.

Thank you.

David, my purpose on this thread is to argue that Ruth Paine didn't have anything to do with the JFK murder. That's my main purpose here. There are other threads in which the case against General Walker is being made (e.g. "New Book" by William O'Neil).

The trouble with defending Ruth Paine is, as you've agreed, that the CIA-did-it CTers are closed-minded about their opinion, and they jump to conclusions promptly.

As for the Walker-did-it scenario, there is plenty of evidence, IMHO, although no smoking gun -- yet. So, I agree with you on that point.

Also, the sheer exhaustion of 50 years of failed CIA-did-it theories is enough to make anybody Skeptical of any CT. So, I sympathize with your frustration -- I really do.

Yet here are the facts: The ARRB released "The Lopez Report" in 2003, which confirms Jim Garrison's theory of LHO working with Guy Banister in New Orleans to assemble a resume specifically to take to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City to obtain *immediate* passage to Cuba -- as FPCC Directors regularly obtained.

Then, in 2009, the ARRB released Douglas Horne's careful work showing that David Lifton's suspicions in this landmark book, "Best Evidence" (1986) were entirely correct. The Bethesda autopsy was indeed deliberately falsified, and a JFK Cover-up can be proven scientifically. The actual medical evidence (the Best Evidence) proves that there were multiple shooters at Dealey Plaza.

So -- we know that there were multiple shooters, and we know that LHO was working for the Radical Right. We know this with scientific rigor.

Does it really take a genius to connect the dots at this point?

We need only ask -- who was the leader of the Radical Right wing in Dallas in 1963? It was General Walker -- for those who know US History. Walker ran for Texas Governor in 1962 on a Segregationist ticket, financed by H.L. Hunt, and he lost soundly in May 1962. Then, Walker fomented a race riot at Ole Miss in September 1962, opposing James Meredith's registration there. (Hundreds were wounded and two were killed at that riot on 30 September 1962.)

In response, JFK and RFK had Walker taken into custody by an insane asylum in Missouri for a 90-day evaluation. But in three days the ACLU and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz got Walker released. When Walker flew back to Dallas, and landed at Love Field, Walker was greeted by his Dallas supporters who were still backing Walker for President in 1966. Here's the DMN photograph:

http://photographyblog.dallasnews.com/2012/10/today-in-dallas-photo-history-1962-60s-right-wing-figure-gen-edwin-walker-at-love-field.html/

Notice what appears to be tear-gas stains on his left sleeve. Notice the Confederate Flag above his head. Also, notice the "Walker for President" placards. Walker was BELOVED in Dallas.

In January, 1963, a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted General Walker of all charges related to the Ole Miss riots. Evidently, the JFK action of sending Walker to an insane asylum won Walker lots of sympathy.

Next, Walker and Segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis made a coast-to-coast "Midnight Ride" tour of the South, from Miami to Los Angeles, preaching that JFK was a Communist.

When they returned to Dallas in April, that very next night, LHO tried to kill Walker -- goaded on by George De Mohrenschildt (I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!, 1978) and Volkmar Schmdit (see FRONTLINE, Who was Lee Harvey Oswald, PBS video: [,]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5eGdgVkHeE],and skip to 37:55)

Also, I suspect that Michael Paine, who knew Volkmar Schmidt, was also part of the cabal to convince LHO to kill Edwin Walker. The argument that Volkmar used on LHO was that Walker was "like Hitler."

IMHO, the assassination attempt on General Walker was the *prime motive* for Walker to murder JFK. As he said multiple times in his personal papers, he believed that JFK and RFK sent LHO to kill him.

Walker was at one time a great US General. He was turned, however, by the John Birch Society and their rigid dogma that all US Presidents since FDR had been Communists -- especially JFK.

In their twisted world, killing JFK was good for the USA.

I'm convinced that nobody else in Dallas knew Dallas well enough -- nobody else was motivated enough -- nobody else was trained enough in US military science -- and nobody else was as respected enough by the Dallas Police -- to plan and execute the JFK murder in Dallas.

Even Larry Hancock, who has tried to involve at least Rogue CIA Agents in the JFK murder, had to admit that somebody inside Dallas was absolutely mandatory -- somebody who was well-connected and knew Dallas like the back of his hand.

So -- on the basis of US History and the material facts -- I want to continue to see how far I can build a case against General Walker in the murder of JFK.

It hasn't been done in the past 50 years -- it's a brand new CT. But with scholars like Jeff Caufield on my side, I am more motivated than ever to slug this out.

The CIA-did-it theories have to stretch and jump to reach any conclusion. The Mafia-did-it theories can only survive by making J. Edgar Hoover into a hoodlum. The LBJ-did-it theories are the most biased and drooling of all. (Sadly, Mark North, who was relatively level headed in the 1990's, came out in 2011 with his latest CT, "Betrayal in Dallas," which combines the Mafia-Hoover-LBJ in his science-fiction world.)

As for Ruth Paine, if she knows more than she told the WC, it has to be about Michael Paine's interaction with Volkmar Schmidt and the plot against General Walker.

If she truly knows nothing further about the Walker plot, then I must conclude that she was kept in the dark, just as Marina Oswald was kept in the dark -- as this was the most common treatment of women in 1963, even among Left-wing activists.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

"**Also, the sheer exhaustion of 50 years of failed CIA-did-it theories is enough to make anybody Skeptical of any CT. So, I sympathize with your frustration -- I really do.**"

what a ridiculous statement - ALL theories, by your logic, are failed, until one is proven. Why is a CIA-did-it theory more of a failure than Walker-didit? Neither have been proven, or even given a gold star.

I happen to think JFK was in on it (with supporting photographic "evidence"). What makes my theory any more of a failure than Oswald-did-it, or a Moron-for-a-general-did-it?

you paint, sir, with an awfully broad brush. paradoxically placing you into an awfully small box.

rest assured of one thing: Marina Oswald knew very much.

when she came to know it is a side item, but by November 23, she was in knowledge of very likely a lot more than she wanted to know. probably long before Nov. 23 she was taught exactly what to know,