Terry Mauro

"I believe that the 'history' you speak of should be saved, locked, and set aside in a section specifically created for the purpose of documenting the number of incidences, and on what basis this type of disruption and dissemination of misinfo/disinfo, may be happening. This could serve as a record for keeping track of the distributors, their names, IP addresses, etc., as well as the time of occurrence, by whom, and what trigger factors might have been involved to provoke it. This would enable the admins and the moderators to ascertain what, if any, distinctive patterns might be involved, or at work, here.

"In any event, it could be utilized as a method of trouble-shooting, or defusing future instances of this type of behavior."

Bravo!

This is precisely the way that we, in aikido-like fashion, turn the enemy's energy against its source.

There is so much to learn from them. But there are many hidden dangers along this route.

That this T. Folsom character represents -- wittingly or otherwise -- the enemy is beyond question. Let's enjoy all that he/she/they hand(s) us.

Charles

I could not agree more with Charles. In fact, what he said is quite wise IMO. The thread is already archived, unless deleted. But even if it was deleted from the public forum ... it should still be logged elsewhere. Personally, I do not what anyone could complain about when talking about certain threads. If it was a view on the evidence of the JFK assassination whereas data was being kept from the public by deleting such post/ threads, then that would be wrong. On the other hand, if these are threads that don't address the assassination and are designed to complain and bitch about things that are assumed and/or presumed that has no relevancy to the educating people on the assassination of JFK, then they are not threads that this forum should have to buy web space for .... so to speak.

Bill

***********************************************************

Those were my words C.D. was commenting on. We have a way of complementing one another's philosophy on life, and the world of assassination, in general. I consider Charles Drago a kindred spirit, indeed. FWIW, I was replying to John Dolva:

*************************************************************

"The topics of whatever nature form part of history.

History is also a history of disruption and misinformation. Deletion distorts history, which one would have thought is one thing this Forum stands almost alone as a bulwark against."

I believe that the "history" you speak of should be saved, locked, and set aside in a section specifically created for the purpose of documenting the number of incidences, and on what basis this type of disruption and dissemination of misinfo/disinfo, may be happening. This could serve as a record for keeping track of the distributors, their names, IP addresses, etc., as well as the time of occurrence, by whom, and what trigger factors might have been involved to provoke it. This would enable the admins and the moderators to ascertain what, if any, distinctive patterns might be involved, or at work, here.

In any event, it could be utilized as a method of trouble-shooting, or defusing future instances of this type of behavior. This is merely a suggestion on how one might be able to manage or monitor the forum more effectively. The issue of a consensus among the moderators is a good idea, and could form the basis for a more cohesive, unified effort on their part.

Bravo!

This is precisely the way that we, in aikido-like fashion, turn the enemy's energy against its source.

There is so much to learn from them. But there are many hidden dangers along this route.

That this T. Folsom character represents -- wittingly or otherwise -- the enemy is beyond question. Let's enjoy all that he/she/they hand(s) us.

Charles

Ter

Isn't it ironic that now Blakey admits that he was duped by the Agency regarding Joannides and also calls for the release of the Joannides material along with Jeff Morley and others? Funny how time changes things.

********************************************************

"Isn't it ironic that now Blakey admits that he was duped by the Agency regarding Joannides and also calls for the release of the Joannides material along with Jeff Morley and others?"

Yes, but only in recent years, after being castigated by the research community for his egregious oversight in placing Johannides in such an advantageous position so as to block any substantial search of the CIA's records, as well as the obvious stone-walling with which Fonzi was met in his attempts to obtain any viable accounting for the Agency's actions, or in-actions.

Johannides was blatantly in charge of keeping the Agency abreast of any attempts on the part of the HSCA to further their investigation, to the detriment of the Committee, whilst to the advantage of the Agency. Johannides could be counted on to "feed back" information that would, in effect, forewarn the Agency of any avenues of progress being made by the Committee, allowing them ample time to destroy pertinent data, further thwarting the efforts and strides that could have been made, had the CIA not had a "stooge" conveniently situated right in the midst of the Committee's investigation.

Any further caterwauling on the part of Blakey is for the most part, after the fact, and I do not, for one minute believe his protestations of not knowing anything regarding Johannides' prior or past connections. After all, isn't that what he was entrusted to insure for the Committee. He was beyond negligent in his apparent "oversight." Which makes him a part of the "problem." No amount of explanation, on his part, can alter the fact that he, and he alone, allowed this to go down in the annals of history. So, where is the black mark on his career, on his curriculum vitae? Indeed, while we are left with the remaining vestiges having been dealt this dastardly blow. He allowed this to happen on his watch, no less. He will not be so easily redeemed.

In that I have participated in "very few" internet forums, I am somewhat at a loss regarding the verbage.

Is the difference between "locking" a topic and "deleting" a topic in any way comparable to the difference between "banning" books and "Burning" books?

I did not follow the topic in question so I really have no involvement in other than what I consider "acceptable procedure".

Is there a list of topics that are banned? Where is it located ? How would one be allowed for example to ban my ideas and yet say that I am still a forum citizen? I feel that deletion of written material, is not at all unlike burning it, and is a quite serious affront to ones "human" rights.

Self deleting a topic as a result of the use of or the threat of the use of force by another party, seems to root itself in the dark ages. I can understand censorship of what may generally be accepted as foul language, to protect members of the forum who have the "right" to not be subjected to this.

In my opinion, deletion of a topic is not that different than deletion of an individual. If a person is not basically the sum of his thoughts and beliefs....what then is he ?

I realize that this forum does not masquerade as a "democracy", but judges here (the moderators), who have never been accepted as qualified by those whom they are moderating, seems unlike any organization, other than the Army, with which I have ever been associated. Even clubs and fraternal organizations have the privilege of choosing someone such as a "seargent of arms" who is acceptable to at least the majority.

As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the topic in question or even care to.

I am strongly opposed to censorship based only on the popularity or acceptance of a given opinion, which is based solely on another's given opinion.

How is this form of "moderation" kept from becoming censorship of ideas....who has the right to censor my or anyones ideas? The "proprietor" of this forum has the right to accept or reject members, But the rejection of a MEMBERS ideas, yet allowing someone to remain a member, is a travesty. It is telling someone that you can be a member of my debating team, but you will not be allowed to speak !

In my dictionary, moderation is not synonymous with coerced control!

Who needs this type of abuse while engaging in a function that is supposed to be both pleasureable and stimulating ?

Either I have completely missed the boat, or this is an definite attempt to supress the expression of personal thought. National Security secrets are not being exposed. Only thoughts that the societies from which we all derive deem acceptable, are in question here ! WHY ?

I am not preaching "Anarchy"....but I see no way that the terms moderator and supressor can in any way be linked.

What did that crazy colonial rebel say appx. 230 years ago? Something about "Give me liberty or...."?

Charles Black

************************************************************

"What did that crazy colonial rebel say appx. 230 years ago? Something about "Give me liberty or...."?"

"...or give me a locked topic that I'm still able to view, and after having reviewed the content of the thread, can draw my own conclusions as to why it was, in effect, subjected to "locked" status in the first place."

You might then be given a choice of addressing it with all of the moderators, or those who took part in the consensus of making the decision to lock it. You could then state your case as to the merits of re-opening the topic, and why you believe you might possibly have some constructive information to offer or impart, as a way of keeping it on track, above the level of flame-war status, and could possibly guarantee it not be allowed to degenerate to the level of contention that warranted its being relegated to "locked" status.

You might even be able to view the "locked" status of a topic as a sort of "chill out" period, or what is it that parents require of their squabbling children, instead of having to slap the hell out of them, "T," for TIME OUT? A helluva lot of good that would have done my old lady. We never would've even heard her had it not been for the flying slippers, dish-rags, and assorted items that could never really have caused damage to the house itself, per se, but sure in hell stung when it hit its target. Got our attention REAL fast.

I'd like to extend an apology to Michael Hogan, a member of this forum. On more than one occasion I said unkind things to him and about him. I was wrong!

David G. Healy

Michael, IMO, is one of the most fair-minded, thoughtful, well-read and generally intelligent members of the forum. A true independent spirit. It has surprised and saddened me on occasion to see him attacked by other good people.

I'm glad this thread provides me with an opportunity to say so, on the record.

Nicely and accurately said Sid.

**********************************************************

Might I also mention how highly I regard Mike Hogan, who [in my opinion] on many occasions, has been one in a handful of other like-minded individuals, to have spoken out as a voice of reason in the on-going maelstrom.

Damned Duplicate Deleted by T. Mauro 16:15 hrs PDT 6-30-07

"Area 51 was nothing more, nor less, than a super-secret/secure test area with runways for super-secret aviation test vehicles from disk-shaped [uFO-type in the '50s and '60s] to stealth bombers and more...and not the only one...just the one most known."

I was wondering how closely associated they were with the S.A.C. bases in SoCal, such as Edwards, March, Travis, and Vandenberg, when I decided to google Strategic Air Command Bases of California and came up with the link below. Which also happened to reveal that out of the 75 or so, bases continentally located, as well as those in any outlying territories, only 10 remain "active" as Strategic Air Command bases. Out of the 75 original Strategic Air Command bases, 63 have been decommissioned of their S.A.C. status, 30 remain active as Air Force bases, and 33 have been closed.

That's something like 75 Strategic Air Command bases, 65 of which were decommissioned as such, and 10 remaining to mind the store. It makes one wonder where all the money we're supposedly saving by the decommissioning of these strategic defense positions, is really going. And, might this not also account for the shoddy ETA response to 9/11?

Strategic Air Command Bases

This section contains a web page for each air base used by the Strategic Air Command. Most of them were assigned to the command and are thus considered "SAC ...

www.strategic-air-command.com/bases/0-base-homepage2.htm - 87k - Cached - Similar pages

What's New

Great Photos of the 4123 Strategic Wing Days at Clinton-Sherman AFB

What's Left

Summary Information

Barksdale AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Shreveport, Louisiana

Now home of 2nd Bomb Wing. - One of the two remaining B-52 Wings. Many prior units at the base. See the page for details.

Link: Barksdale AFB

Dyess AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Abilene, Texas. - Formerly Abilene AFB

Former home of 96th Bomb Wing, 341st Bomb / Missile Wing

Now home of 7th Bomb Wing - Flies B-1Bs

Links: Dyess AFB, Unofficial Dyess AFB

Ellsworth AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 12 mi. east-northeast of Rapid City, South Dakota.

Former home of 44th Bomb / Missile Wing, 99th Bomb Wing .

Now home of the 28th Bomb Wing. Flies the B-1 Ellsworth AFB,

Black Hills Bandit - online newspaper, South Dakota Air & Space Museum

Francis E. Warren AFB - ACTIVE Need photos

Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming

Former home of 389th Bomb Wing, 706th Strategic Missile Wing, 90th Strategic Missile Wing

Home of the 90th Space Wing. Nation's largest and most modern strategic missile unit.

Today, the wing maintains 150 Minuteman III missiles and 50 Peacekeeper missiles

Link: Francis E. Warren AFB

Grand Forks AFB- ACTIVE

Location: 16 mi. west of Grand Forks, North Dakota.

Former home of 319th Bomb Wing, 321st Bomb Wing, 4133rd Strategic Wing,

Now home of 319th Air Refueling Wing and 321st Strategic Missile Wing.

Link: Grand Forks AFB

Malmstrom AFB- ACTIVE

Location: 1.5 miles east of Great Falls. - Formerly Great Falls AFB

Home of 341st Strategic Missile Wing

Link: Malmstrom AFB - Good image library. Many planes and missiles.

McConnell AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 5 mi. southeast of Wichita, Kansas

Former home of 384 BW. Now home of 22nd ARW and B-2s flown by 184th BW, National Guard.

NEED PICTURES

Link: McConnell AFB

Minot AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 13 miles north of Minot, N.D.

America's "double punch" base - B-52 bombers and Minuteman Missiles.

Former home of 450th Missile Wing, 455th Missile Wing, 4136th Strategic Wing

Now home of 5th Bomb Wing and 91st Missile Wing,

Link: Minot AFB, Missile Locations

Robins AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 15 miles southeast of Macon Georgia

Former home of 4137th Strategic Wing, 465th Bomb Wing, 19th Bomb Wing,

Now home of 116th BW, Air National Guard - B1-B bombers

Link: Robins AFB, Robins Aviation Museum

Whiteman AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 2 mi. south of Knob Noster, Missouri

Former home of 100th Bomb Wing, 340th Bomb / Missile Wing, 351st Missile Wing

Now home of 509th Bomb Wing, which flies the B-2

Link: Whiteman AFB

What's Gone

Summary Information

12 Mile Post - See Eielson, AFB, Alaska

Altus AFB - ACTIVE Need photos

Location: Altus, Oklahoma.

Home of 96th Bombardment Wing: 1953-1957; 11th Bombardment Wing: 1957-58

Now Strategic Airlift and Air Refueling Training Center.

Link: Altus AFB

Abilene AFB - See Dyess AFB

Amarillo AFB - CLOSED Need photos

Location: 8 miles from Amarillo, Texas

4128th Strategic Wing (1960-1963) 461st Bombardment Wing (1963-1968)

Deactivated December 31, 1968.

Andersen AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Yigo, Guam. 3960th Strategic Wing, 43rd Strategic Wing, 19th Bomb Wing

Link: Andersen Air Force Base, Guam

Andrews AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Maryland, 11 miles southeast of Washington, D.C.

First Strategic Air Command Headquarters. Now the home of Air Force One.

Link: Andrews AFB

Beale AFB - ACTIVE

Location: California

Home of 9th 17th 100th 456th Bomb Wings and 4126th Strategic Wing. Now home of 9th Reconnaissance Wing

Link: Beale AFB

Bergstrom AFB - CLOSED Need photos

Location: Texas.

Former home of 340th Bomb Wing, 4130th Strategic Wing

Now the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport

Biggs AFB - CLOSED

Location: Texas.

Former home of 95th Bomb Wing, 97th Bomb Wing

Link: Biggs History Site - EXCELLENT

Blytheville AFB - See Eaker AFB

Bolling AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Washington, DC,

Now home of the 11th Wing. The Bombers are gone.

In fact, the 11th doesn't even have any airplanes

Link: Bolling AFB

Bunker Hill AFB - See Grissom AFB

Cannon AFB - ACTIVE Need Photos

Location: Clovis, New Mexico. Formerly Clovis AFB

Home of 27th Fighter Wing, SAC fighter escort 1947-1948.

Link: Cannon Air Force Base

Carswell AFB - CLOSED

Location: Texas - formerly Fort Worth AFB

Home of the B-36. 7th Bomb Wing, 11th BombWing, 43rd Bomb Wing, 4123rd Strategic Wing

Now a Naval Air Station

Link: Fort Worth Naval Air Station

Castle AFB - CLOSED

Location: Merced County, California.

Former home of 93rd Bomb Wing

Links: Castle Air Museum

Chatham AFB - See Hunter AFB

Chennault AFB - CLOSED

Location: Lake Charles Louisiana

Chennault had two B-47 wings.

Former home of 44th Bomb Wing, 68th Strategic Recon / Bomb Wing

Links: Chennault Airport

Clinton-Sherman AFB - CLOSED

Location: Clinton, Oklahoma

Former home of 70th Bomb Wing, 4123rd Strategic Wing

Links: Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airport

Clovis AFB See Cannon AFB

Columbus AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Columbus, Mississippi

Former home of 54th Bomb Wing, 4228th Strategic Wing Now home of the 14th Flying Training Wing

Links: Columbus AFB

Davis-Monthan AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Tucson, Arizona

The base where many SAC wings got started

Former home of 444th Bomb Group, 2nd Bomb Wing, 43rd Bomb Wing, 100th Bomb Wing, 303rd Bomb Wing, 390th Bomb Wing. Now home of 355th Wing flys A-10s

Active. Assigned to Air Combat Command. Best known as Air Force aircraft graveyard.

Links: Davis-Monthan AFB, Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (the graveyard)

Dow AFB - CLOSED Need photos

Location: Bangor, Maine

Former home of 4038th Strategic Wing, 397th Bomb Wing,

Links: Bangor International Airport | Dow Reunion Page

Eaker AFB - CLOSED

Location: Blytheville, Arkansas - Formerly Blytheville AFB

Former home of 97th Bomb Wing, 461st Bomb Wing (B-57s - non SAC)

Link: Arkansas Aeroplex and Arkansas International Airport

Eglin AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 7 mi. northeast of Fort Walton Beach, Florida.

Former home of 4135th Strategic Wing, 39th Bomb Wing

Link: Eglin AFB, Air Force Armament Museum

Eielson AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 26 mi. southeast of Fairbanks, Alaska

Former home of 6th Bomb / Strategic Wing, 97th Bomb Wing. Now home of 354th Fighter Wing

Link: Eielson AFB

Fairchild AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 12 mi. west-southwest of Spokane, Washington - Formerly Spokane AFB

Former home of 90th Bomb / Missile Wing, 92nd Bomb Wing, 98th Bomb Wing, 99th Bomb Wing

Now home of the 92nd Air Refueling Wing.

Link: Fairchild AFB

Forbes AFB - CLOSED

Location: 3 miles south of Topeka, Kansas

Former home of 55th Strategic / Strategic Recon Wing, 90th Bomb Wing, 40th Bomb Wing

The 90th Bomb Wing trained the 308th Bomb Wing, 310th Bomb Wing, 376th Bomb Wing

Closed in 1973.

Links: Topeka Airport, Forbes History, 40th Bomb Wing Site - Lots of good stuff

Forth Worth AFB - Carswell AFB

Glasgow AFB - CLOSED Need photos

Location: 26 miles north of the city of Glasgow, Montana.

Former home of 4141st Strategic Wing, 91st Bomb Wing. Now a Boeing test base

Link:

Goose Bay AB - CLOSED

Location: Labrador

Former home of 95th Bomb / Strategic / Air Base Wing , 4082nd Strategic Wing

Turned over to Canada in 1967

Grand Island AFB

Location: Nebraska

Reportedly operated B-29 in late 1940s. No further information.

Great Falls AFB - See Malstrom AFB

Grenier AFB - CLOSED

Location: New Hampshire.

Former home of 82nd Fighter Wing (1947). Now an Air Station.

Link:

Grissom AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Indiana - Formerly Bunker Hill AFB

Former Home of 305th Bomb Wing; Now home of 434th Air Refueling Wing, AF Reserve.

Link: Grissom Air Reserve Base, Grissom Air Museum

Grenier Field, NE - See Kearney AFB

Griffis AFB - CLOSED

Location: Rome, New York

Former home of 416th Bomb Wing, 4039th Strategic Wing. Closed Sept 30, 1965

Link:

Hanscom AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Location: 17 mi. northwest of Boston, Mass

Former home of ? . Now 66th home of Air Base Wing - Electronic Systems Support

Link: Hanscom AFB

Homestead AFB - CLOSED

Location: 25 miles south of Miami, Florida

Former home of 19th Bomb Wing, 379th Bomb Wing

Links:

Hunter AFB - CLOSED

Location: Savannah, Georgia

Former home of 2nd Bomb Wing, 308th Bomb Wing.

Closed in 1967. Now Fort Stewart / Hunter Army Air Field

Link: Fort Stewart / Hunter Army Air Field

K I Sawyer AFB - CLOSED

Location: Near the City of Marquette, Upper Peninsula, Michigan

Former home of 410th Bomb Wing, 4042nd Strategic Wing. Closed September 30, 1995

Links: County of Marquette K.I. Sawyer Development Department, K. I Sawyer Tribute - Good site

Kadena AB

Location: 15 mi. north of Naha, Japan

Link: Kadena AB

Kearney AFB - CLOSED

Location: Kearney, Nebraska

Former home of 27th Fighter Wing. Closed in1949 Later Grenier Field

Link:

Kincheloe AFB - CLOSED Need Pictures

Location: Chippewa County, Michigan

Former home of 4239th Strategic Wing, 449th Bomb / Strategic Wing, Closed July-September, 1977.

Link:

Larson AFB - CLOSED

Location: Five miles northwest of Moses Lake, Washington

Former home of 462nd Bomb Wing, 4170th Strategic Wing, Titan I Missiles. Closed in 1966

Link: Grant County International Airport, History of Larson AFB

Limestone AFB - See Loring AFB

Lincoln AFB - CLOSED

Location: Lincoln Nebraska

Former home of 98th Bomb Wing, 307th Bomb Wing. Closed in 1966

Link: History of Lincoln AFB - Excellent Site. Many photographs. Lincoln Municipal Airport

Little Rock AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 17 miles northeast of Little Rock. Arkansas

Former home of 70th Bomb Wing, 308th Bomb Wing, 384th Bomb Wing

Now the world's largest C-130 base

Link: Little Rock AFB

Lockbourne AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Lockbourne, Ohio, 12 miles southeast of the city of Columbus, Ohio,

Former home of 91st Bomb Wing, 70th Bomb Wing, 301st Bomb Wing

Now Rickenbacker ANGB, home of 121st Air Refueling Wing, Air National Guard

Link: Rickenbacker Port Authority

Loring AFB - CLOSED

Location: Limestone, Maine - SAC Mega base.

Former home of 42nd Bomb Wing (1956-1991). Officially closed September 30, 1994

Link:

Lowry AFB - CLOSED

Location: Denver, Colorado

Former home of 703rd Strategic Missile Wing, 451st Strategic Missile Wing (Titan I)

Closed October 1, 1994. Now an administrative center.

Link:

MacDill AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Eight miles south of downtown Tampa, Florida.

Former home of 498th Bomb Group, 6th Bomb Wing, 305th Bomb Wing, 306th Bomb Wing,

307th Bomb Wing, 311th Recon Wing (non-SAC) 6th Air Base Wing (non-SAC)

Transferred to Tactical Air Command in 1962.

Link: MacDill AFB

March AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 9 mi. southeast of Riverside, California.

Former home of 22nd Bomb Wing, 106th Bomb Wing (non-SAC), 320th Bomb Wing

Now home of 452nd Air Mobility Wing. Check out the March AFB Air Museum.

Link: 452nd Air Mobility Wing, March Air Museum

Mather AFB - CLOSED

Location: Sacramento County, California

Former home of 320th Bomb Wing, 4134th Strategic Wing. Now an industrial park

Link:

McCoy AFB - CLOSED

Location: Orlando, Florida

Former home of 306th Bomb Wing, 321st Bomb Wing, 4047th Strategic Wing

Closed 1974. Part of base is now operating as the Orlando International Airport

McCoy AFB Time Line, 306 BW History, Orlando International Airport Timeline

McGuire AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 18 mi. southeast of Trenton, New Jersey

Former home of 91st Bomb Wing, 305th Bomb Wing

Link: McGuire AFB, Team McGuire Photo Library

Mountain Home AFB - ACTIVE

Location:10 mi. southwest of Mountain Home, Idaho

Former home of 5th Bomb Wing, 9th Bomb Wing

Now home of the 366th Fighter Wing

Link: Mountain Home AFB

Nellis AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 8 mi. northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada

Former home of 99th Bomb Wing. Now home of AF Air Command Command Pilot Training Center.

"Home of U.S. Fighter Pilots". Home of Thunderbirds Precision Flying Team

Link: Nellis AFB, Thunderbirds Web Site

Offutt AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 8 mi. south of Omaha, Nebraska

Former home of SAC Headquarters, 55th Strategic Recon Wing, 385th Bomb Wing

Now Headquarters of U.S. Strategic Command

Link: Offutt AFB, U.S. Strategic Command Command Center

Patrick AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 2 miles south of Cocoa Beach, Florida. Its the airbase for Cape Kennedy.

Home of Air Force Missile Test Center, 45th Space Wing

Link: Patrick AFB. Extensive missile history on this site

Pease AFB - CLOSED

Location: New Hampshire, 55 miles from Boston

Former home of 100th Bomb Wing, 509th Bomb Wing

Now an airport. Home to the New Hampshire Air National Guard which flies KC-135R aircraft.

Link: Pease Development Authority

Pinecastle - See McCoy AFB, Florida

Plattsburgh - CLOSED

Location: Plattsburgh, New York

Former home of 308th Bomb Wing, 380th Bomb Wing, 497th Refueling Wing

Now an industrial park.

Links: Plattsburgh Air Base Development Authority | Plattsburgh AFB / 380th Bomb Wing

Presque Isle AFB - CLOSED

Location: Maine, near Canadian border

Former home of 702nd Missile Wing (Snark). Now Skyway Industrial Park

Link: Skyway Industrial Park

Ramey AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Puerto Rico

Former home of 55th Bomb Wing, 72nd Bomb Wing

Now an airport, home base to U.S. Coast Guard, Air National Guard

Link: Ramey AFB Historical Association

Rapid City - See Ellsworth, South Dakota

Roswell AFB - See Walker AFB

Schilling AFB - CLOSED - Formerly Smokey Hill AFB

Location: 2 miles southwest of Salina, Kansas

Former home of 40th Bomb Wing, 310th Bomb Wing, 97th Bomb Wing, 301st Bomb Wing,

485th Bomb Wing Closed April 1967

Link: 40th Bomb Wing - Excellent site. Many photos.

Selfridge AFB - CLOSED

Location: Detroit, Michigan

Former home of 57th Fighter Wing in 1947; 500th Air Refueling Wing in 1962, Closed in 1971

Link:

Seymore-Johnson AFB - ACTIVE Need pictures

Location: Goldsboro, North Carolina

Former home of 4241st Strategic Wing, 68th Bomb Wing. Now home of 4th Fighter Wing

Link: Seymour Johnson AFB Link not working

Sheppard AFB - ACTIVE Need pictures

Location: Near the city of Wichita Falls, Texas.

Former home of 494th Bomb Wing, 4245th Strategic Wing.

Now the largest base in Training Command

Link: Sheppard AFB

Smoky Hill AFB - See Schilling AFB

Spokane AFB - See Fairchild AFB

Thule AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Thule, Greenland

Former home of 4083rd Strategic Wing

Home of Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, 12th Space Warning Squadron

Thule is the only Air Force base with no aircraft and a tugboat.

Links: Thule AFB | Thule Picture Book - Great site

Travis AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Fairfield, California:

Former home of 5th Bomb Wing, 9th Bomb Wing, 4126th Strategic Wing.

Now Air Transport Command.

Link: Travis AFB Link not working

Turner AFB - CLOSED

Location: Albany, Georgia

Former home of 450th Bomb Wing, 484th Bomb Wing, 4138th Strategic Wing

Link: Turner Field Historical Site

Vandenberg AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 8 mi. north-northwest of Lompoc, California

Former home of 392nd Strategic Missile Wing, 704th Strategic Missile Wing

Now home of 30th Space Wing

Link: Vandenberg AFB

Walker AFB - CLOSED

Location: 8 miles south of Roswell, New Mexico.

Former home of 509th Composite Group, 6th Bomb Wing, the famous "Roswell Incident," where flying saucer was supposedly hidden and space aliens dissected.

Link: Walker Restoration Advisory Board

Warner Robins AFB - See Robins AFB

Westover AFB - ACTIVE

Location: Chicopee, Massachusetts about 10 miles northeast of Springfield.

Former home of 8th Air Force Headquarters, 99th Bomb Wing, 499th Bomb Wing

Now Air Force Reserve base

Link: Westover Air Reserve Base

Wright-Patterson AFB - ACTIVE

Location: 10 mi. east-northeast of Dayton, Ohio

Former home of Wright Brothers flying field. 4043d Strategic Wing, 17th Bomb Wing

Air Force Research and Logistics Center

Links: Wright Patterson AFB, Extensive Wright-Patterson History. Many photos, USAF Museum

Wurtsmith AFB - CLOSED

Location: Near Oscoda, Michigan

Former home of 379th Bomb Wing. Closed June 30, 1993

Link: Wurtsmith Historical Web Site

"I believe that the 'history' you speak of should be saved, locked, and set aside in a section specifically created for the purpose of documenting the number of incidences, and on what basis this type of disruption and dissemination of misinfo/disinfo, may be happening. This could serve as a record for keeping track of the distributors, their names, IP addresses, etc., as well as the time of occurrence, by whom, and what trigger factors might have been involved to provoke it. This would enable the admins and the moderators to ascertain what, if any, distinctive patterns might be involved, or at work, here.

"In any event, it could be utilized as a method of trouble-shooting, or defusing future instances of this type of behavior."

Bravo!

This is precisely the way that we, in aikido-like fashion, turn the enemy's energy against its source.

There is so much to learn from them. But there are many hidden dangers along this route.

That this T. Folsom character represents -- wittingly or otherwise -- the enemy is beyond question. Let's enjoy all that he/she/they hand(s) us.

Charles

*****************************************************

"Bravo!

This is precisely the way that we, in aikido-like fashion, turn the enemy's energy against its source."

The practice of Haikido, Hapkido, and more recently, Tai Chi, have aided my focus over the years, C.D.

Thanks for noting the analogy.

Don't get mad, get even. This is what is known as the true "art" of war, in the Asian sense of the word.

Ter

Also, this may be of some information...both Bell Aircraft and LTV (Chance Vaught at the time) had operations at Pt. Mugu, about 10 miles from Oxnard. My Dad worked for both companies.

This is interesting. And I'm glad you and James responded to this. I was thinking of Camarillo Ranch and I just thought of MK/ULTRA and the Manson family at Spahn Ranch. Probably no connection. Have you heard of one? And who is Osbourne?

Kathy

***********************************************************8

Spahn Ranch is nestled between the western side of Box Canyon and the Santa Susanna Pass Road, which is at the Ventura/Los Angeles County line, bordered by Simi Valley on the west and the city of Chatsworth to the east. Box canyon was a favorite film location for the old Hopalong Cassidy movies and serials. The rock formations are spectacular.

Rocket Dyne and Hughes had, and probably still have, a lot of acreage out in that area, cordoned off by high chain linked fences, topped with barbed wire on some of the more remote sections of the property, surveillance cameras, and many DANGER NO TRESPASSING signs strategically placed throughout, from what I can remember.

I also lived in Box Canyon in the late 1970's, before moving to T.O. in the early 1980's.

What must they be doing out there? Another "Area 51"? MK/ULTRA stuff?

FWIW. Although Area 51 is not located where we've been talking about, the reason you can see it from Google Earth is because nobody is there anymore. They moved to another section of the desert. I know a woman and her husband who drove around out there lost and they could see air vents in the mountains. But no one came after them. If you look it up on Google Earth, you'll see there are a lot of Air Force Bases around there. Also, from what I've read, the old Area 51 is radioactive. So much for spooks.

Kathy

**************************************************************

"What must they be doing out there? Another "Area 51"? MK/ULTRA

stuff?"

Seriously, I think they're noted for aircraft parts, assemblage, rocket science, the usual milspecs required in the manufacture and production of government/corporate issued contracts for materials and acquisition.

What and where was "Area 51" supposed to be?

Kathy Beckett: "I am locking it, and requesting that Mr. Simkin delete it."

I request, (and don't expect to have such request taken seriously), that topics may very well be locked, but only after consultation amongst moderators, (at least three), but not deleted.

The topics of whatever nature form part of history.

History is also a history of disruption and misinformation. Deletion distorts history, which one would have thought is one thing this Forum stands almost alone as a bulwark against.

Recently, a thread was deleted sans warning or explanation, that amongst a huge amount of nonsense, contained numerous positive postings that were educational.

The wholesale deletion denies access to such.

Blanket topic deletion if it becomes a norm, that lone moderators consider something wthin their 'job desription' (even requestiing such, without broad consultation), will lead to a diminuition of the Forums credibility.

Kathy: "Thank you, John, I had absolutely NO intention of deleting it. It was locked and the decision for deletion was left to Mr. Simkin..I also want you to know that threads can be as easily unlocked.."

Indeed. - Un-deleting is quite another matter.

"It is sometimes difficult to get a consensus from the moderators because of time differences".

Tough.

But as a norm, it is a guard against "Unwarrranted Abuse of Power and Influence by the 'Forum Moderators Complex'."

"Thanks, again. Kathy Beckett."

No worries, you're welcome.

EDIT:: Well put Miles. With you 100% there.

*************************************************************

"The topics of whatever nature form part of history.

History is also a history of disruption and misinformation. Deletion distorts history, which one would have thought is one thing this Forum stands almost alone as a bulwark against."

I believe that the "history" you speak of should be saved, locked, and set aside in a section specifically created for the purpose of documenting the number of incidences, and on what basis this type of disruption and dissemination of misinfo/disinfo, may be happening. This could serve as a record for keeping track of the distributors, their names, IP addresses, etc., as well as the time of occurrence, by whom, and what trigger factors might have been involved to provoke it. This would enable the admins and the moderators to ascertain what, if any, distinctive patterns might be involved, or at work, here.

In any event, it could be utilized as a method of trouble-shooting, or defusing future instances of this type of behavior. This is merely a suggestion on how one might be able to manage or monitor the forum more effectively. The issue of a consensus among the moderators is a good idea, and could form the basis for a more cohesive, unified effort on their part.

Hi Tim...good to see you here again!

I just wanted to add that Ojai is an obscure small town, in a beautiful forest area. It is somewhat exclusive and has some cute little shops. I have to go through it in order to get to the Ventura, Oxnard, Camarillo areas, which is on the coastal highway However, I don't know anything about the Acacia Mansion.(By the way....Camarilla is pronounced Cam-ar-ee-a and Ojai is O-hi)

___________

Dixie

**********************************************************

"I have to go through it in order to get to the Ventura, Oxnard, Camarillo areas, which is on the coastal highway However, I don't know anything about the Acacia Mansion."

Hey Doo,

I've got a great idea! Why don't I pick you up in Bake some Saturday, and we motor down to Ojai, which BTW, in most Native American dialects, means "nest," and do some sleuthing to see what we can find out about The Acacia Mansion? We could swing on over to Camarillo and get some fruit at one of the roadside stands, and grab a bite to eat later on in the evening. Maybe after Labor Day, when I get back from Atlanta?

Talk to you this weekend.

Ter

I was home in Oxnard on leave on 11/22/63. I remember I was going with a strict Catholic girl and it really screwed up my plans for a big weekend.

Having lived in Oxnard, Ventura County from 1952, til I joined the service in '63, I never really heard of a "Camarillo Ranch." The town of Camarillo, about 5 miles from Oxnard, was probably located on the old Spanish Granted Camarillo ranch...JMO.

I'd also heard that Sirhan had been involved with a preacher from Oxnard prior to the RFK killing. Supposedly the preacher had a church on J Street in Oxnard. I never could figure out what church that might have been. I read about it in one of the books on RFK, and thought it was interesting as Osborne was also supposedly a preacher.

Also, this may be of some information...both Bell Aircraft and LTV (Chance Vaught at the time) had operations at Pt. Mugu, about 10 miles from Oxnard. My Dad worked for both companies.

This is interesting. And I'm glad you and James responded to this. I was thinking of Camarillo Ranch and I just thought of MK/ULTRA and the Manson family at Spahn Ranch. Probably no connection. Have you heard of one? And who is Osbourne?

Kathy

***********************************************************8

"I was thinking of Camarillo Ranch and I just thought of MK/ULTRA and the Manson family at Spahn Ranch. Probably no connection."

Spahn Ranch is nestled between the western side of Box Canyon and the Santa Susanna Pass Road, which is at the Ventura/Los Angeles County line, bordered by Simi Valley on the west and the city of Chatsworth to the east. Box canyon was a favorite film location for the old Hopalong Cassidy movies and serials. The rock formations are spectacular.

Rocket Dyne and Hughes had, and probably still have, a lot of acreage out in that area, cordoned off by high chain linked fences, topped with barbed wire on some of the more remote sections of the property, surveillance cameras, and many DANGER NO TRESPASSING signs strategically placed throughout, from what I can remember.

I also lived in Box Canyon in the late 1970's, before moving to T.O. in the early 1980's.

In the Kupcinet thread, James posted:

"That aside, it might be worth noting that in 1965, the Great Lakes Carbon Co. purchased the ranch. This company was owned by George, Rushton and James Skakel - Robert Kennedy's brothers-in-law.

"A year later George Skakel was killed in a plane crash. Also killed were Dean Markham, friend of RFK and who held several federal appointments, and Louis Werner who was the director of the St. Louis regional office of the CIA.

"Earl Ranft, trucking firm president and Donald Adams of Mountain Home Air Force base were also killed."

That George Skakel was George Skakel, Jr., Ethel's brother. Almost incredibly, ten years earlier both of their parents were killed in a plane crash as well.

************************************************************

"That George Skakel was George Skakel, Jr., Ethel's brother."

Hey T.G.!

Good to see you back!

Ethel Skakel Kennedy. Spot on!

In the Kupcinet thread, James posted:

"That aside, it might be worth noting that in 1965, the Great Lakes Carbon Co. purchased the ranch. This company was owned by George, Rushton and James Skakel - Robert Kennedy's brothers-in-law.

"A year later George Skakel was killed in a plane crash. Also killed were Dean Markham, friend of RFK and who held several federal appointments, and Louis Werner who was the director of the St. Louis regional office of the CIA.

"Earl Ranft, trucking firm president and Donald Adams of Mountain Home Air Force base were also killed."

That George Skakel was George Skakel, Jr., Ethel's brother. Almost incredibly, ten years earlier both of their parents were killed in a plane crash as well.

How far is that from the Acacia Mansion. in Ojai, CA? That location is a very obscure locale that has a somewhat bizarre history as well.....

**********************************************************8

"How far is that from the Acacia Mansion. in Ojai, CA? That location is a very obscure locale that has a somewhat bizarre history as well....."

From MapQuest:

Maneuvers Distance Maps

1: Start out going WEST on E OJAI AVE / CA-150 toward N MONTGOMERY ST. 0.4 miles Map

2: Turn SLIGHT LEFT onto W OJAI AVE / CA-150. Continue to follow CA-150. 2.8 miles Map

3: Stay STRAIGHT to go onto N VENTURA AVE / CA-33. Continue to follow CA-33 S. 11.1 miles Map

4: Merge onto US-101 S via the exit on the LEFT toward LOS ANGELES. 17.0 miles Map

5: Take the exit. 0.1 miles Map

6: Turn RIGHT onto VENTURA BLVD. <0.1 miles Map

7: End at Camarillo, CA US Map

Total Est. Time: 38 minutes Total Est. Distance: 31.60 miles

As the crow flies. These are small, sometimes winding 2-lane roads, taking in the more rural sections of Ventura County.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Camarillo Ranch in the Oxnard area?

Also, if I remember correctly, a man by the name of Ray Sheehan was the manager of the telephone company at the time and gave a statement to the FBI. I wonder if he is still alive.

James

I have to look up Camarillo Ranch. It's near Ventura. Does your question have anything to do with the phone call?

I don't think Ray Sheehan is still alive. I don't think he had any more to tell.

Kathy

Kathy,

I think the Camarillo Ranch had some loose connections to what happened in Dallas.

That aside, it might be worth noting that in 1965, the Great Lakes Carbon Co. purchased the ranch. This company was owned by George, Rushton and James Skakel - Robert Kennedy's brothers-in-law.

A year later George Skakel was killed in a plane crash. Also killed were Dean Markham, friend of RFK and who held several federal appointments, and Louis Werner who was the director of the St. Louis regional office of the CIA.

Earl Ranft, trucking firm president and Donald Adams of Mountain Home Air Force base were also killed.

FWIW.

James

I was home in Oxnard on leave on 11/22/63. I remember I was going with a strict Catholic girl and it really screwed up my plans for a big weekend.

Having lived in Oxnard, Ventura County from 1952, til I joined the service in '63, I never really heard of a "Camarillo Ranch." The town of Camarillo, about 5 miles from Oxnard, was probably located on the old Spanish Granted Camarillo ranch...JMO.

I'd also heard that Sirhan had been involved with a preacher from Oxnard prior to the RFK killing. Supposedly the preacher had a church on J Street in Oxnard. I never could figure out what church that might have been. I read about it in one of the books on RFK, and thought it was interesting as Osborne was also supposedly a preacher.

Also, this may be of some information...both Bell Aircraft and LTV (Chance Vaught at the time) had operations at Pt. Mugu, about 10 miles from Oxnard. My Dad worked for both companies.

**********************************************************

"Having lived in Oxnard, Ventura County from 1952, til I joined the service in '63, I never really heard of a "Camarillo Ranch." The town of Camarillo, about 5 miles from Oxnard, was probably located on the old Spanish Granted Camarillo ranch...JMO."

Camarillo is in Ventura County, off Hwy 101. It's a farming community with beautiful acres of corn, vegetables, strawberries, citrus and fruit orchards, and tall eucalyptus trees. It was also known as the town that housed Camarillo State Prison for the criminally insane. I believe the prison may have been decommissioned almost a decade ago. My boyfriend, Cam and I used to take his Harley 1958 Panhead, or his 1976 Electroglide, riding all through that area to Pt. Mugu, the Channel Islands, on out through the Oxnard/Ventura line, and on up to Montecito and Santa Barbara. Lovely area, Ventura County. I used to live in T.O. [Thousand Oaks, for those unfamiliar with California].

JEWELLS Ha Thats a funny

John Roselli first came to the attention of Senator Berry Goldwater's Staff in the summer of 1975 a few months before this information was passed to Congressmen Tomas Downing; shortly therafter the HSCA was formed and funded. The White House tried to block the formation of this investigation.

In view of the "new" documents released and those held back as top secret, National Security matters of 1975 confirm all the information Senator Goldwater's security team received from two action "military" operative attatched to the CIA from the Pentagon. The FBI was notified of the allegations and both subject's information, who gave the information to Senator Goldwater, was sealed.

Bernard Finisterwald and Gary Shaw filed a fredom of information on one of the subjects, with his permission, in 1981 and received over 463 pages on subject pertaining to Rosellie and John Martino. Also a second set of documents were located which pointed toward more documentation that would confirm the two informante's allegations.

This is not important anymore. Its old stuff. However there are still over 363 pages of the FBI's 302 files and the FBI 62-2116 file on Rosellie remain classified and the subject concerning the assassination attempts on Castro.

My point. how did the attack teams members names come forth long before the public was aware. And why was this information withheld by Hoover for over forty years?. Why did the CIA cover the details of this operation? (Bishop, Bennette, Bender, Harvey, Barns, Robertson, and a host of others

I would like to see you people get to the bottom of this cold case, and I have tried to help in my own way. However, I can be of no service to the research community anymore. There are those who want to fight and twist and attempt to make a name for themselves at the expence of truth. I no longer give interviews or anwser questions. Nobody has "run" me off the forms. I have seen the work done and it goes round and round and goes nowhere except "newbees" wanting to make a name for themselves.

Within the maze of information I have tried to share in the past and if you look and read with an open mind you might just fiend a trueizum that will help get you to the real truth of what happened that day in Dallas.

In spite of what some say of me. I am not an assassin. I have always worked in the shadows doing the will of my Commander in Chief. Laugh at that if you want, but it was another day and time... a time much more simple and true.

We tried to stop the killings of not only JFK but others as well.... sometimes we were succesful... and other times not.

I have no desire to communicate with any of you on this subject. Call me what you like. Do what you want with the information I have provided.

However, when these documents are released in total.... then compare them with the Roselli/Plumlee FBI file. Therein leads to Obstruction of Justice by the FBI from the years of 1975-82 and on..

I have paid my dues... now you do the same.

****************************************************************

"However there are still over 363 pages of the FBI's 302 files and the FBI 62-2116 file on Rosellie remain classified and the subject concerning the assassination attempts on Castro.

My point. how did the attack teams members names come forth long before the public was aware. And why was this information withheld by Hoover for over forty years?. Why did the CIA cover the details of this operation? (Bishop, Bennette, Bender, Harvey, Barns, Robertson, and a host of others

I would like to see you people get to the bottom of this cold case, and I have tried to help in my own way. However, I can be of no service to the research community anymore. There are those who want to fight and twist and attempt to make a name for themselves at the expence of truth. I no longer give interviews or anwser questions. Nobody has "run" me off the forms. I have seen the work done and it goes round and round and goes nowhere except "newbees" wanting to make a name for themselves.

Within the maze of information I have tried to share in the past and if you look and read with an open mind you might just fiend a trueizum that will help get you to the real truth of what happened that day in Dallas.

In spite of what some say of me. I am not an assassin. I have always worked in the shadows doing the will of my Commander in Chief. Laugh at that if you want, but it was another day and time... a time much more simple and true.

We tried to stop the killings of not only JFK but others as well.... sometimes we were succesful... and other times not.

I have no desire to communicate with any of you on this subject. Call me what you like. Do what you want with the information I have provided.

However, when these documents are released in total.... then compare them with the Roselli/Plumlee FBI file. Therein leads to Obstruction of Justice by the FBI from the years of 1975-82 and on..

I have paid my dues... now you do the same."

I understand a lot more now, than I ever have in the past. What I've come to realize has left me quite sober on the subject, when faced with the myriad of facets that have crystallized and then been shattered just as easily as they were formed. The "trust" factor has been stretched beyond human limits, as far as this case is concerned, and for those of us who've lived through the charade we've been forced to accept, regardless of how much proof has been allowed to surface over the past four decades, it's never been enough, and has always seem to be a day late and a dollar short.

I believe you when you state your reasons for being there. I've finally managed to translate the jargon involved, as well as the operational strategy deployed for that particular job. And, I feel bad for those who attempted to, but were thwarted in their efforts to save the chief. I don't find anything remotely amusing about what you tried to do, therefore I'm not one who'll be laughing at your story. I realize now, that you did what you were compartmentalized to do, and how that form of tactical isolation, with its "need to know" basis, can hobble even the most noble of counter interventions. It's probably been the worst thing you've had to live with all these years, the fact that you failed. If anyone is just as sorry, it would be me, as well as those folks who built their dreams on that man during that time and place in history. Because, life as we knew it, and hoped for a better future for ourselves and our loved ones, was broken into a million shards of glass that afternoon, and has spiraled downhill ever since.

Thank you, Bill, for coming forth with any piece of information that may enlighten the path and lighten the load.

Terry

JFK was NOT killed by LHO, who was as he stated so clearly 'a patsy', though he had long been and likely was also that day a black operative of the CIA, MI, FBI and other such.

Peter, I agree with you. Years back, when I first joined another Forum, I called Lee Harvey Oswald a "punk." Because I figured, even if he didn't kill Kennedy, he was up to something. They were insulted! I could never live it down. At least here you can voice your own opinion.

Back to Oswald, if you know the Presidential motorcade is passing the building where you're working, do you not go to work that day? Or was he given some role to play -- and didn't realize they were making him the patsy? I've read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong and I believe there were 2 men using the same identity. Only, I don't think Harvey knew about Lee. Lee, who may have been Harvey's cousin, helped set Harvey up. So, of course I wonder -- whatever happened to Lee?

Kathy

*********************************************************

"Years back, when I first joined another Forum, I called Lee Harvey Oswald a "punk." Because I figured, even if he didn't kill Kennedy, he was up to something. They were insulted! I could never live it down. At least here you can voice your own opinion."

Being a double agent, an FBI asset, or assigned to covert operations, does not necessarily relegate one to the status of a "punk."

"Lee, who may have been Harvey's cousin, helped set Harvey up. So, of course I wonder -- whatever happened to Lee?"

But, I thought you had already figured that one out, Kath. Donald Norton aka Ralph Geb, right?

In the event that Mr. Bugliosi has actually won, then it is a direct result of one of the following:

1. To a large extent, opposing forces have been firing (BS) Blanks.

2. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo (factual data), they quite obviously did not know how to load it.

3. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo and knew how to load it, they either did not know how to take the safety off, or else did not know which end of the gun to point.

4. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo, knew how to load it and properly utilize the gun, they did not know exactly what to take a shot at.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With what frequently causes an eruption of reminiscent laughter, I am reminded of those "firefights" with hard core Regular NVA forces in which each side was armed with "real" bullets.

We had long prior learned that the NVA leadership gave it's command signals through the blowing of whistles.

Thus, an important element of our battlefield strategy consisted of utilization of captured (as well as write home and get sent to one) whistles.

Certain (not too competent in battle) persons/privates, were thereafter delegated merely the task of hiding and blowing their "whistle" when a firefight ensued.

To the NVA, this caused absolute confusion!

Some would be attacking; some would be retreating; and some would be surrendering at the same point in the battle.

Others merely stood around totally confused!

So, even if one has "real bullets", the (whistle blowing) confusion and misdirection which has been generated in searching for "body snatchers" and multiple assassins, has created a battlefield in which the CT forces are so confused that, for the most part, they do not know what to fire at, and have thus defeated themselves.

"For those who fail to learn from it, history has a way of repeating itself"

Whether in the Jungles of South Vietnam, or in Dealy Plaza, Dallas, TX.

The truly sad fact ,is that we are fighting this "battle" in our home country.......

The truly sad fact ,is that we are fighting this "battle" in our home country

Even more sad is the fact that the "Enemy" (WC/Posner/Bugliosi/Government Personnel) has merely given the CT Community the whistles, taken a seat on the sideline, and thereafter watched them confuse themselves in the attack.

One can only imagine:

1. Over here, I see him behind the tree!

2. No he is not, I saw him down in the manhole.

3. You are all wrong, he was on top of the Dal-Tex Bldg.

4. All of you must be seeing things, he can clearly be observed:

a. Behind the Stockade fence.

b. On top of the overpass.

c. Hiding in the SS Followup vehicle.

d. Fill in the blank:-___________________

Perhaps one is correct when they claim that Bugliosi has won!

Not unlike in a boxing match, I would suppose that if one punches himself in the face and knocks himself out, the opponenet still wins, even if he is merely standing around and watching.

*********************************************************

Excellent propositions, and excellent analogies, Purv.

What was that old adage the rabid right used to feed us when trying to persuade us of Red China's designs on dismantling Western democracy, "Divide and Conquer?" Supposedly, this was a form of propaganda devised to get the idea across that if we didn't stick together and fight the Iron Curtain, they would surely divide us up into little factions, and conquer us all, should we not cleave to each other to form an allied opposition.

Well, at one time that may have all been well and good in the way of arousing patriotic zeal by invoking fear into the hearts and minds of the plebes. But what about those who would not be easily moved to follow such blind ambition and opportunism?

On the other hand, and later on in the 20th Century, specifically toward the last two decades, when the James Clavell series came out and was made into one of those TV movie epics, Noble House, I believe it was. If one took it upon themselves to read his series starting with Shogun I and II, TaiPei, King Rat, Noble House I and II, one might get a completely different view of the Asian mindset than the one presented in the 1950's and the 1960's via Mockingbird's propaganda mill. Fast forward to the present day, and Sterling Seagrave's Gold Warriors. A completely different perspective from that which was intentionally foisted upon America in the 1950's.

Why? Because the reality of the fact was not in the "Divide and Conquer," sloganeering of the Cold War years. The Asian philosophy was more on par with, "Don't get mad, get even." Therein lies the rub. The joke was on the dumb Americans. The Asian philosophical outlook was far more superior to the oafish brute force attitude of the Western World.

Can we not gain a modicum of insight from the experience and recognize the propaganda being perpetrated on all of us, for over half a century? Add that to the fact that it still remains based upon the skewed and stilted philosophy of our dead and/or soon-to-be-dead former cold warriors, who continue to employ the exact same tactics in response to what they may perceive to be any successful form of on-going JFK research being carried out that doesn't tend to agree with or endorse the Warren Commission Lie.

"Divide," "Confuse," and "Conquer." We lose if we continue to refuse to be united in a cohesive, organized front. We will continually play into their hands and into their game, each and every time we take pot-shots at one another. This is one of the main reasons why Bugliosi can get away with labeling our efforts as "the work done by kooks."

I'm personally sick of being labeled a CT, or worse yet, a "buff." For crying out loud, we're either in this together, or we're out of it. Those who continue to harass, confound, attempt to harangue, or verbally assault those writers, authors, and men of letters here, for what appears to be the sheer pleasure they seemingly derive from their acts of belligerence, should remain "suspect" as to their real intentions. This point has become excruciatingly apparent since the outset of Bugliosi's book, and has been driven home in his scathing portrayal of the research community, and the utter contempt he holds for it.

Just perhaps I am incorrect, however!

1. If someone clearly provides altered evidence, as well as the somewhat "sneaky" manner in which it was admitted into evidence, it just may shake the foundation on which Mr. Bugliosi stands.

2. If someone clearly provides the multitudes of witness testimony which clearly demonstrate that Z313 WAS NOT the final shot fired in the shooting sequence, it just may shake the foundation on which Mr. Bugliosi stands.

3. If someone clearly demonstrates the completely phony nature of the WC assassination re-enactment, it just may shake the foundation on which Mr. Bugliosi stands.

(vehicle speed/adjusted position/z-frame# alteration)

4. If someone clearly demonstrates that the US Secret Service, as well as the FBI, were clearly aware of the impact point of the third/last/final shot fired, begining in December 1963, yet the WC could not for whatever reason figure this out, it just may shake the foundation on which Mr. Bugliosi stands.

There have been many "false prophets" who claimed that they were going to lead to the promised land.

Some have followed the pathway of the "body snatcher" and wound alteration philosophy guru

Some have followed the pathway of the "multiple assassin" (take your pick as to which location) philosophy guru.

None of which pathways, that I am aware of, has actually lead to where it claimed it was going to take one too.

And, which in reality merely carried one deeper into the labrinth of the lost.

FACTUAL evidence will destroy Bugliosi, as well as the WC 40+ year old lie to the world.

False prophets will not!

Tom

P.S. Terry;

A significant element of any successful battle strategy is the inclusion of those elements which, when implemented, create confusion; misdirection; miscommunication; and dissention among the opposing forces.

And in that regards, one should take a close look at "The Enemy Within"!

However, winning a battle or two does not constitute having won the war.

**************************************************************

P.S. Terry;

A significant element of any successful battle strategy is the inclusion of those elements which, when implemented, create confusion; misdirection; miscommunication; and dissention among the opposing forces.

And in that regards, one should take a close look at "The Enemy Within"!

Thanks, Purv. Will follow through directly after logging on at amazon.com.

"However, winning a battle or two does not constitute having won the war."

I do copy, Purv. Quite rightly.

Will report back after surveying the proposed data.

Ter

In the event that Mr. Bugliosi has actually won, then it is a direct result of one of the following:

1. To a large extent, opposing forces have been firing (BS) Blanks.

2. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo (factual data), they quite obviously did not know how to load it.

3. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo and knew how to load it, they either did not know how to take the safety off, or else did not know which end of the gun to point.

4. In event the opposing force actually had live ammo, knew how to load it and properly utilize the gun, they did not know exactly what to take a shot at.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With what frequently causes an eruption of reminiscent laughter, I am reminded of those "firefights" with hard core Regular NVA forces in which each side was armed with "real" bullets.

We had long prior learned that the NVA leadership gave it's command signals through the blowing of whistles.

Thus, an important element of our battlefield strategy consisted of utilization of captured (as well as write home and get sent to one) whistles.

Certain (not too competent in battle) persons/privates, were thereafter delegated merely the task of hiding and blowing their "whistle" when a firefight ensued.

To the NVA, this caused absolute confusion!

Some would be attacking; some would be retreating; and some would be surrendering at the same point in the battle.

Others merely stood around totally confused!

So, even if one has "real bullets", the (whistle blowing) confusion and misdirection which has been generated in searching for "body snatchers" and multiple assassins, has created a battlefield in which the CT forces are so confused that, for the most part, they do not know what to fire at, and have thus defeated themselves.

"For those who fail to learn from it, history has a way of repeating itself"

Whether in the Jungles of South Vietnam, or in Dealy Plaza, Dallas, TX.

The truly sad fact ,is that we are fighting this "battle" in our home country.......

The truly sad fact ,is that we are fighting this "battle" in our home country

Even more sad is the fact that the "Enemy" (WC/Posner/Bugliosi/Government Personnel) has merely given the CT Community the whistles, taken a seat on the sideline, and thereafter watched them confuse themselves in the attack.

One can only imagine:

1. Over here, I see him behind the tree!

2. No he is not, I saw him down in the manhole.

3. You are all wrong, he was on top of the Dal-Tex Bldg.

4. All of you must be seeing things, he can clearly be observed:

a. Behind the Stockade fence.

b. On top of the overpass.

c. Hiding in the SS Followup vehicle.

d. Fill in the blank:-___________________

Perhaps one is correct when they claim that Bugliosi has won!

Not unlike in a boxing match, I would suppose that if one punches himself in the face and knocks himself out, the opponenet still wins, even if he is merely standing around and watching.

*********************************************************

Excellent propositions, and excellent analogies, Purv.

What was that old adage the rabid right used to feed us when trying to persuade us of Red China's designs on dismantling Western democracy, "Divide and Conquer?" Supposedly, this was a form of propaganda devised to get the idea across that if we didn't stick together and fight the Iron Curtain, they would surely divide us up into little factions, and conquer us all, should we not cleave to each other to form an allied opposition.

Well, at one time that may have all been well and good in the way of arousing patriotic zeal by invoking fear into the hearts and minds of the plebes. But what about those who would not be easily moved to follow such blind ambition and opportunism?

On the other hand, and later on in the 20th Century, specifically toward the last two decades, when the James Clavell series came out and was made into one of those TV movie epics, Noble House, I believe it was. If one took it upon themselves to read his series starting with Shogun I and II, TaiPei, King Rat, Noble House I and II, one might get a completely different view of the Asian mindset than the one presented in the 1950's and the 1960's via Mockingbird's propaganda mill. Fast forward to the present day, and Sterling Seagrave's Gold Warriors. A completely different perspective from that which was intentionally foisted upon America in the 1950's.

Why? Because the reality of the fact was not in the "Divide and Conquer," sloganeering of the Cold War years. The Asian philosophy was more on par with, "Don't get mad, get even." Therein lies the rub. The joke was on the dumb Americans. The Asian philosophical outlook was far more superior to the oafish brute force attitude of the Western World.

Can we not gain a modicum of insight from the experience and recognize the propaganda being perpetrated on all of us, for over half a century? Add that to the fact that it still remains based upon the skewed and stilted philosophy of our dead and/or soon-to-be-dead former cold warriors, who continue to employ the exact same tactics in response to what they may perceive to be any successful form of on-going JFK research being carried out that doesn't tend to agree with or endorse the Warren Commission Lie.

"Divide," "Confuse," and "Conquer." We lose if we continue to refuse to be united in a cohesive, organized front. We will continually play into their hands and into their game, each and every time we take pot-shots at one another. This is one of the main reasons why Bugliosi can get away with labeling our efforts as "the work done by kooks."

I'm personally sick of being labeled a CT, or worse yet, a "buff." For crying out loud, we're either in this together, or we're out of it. Those who continue to harass, confound, attempt to harangue, or verbally assault those writers, authors, and men of letters here, for what appears to be the sheer pleasure they seemingly derive from their acts of belligerence, should remain "suspect" as to their real intentions. This point has become excruciatingly apparent since the outset of Bugliosi's book, and has been driven home in his scathing portrayal of the research community, and the utter contempt he holds for it.

Stephen

Perhaps I have misinterpreted what to me is a very

disjointed post, and if so I apologize.

However, to my thinking, you are advocating a belief that "the righteous", because of their virtue are always winners. Is this a take off on the "meek shall inherit the earth"?

I don't think that I need remind anyone, that since even before recorded history, that those who are in conflict, have "each and all" truly believed that their position has had the support of "Their God or Gods", and that righteousness was truly "on their side" as a result of this, and that righteousess would truly prevail.

Stephen....who do you really feel has their "heads in the sand"....or perhaps somewhere darker ?

I don't mean to be rude, but I can't help it ! This sounds like fourth grade Sunday School.....and these words of mine are coming from a reasonably devout Roman Catholic !

Charles Black

***********************************************************

"Stephen....who do you really feel has their "heads in the sand"....or perhaps somewhere darker?"

I believe this harks back to the original thesis set forth by me, with regard to the "dumbing-down" of the American educational system, and it's failure to impart a true picture of our historical, as well as, economical system. Which, IMHO appears to have hobbled the citizenry of this country as far as being able to thoroughly understand the mechanizations deliberately set in place, as a method of control and manipulation of the "masses."

The involvement of "Mockingbird" and the insidious results of their efforts, have managed to cripple this country's present generation of the desire to exhibit any form of interest in what is involved in running a democratic republic. Especially, if it doesn't come across as palatable, or as easy to digest, or master, as being able to use their cellphones, download thousands of tunes to their I-pods, or master their hand-and-eye coordinative abilities via video games with their requisite play-stations. The latter, of course, being of value to those whose future will most likely be indoctrinated into joining one of the branches of the armed forces, no doubt.

These manufactured distractions, along with the sound-bytes used to peddle their supposed entertainment value to the mass market via the corporate media and their sales blitz style of advertising campaigns, are nothing short of subliminal trickery. The best example of what seems to be "psychological" warfare, to come down the pike from those conservative "think tanks" in D.C. via Madison Avenue, since 1947. The term "heads-in-the-sand" refers to the tendency of ostriches to bury their heads in the sand in an attempt to hide from their predators. And, this is exactly what Mockingbird has been so successful in perpetrating upon the unsuspecting masses they have chosen to control, in the most "humane" form of manipulation at hand, visually attractive sales propaganda.

To believe for one moment that the illegitimate poisonous pushers of such storied cancerous lies have won, is nothing less than a retreat to the land of "headinthesand" Bugliosi and his paymasters have won nothing, whilst one Person continues to fight for the truth. all they have done, and that for a fleeting moment, is to sell yet another set of "horsefeathers" to the status obsessed masses, as Yeats observed "The center cannot hold" and this will not stand. Read Osymandius......

********************************************************

"...as Yeats observed "The center cannot hold" and this will not stand. Read Osymandius......"

Excellent advice, Stephen.

The goals of the sponsors of Bugliosi, Posner, McAdam, Rahn, et al: protect and perpetuate.

Their battlefield of choice: History.

PROTECT the perpetrators by PERPETUATING not the lie, but the debate.

This is a most critical distinction. Endless debate of the "how" and "who" and "why" of the JFK assassination extends to other events and issues. It establishes a self-renewing ground rule for the investigations of all subsequent deep political actions: we'll never be able to know the truth.

Further, endless debate serves to factionalize the greater community of honorable researchers, thus fatally weakening our efforts and, in the final analysis, reinforcing minority control of the ... agenda.

And in the process, the bastards remain untouchable.

Thus the only strategy available to us is to live the truth: The debate is over. Conspiracy is truth. So every word we write and speak about this case must carry a tone of utter contempt for those who, knowing better, nonetheless would continue the "how" engagement on a collegial, level playing field.

In other words, we do NOT present proof as one side of an unsettled argument. Never again! Rather, we wield the truth as a weapon, and we do not miss an opportunity to bludgeon the LN's pimps by exposing them for exactly what they are.

There can be no "response" to Bugliosi. Just repudiation.

Or else his masters win.

Charles

********************************************************

Thank you, John D. Thank you, Charlie B. Thank you, Charles D. And, this is truly coming from the bottom of my heart.

Sometimes I feel like that proverbial "Stranger In A Strange Land."

I do so welcome the logic and rational discourse you [all] have been so generous in sharing and imparting to the membership of this forum. I guess that's why I tend to cling to it, for what becomes increasingly more apparent to me, as a necessary antidote against what I perceive to be a sinister tyrannous death grip presently holding the United States, with its "rabid dog" supporters of war, hostage as the world once again comes close to spiraling dangerously out of control.

As we speak, the present fascistic administration infesting The White House is toying with the idea of resuming nuclear "above ground" testing. This information, coming on the heels of the last quarter of Talbot's book, which BTW, has reduced me to the level of tears on three separate occasions, so far.

Therefore, I will continue my sojourn in speaking the political truth to those whose paths will inevitably cross mine, those who'll inadvertently broach the subject, when they sense the beat of a different drum, as frequently happens in this line of work I refer to as my profession. Having been hired based upon many years of experience, but also for excellent communication skills, from what the Annual Employee Evaluation reveals. I will continue to pass on my books to those, whom I believe can be counted upon to carry the torch, spread the word. It is imperative for me to do so.

It is also the very least I can do in the way of educating those who want to learn.

You've given me renewed faith, for which I am eternally grateful.

Ter

I think Charles may have a point. The intellectual pursuits of today's average young person are watching "Jackass" on MTV, hanging out at the mall, talking on their cell phones, listening to mind deadening rap music and playing video games. They will hear somebody like Bugliosi pontificate about how there was no conspiracy to kill JFK and will believe it hook, line and sinker. Each new generation seems to get more and more intellectually lazy. A recent survey revealed that around seventy percent of the respondents didn't even know what year 9/11 happened on. I am hardly a Rhodes Scholar but this is absolutely uncalled for. I wonder how many High School seniors today don't even know the name of the alleged lone assassin of JFK. I am not kidding. This country is in a lot of trouble.

Brian, there are plenty who see it the other way. They believe that, through the internet, kids are exposed to too much info, and too much BS, and that, as a result, they are increasingly prone to distrust the government. This fact is supported by the large amount of 9/11 skeptics among the young. I see kids wearing anti-Bush T-shirts almost every day.

What we need is not more access to the young, but the opportunity to help then think critically. This forum was designed to help accomplish that purpose. Bugliosi's book may create a small bounce of WC apologists, but the JFK assassination does not pass the smell test of most Americans, and probably never will.

The world is in a lot of trouble.

The USA in relation to the rest of the world is immensely wealthy. But even within the USofA the disparity of wealth and opportunity is enormous.

As long as people 'feel' there are opportunities and that sense gratification is readily catered for, the opiate of the people, whether it be religion or ipods, there is a measure of control that the status quo relies on. Similarly, a significant portion 'feeling' that they have no power disarms them and playing in the various sandpits provided makes the day's go by with a measure of satisfaction. Still, what do these youth, as they congregate in what to the outsider may look like selfish ignorant persuits, really think and talk about?

Concurrently with all the 'dumbing down' is an increase in the contradictions that at some point must fracture. It is at this time that the human innate sense of justice, that all children are born with, can bring about positive changes.

This happened in the sixties. When the next wave comes, it is incumbent on those who know better to take a leading role, and if their rhetoric resonates with truth they naturally, quickly, displace the dis-informationists. Therein lies the absolute need by the status quo for covert disruption and divertion.

One lesson to be learnt from the sixties and part of the seventies is that there is a loss of innocence regarding the powers to be having the peoples interests at heart. It is possible to predict responses and act accordingly.

A proper, focused, preparedness, even by a courageous few can make all the difference. One should be aware that these people exist, and they will spring to prominence when the time comes.

In the meantime, the distortions and contradictions of the status quo continually plants the seeds of its own eventual destruction. It's a Law of Nature.

It is in this context that the books like Bugliosi's and the various TV programs should be viewed. Not as a sign of loss, but as a sign of desperation by those who will eventually lose.

Youth naturally question the 'wisdom' of their elders. When it no longer makes sense, or as in 'South Park': "I plead Chewbacca", a critical mass is reached and the means for rapid spread of word of mouth and now with the means of communication available that were then not available can be desicive.

The status quo is already preempting these events by shows of force, ie having a country at war, and all attendant local surveillance and rapid response teams, as well as controlling scholarships and education funding and flooding areas of discontent with drugs and other means of control like 'entertainment'. The mention of the Roman 'Circus' is apt.

However, basically, there are good people around in all levels of society who will, when push comes to shove, speak out, and people, initially youth, will stand up. So, of course, the control mechanisms are often focused on them and their culture.

_________________________

The notion of 70-80 as an average IQ is an oxymoron. The average is 100. It always has been.

_________________________

War, if that is what one wishes to se it as, is a series of battles, back and forth. Defeatism is not the way. One may wait and regroup, take a breather, but that's all. What is happening is a crumbling of the status quo. That may disturb some and contribute to a sense of loss. However, it doesn't take much to see the glass as half full rather than half empty.

Country after country across the globe are throwing off the yokes of yesteryears and there is much to be optimistic about. However depending on optimism implies room for pessimism. Optimism sans 'workism' is pointless.

Traditionally leftists make good historians when they remember as Che' repeating advice in the beginning of his motorcycle diaries: (paraphrasing) all one has to do is describe the situation as it is, without embellishment.

The reader will naturally gravitate to a proper understanding. The pen IS mightier than the sword, it always has been. That's why the first on the agenda of totalitarian states (Engels: "The State is a body of armed men") is to censor. It's also why one of the first on the agenda of successful progressive revolutions, apart from redistribution of land and wealth (agrarian reform), is literacy.

In effect therein is the overweaning need to 'dumb down' the population of a society twisted by internal contradictions.

________________________________

of interest:

Thought Conceit - http://plusroot.com/dbook/12conceit.html

an interesting article discussing some of the forces at play

"...thought conceit still causes grave problems in three prominent areas. The first area is in a portion of people who have not enjoyed the benefits of a good education. The second area is in the mentally unstable. The third area is in select intellectual circles enamored with sophisticated radical ideologies. Radical ideologies encourage biased intrigues and, as these antagonistic procedures reinforce each other, they polarize society into angry factions where winning is first and truth of little count. Of the three, the gravest danger comes from preemptive dialectics promoted by negative oriented intellectuals".

*********************************************************

"However, basically, there are good people around in all levels of society who will, when push comes to shove, speak out, and people, initially youth, will stand up. So, of course, the control mechanisms are often focused on them and their culture."

I wonder where they're at, right now, John. As it seems as if the only ones standing up are the ones here on this forum, and the other two forums I tend to frequent. When it comes to the average Joe Blow, or the proverbial "man-on-the-street," they either seem to consciously go out of their way to avoid any political discourse, or expressions of opinions on the subject matter, at all costs, or tend to parrot the rabid rights' "war on terrorism" manifesto, as a means of justifying the carnage going on in the Middle East. As long as it isn't affecting their ability to buy gas for their vehicles, as long as their jobs aren't being directly affected by anything now, or in the near future, they remain mute when asked for their thoughts, as if the mere idea might put a curse on their idyllic existence.

As you reiterated, "when push comes to shove, speak out, and people, initially youth, will stand up."

Like with the loss of a job, or their livelihood being outsourced to a Third World Banana Republic. Then, and only then.

"The notion of 70-80 as an average IQ is an oxymoron. The average is 100. It always has been."

Is that right? Well, maybe in your neck of the woods, John. But, I'm speaking in terms of what I've observed here, in the United States, only. Do you dispute the fact that the schools of the U.S. are statistically far behind on the education scale, than say their counterparts in other areas of the globe?

"The reader will naturally gravitate to a proper understanding. The pen IS mightier than the sword, it always has been. That's why the first on the agenda of totalitarian states (Engels: "The State is a body of armed men") is to censor. It's also why one of the first on the agenda of successful progressive revolutions, apart from redistribution of land and wealth (agrarian reform), is literacy.

I should certainly hope so.

In effect therein is the overweaning need to 'dumb down' the population of a society twisted by internal contradictions."

Don't you mean, "overwhelming?"

"Twisted" is putting it mildly, to say the least.

"Thought Conceit - http://plusroot.com/dbook/12conceit.html

an interesting article discussing some of the forces at play

"...thought conceit still causes grave problems in three prominent areas. The first area is in a portion of people who have not enjoyed the benefits of a good education. The second area is in the mentally unstable. The third area is in select intellectual circles enamored with sophisticated radical ideologies. Radical ideologies encourage biased intrigues and, as these antagonistic procedures reinforce each other, they polarize society into angry factions where winning is first and truth of little count. Of the three, the gravest danger comes from preemptive dialectics promoted by negative oriented intellectuals"."

What, exactly, are you wishing to convey here, John? I've always admired your logical analysis of the situation, at hand. But, on this particular occasion, I'll have to admit, I'm stumped. Must be all that dumbing-down I suffered at the hands of those radical intellectuals I supported during the 1960's and the Vietnam War.

Charles D. & William

I only wish that the two of you are absolutely correct and that I will be seen as the "Village Idiot" !

But to me it sounds that I am hearing a locker room speech by a coach at halftime, who is doing his duty, even tho the opposing team is scoring with seemingly little opposition.

Damn the topedoes..full speed ahead !

Surrender hell...we have not yet begun to fight !

General Pickett, you have your orders !

Save your Confederate money boys....the South shall rise again !

Supportive rhetoric, I am afraid, will not win this battle.

The other team is seeking support of the "masses"!

Most of "us" do not think like the masses, and therefore are slow to appreciate the method.

These hundreds of millions want to believe in the "integrity of their Government"!

It is as if the "elders" of their Church and Community are sayng to them, "Your dearly departed Mother was a very saintly lady"......while I and some other "crazed hooligans", are telling them the truth, which was that their Mother, in fact, "...Was the Town Whore"!

If one carefully considers the audience being targeted, I regretably feel that our "opposition" is driving the nail home !

Meanwhile we continue to chase a landscape endlessly filled with windmills, with a faith in our righteous cause and bolstered with the "inner knowledge"...that "God is on OUR side".

It seems that most "losers" conclude that it was because God had abandoned them !

As I said...I sincerely hope that I am seeing with a very obscured perspective!

Charles Black

***********************************************************

While I deplore the deceitful tactics employed by Operation Mockingbird, as well as the success they've established in managing to manipulate the minds and pocket books of mainstream America, I will not be moved, nor swayed from my positional understanding with regard to the unwitting willingness with which the mass populace allows themselves to be lured into this false sense of security.

Is it because Mockingbird, with all its experimental subliminal suggestions via visual aids, has somehow succeeded in subjugating the mental acuity of the western cultures' populace to that of the level of a moron? What can be said for a large swath of the citizenry, whose intelligence quotients fail to add up to 80, whose sense of time and place, geographical, political, historical, bear little in the way of significance or importance to their "lifestyles" when challenged by i-pods, video games, hip-hop, fifth rate motion pictures of banal content, eight commercial TV channels which are, for the most part, merely vehicles used for airing advertisements of useless products via psycho-suggestive pictographics. And, let's not leave out the cable networks and their incessant knack for redundancy in their choice of subject matter, in particular, "Clear Channel."

The repetitive reinforcement of values that belie humane concern and involvement in anything other than what's happening in the lives of a Paris Hilton, Madonna, or Angelina Jolie, and their assorted escapades, especially the obsessive adoptive proclivities of Jolie, leave one to ponder what logic inspires someone to want to subject children to the unwarranted scrutiny of a celebrity's fishbowl existence. Wouldn't one's, not to mention one's childrens, best interests be served by bowing out of the spotlight altogether, when attempting to raise a child in a somewhat "normal" environment, especially a child of another race or culture unfamiliar with white-bread America?

As long as mainstream America [i.Q. 70 - 80] submits to, and continues to accept, this form of subliminal indoctrination as the status quo, the further this country, and its people will slip into the abyss of complacency and ignorance specifically designed for, marketed by, and targeted them, by the very machinations that produced and directed the coup d'etat. It's all about money, the bottom line, and pushing that eternal, infernal American Nightmare. You know the one I'm referring to, where everyone can be a king in their castle, just as long as they have a late model SUV, 50" Plasma Screen "Media" Station, cellphones in every color of the rainbow to match every pair of shoes, or underwear you possess, Nike Air-Jordans, a house in Bel Air, or a house, PERIOD, if they're ever able to afford one. JUST DO IT!!! As the sound-byte commands you to do.

My only weapon of defense against a dumbed-down populace is the written word based upon true facts and figures to support my thesis. I end up giving away more books to those whom I really wish to enlighten, those who can be entrusted to spread the word, to pass on those facts which are being censored or stone-walled by the major media giants and outlets, all of whom are infected with greed, avarice, and mendacity. They are the enemy, and I've seen their eyes. If KCET and KLCS persist in airing that film of Robert Stone's, they must must be implored to air a film of an alternate opinion from which to counter Robert Stone's vehicle. We must continue to counter the opposition. Any suggestions for an alternate film, preferably in the format of a documentary, would be appreciated, as I don't think TMWKK would be allowed to fly in the present climate.

In parting, may I suggest you get up off of your pity-potty and actively pursue getting your word out to the right people, spend your hard earned money on books to educate the children, who are definitely not getting a fair shake in the schools they're forced to attend, and expend your energies in countering any challenging op-eds in your local newspapers, when given the right topic to pique your interest, rather than risk slipping into a depressive state, or worse. At least, make yourself be heard. You never know who might be listening and may benefit from your knowledge on a subject.

This coming fall, PBS will air a documentary titled "Oswald's Ghost," made by filmmaker Robert Stone. Yesterday, quite by accident, I learned that "Oswald's Ghost" was being previewed at the "Museum of Television and Radio" in Beverly Hills (formally called, the Paley Center). So, on less than two hours notice, I stopped everything I was doing and made plans to attend. Present would be the director, Robert Stone, who was unknown to me, and former Senator Gary Hart, of the Schweiker-Hart subcommittee of the Church Committee. Moderating would be Josh Manckewiez, son of Frank Mankiewicz, and now an NBC-TV "Dateline" reporter (those who follow these matters may remember that he did a program featuring an interview with Oswald's brother). The auditorium had only 150 seats, I was informed, and so I should be there early. My first impression, on entering the very modern aluminum and glass building, and then buying my tickets (I attended with a friend), was how much time had passed, because I saw Senator Hart emerge from a door, and he had completely white hair. Then, we took our seats, about 5th row center, and waited a good 40 minutes for the show to begin. I noticed that those in attendance were mostly in their 40s and 50s (and 60s). This was no "Generation X" audience—not at all.

In a brochure, the program was described as follows:

OSWALD's Ghost—Special Advance Screening with Discussion

Acclaimed director Robert Stone. . . offers an unprecedented deconstruction of the myths and controversy surrounding the most debated murder mystery of all time—the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Stone uses a wealth of archival material—and interviews with Gary Hart, Tom Hayden, Mark Lane, and others—to chronicle America's forty-year obsession with the defining event of a generation. . . This film is scheduled for broadcast on American Experience during the 2007 – 2008 season.

In person: Robert Stone, Director, Producer, Writer; Gary Hart, Former U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate.

* * *

The program started with Josh M. explaining that he was only 8 years old when JFK was assassinated, and that it was the first time he saw his father cry. He also said that, as a young journalist, he had covered the HSCA "acoustics" hearings, in 1978, which would make him, at the time, about age 23.

Then Robert Stone took the microphone, and gave a very brief introduction to his film. Stone, at first, was very hard to read. He is very lean, has a big bald head, and looks somewhat like a younger version of James Carville. He said that it was not his purpose—at all—to present any conspiracy theory, but to explore the effect that conspiracy theories have had on the culture. At the end of his brief introduction, he mused that someone had said his film really didn't have a "point of view," and he remarked that he was surprised anyone would say that, "because I do have a point of view". He made the remark with some emphasis, but a bit enigmatically.

Naturally, I was curious as to just what his "point of view" might be; and as the lights dimmed, I looked forward to seeing this film, about which I knew nothing, with an open mind. After all, I have been working on this case for some four decades, am the author of Best Evidence, which was published in January, 1981, and was in print—for 17 years—through a series of four publishers—and have been working for years on Oswald.

Before reading further, be warned: the following narrative is highly subjective, and reflects my own views of the Kennedy case, my own personal reaction to this film, and my own experiences—during the Q and A which followed. At that time, I interacted with the film maker from the audience, and then spoke with him later, in the lobby. It is also my own account of what happened, in general, in the audience—for unknown to me (at least at the outset) was a most pertinent fact: that (as established by a subsequent show of hands) at least 85% of the audience didn't believe the Warren report, and believed there was a conspiracy. Furthermore, this film maker very definitely DID have a point of view—and the film's purpose (which seemed pretty obvious, after awhile) was simply this: to ridicule those who believe in a conspiracy, selectively pick and choose among the conspiracy data the worst and most easily refuted arguments, and then to proceed from there to argue that America's problem with the Kennedy assassination arises not from any issue of evidence, but rather is one of psychology—i.e., we are all hung up because of psychological problems of dealing with "Oswald's ghost", not because of any genuine problem(s) with the evidence. This was not at all obvious at the beginning, but became apparent as the film unfolded.

The key people interviewed for this film, and they appeared repeatedly as the 90 minutes unfolded, were Josiah Thompson, Edward Epstein, Norman Mailer, Priscilla McMillan, Dan Rather, Mark Lane, Hugh Aynesworth, author Robert Dallek, Tom Hayden, and Todd Gitlin.

The Screening – 6/12/07

The film opened (as I recall) with a ground up shot of the Oswald window, and immediately I said to myself: "No point of view"? Then, within seconds, appeared the face of Josiah Thompson, who—in my opinion—provided the filmmaker's spokesperson for conspiracy (although Mark Lane also served that function, and quite credibly, I might add). In any event, Thompson began "the narrative thread"—if I may call it that—by recounting, from his personal experience, what it was like—decades back—to hear that JFK was assassinated in right-wing Dallas, and then to find that the accused was a supposed Marxist, a juxtaposition that simply made no sense, or at least appeared not to, back when it was first announced.

Good archival footage soon appeared showing Oswald, proclaiming his innocence (including the "I'm just a patsy" quote)—and it was some of the best available. "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir,"; "I'm just a patsy". I recently had to work with this same footage—it was well done. Also well done was the presentation of Henry Wade and Curry, making their statements that Oswald was the assassin. They seemed then—and still seem to me to be now—buffoons from another era.

At some point, the Zapruder film was shown—and it was clear (and became even more apparent, as the film unfolded) –that the film, while showing the head-snap, was not showcased to really make the point, as strongly as it could be made. And there were one or two occasions in which, remarkably, the head-snap was actually edited out—just as it is done at the Sixth Floor Museum. (A few years back, Gary Mack explained to me that this was appropriate, and was done to make it more acceptable for "family viewing". Well, I happened not to agree with that, but, in any event, I am all grown up now, and I don't appreciate such editing on a program prepared for national broadcast on PBS).

In fact, the head-snap was most effectively illustrated by Josiah Thompson, shown mimicking JFK's motion backwards, during his own interview.

But there was no detailed discussion of the issue—no physicists to argue this point of view or that, no one to argue the meaning of the enormous red blob—supposedly indicative of a bullet exiting—that suddenly appears in the film, and then disappears, or what that might mean, etc. No detailed discussion of the serious issues presented by the Zapruder film (such as the fact that some 60 witnesses believed the car stopped, faltered, or almost stopped, etc., whereas the Zapruder film shows no such thing). As was made clear later in the Q and A, the producer had no interest in "the forensics"—repeatedly saying that arguing about that was like arguing "theology." Rather, he was here to demonstrate why we all have this hang-up, why we won't let Oswald's ghost rest.

In connection with the head-snap, some genuinely new footage appeared (at least, I had never seen it before)—that of Dan Rather, narrating the Z film on 11/25/63. As many know, Rather managed to get exclusive access (I believe I know how) and proceeded to give a completely false report, to the nation, over the CBS radio network (on 11/25) that the Presidents head "moved forward. . violently forward. . no doubt there" (from memory). Stone edited this, somehow (I would have to review this on a DVD to see how he managed to do it) to minimize Rather's awful reporting, and possibly even omit "no doubt there." The way Stone put it together made it almost appear excusable, understandable. It is neither.

No footage was presented, and much is available, of witnesses who thought the shots came from the front—i.e., no footage of witness Sam Holland, or the other people on the overpass. It was as if none of it even existed. Again, this was in line with the filmmaker's apparent philosophy—in effect, "I'm not here to discuss the forensics, but the public's psychological problem."

Perhaps the best performance—I thought—was turned in by Mark Lane, because of its very understandable human interest quality: a mother defending her son, and asking a lawyer for assistance. He described how he first became involved in the case, how Lee's mother contacted him; and there was footage showing him with Marguerite Oswald and of Marguerite Oswald's statements about her son being falsely accused—and that she believed him to have been a U.S. agent, who was framed for this crime. Of all the statements Marguerite made, the filmmaker deliberately chose the worst—her statement, made on camera, that Lee Oswald had done a "service" for America. I have no idea what she meant by that—because she clearly thought her son was innocent. Possibly she was referring to Lee's trip to Russian, and his 27 month stay there, because its clear—from her testimony, and her private papers—that she believed he was on an intelligence assignment. Participating in the attack on Marguerite's character was Hugh Aynesworth. My point here is not that she didn't say what she is shown saying, but that there is much to choose from, when it comes to Marguerite Oswald, and Stone's purpose seemed to be not to inform, but to ridicule.

A similar point can be made in connection with Ruby. Knowledgeable people know there is a film clip of Ruby, when he was quite healthy and appearing of sound mind, saying there was more to the case than appeared on the surface, that there was a conspiracy, that it went to the top of the government etc.—but that no one would ever know. Instead of airing that clip, Stone chose instead to air Ruby's "deathbed denial," when he was all drugged up and within hours of his death. I'm sorry: I appreciate the problem posed by this "deathbed denial," secretly recorded by Larry Schiller, but doesn't the film maker have the obligation to inform the audience about the other one, too?

Of course, this all comes down to bias, and the choices one makes in "connecting the dots"---particularly when it comes to a case as complex as the JFK assassination.

All of this became quite obvious when it came to Garrison, who is quite easy to ridicule, because of his reliance on Perry Russo, who's account I do not find particularly credible. A considerable number of minutes were spent on exposition of "the code"—i.e., PO Box 19106, etc. At this point, the film maker has a grand old time with the evidence at hand—he had a tape of the doctor who hypnotized Russo, in the act of actually hypnotizing him, and while that was playing, he showed a time piece on a chain, swinging back and forth like a metronome, intercut with a large hypodermic needle, slowing being emptied of its liquid contents. In other words, Garrison was attacked as someone who used hoked up evidence to charge Clay Shaw.

Intercut into this presentation was author Ed Epstein, who's account was used to narrate the episode of "the code," and some very amusing news footage of Senator Long, attempting to explain "the code," on a TV program. As I recall, this section ended with even Mark Lane laughing at Garrison's use of "the code."

Finally, as I recall, this portion of the film ends with Josiah Thompson explaining that he was so discouraged by all this that he left the JFK case for many years. (I remember this quite well, because I was in touch with Thompson off and on during some of this period).

All very well—but if the film maker has the time for all this, how about a minute explaining the evidence that the JFK autopsy notes, along with a first draft of the autopsy, were burned? But. . not a chance.

The "net" of all this, I thought, was to spend valuable time in this film attempting to use one of the weakest and most easy to ridicule ideas, to then ridicule, by association, all work and analysis that indicates a conspiracy in this case, and so not deal with more serious issues.

Throughout, explanations that reeked with pop psychology and pop sociology were provided by the filmmaker, to "explain" the controversy. Interviews used to "explain" the controversy (or to "explain Oswald") came from Norman Mailer, Epstein, and Priscilla McMillan. A lot of the political commentary—particularly comments by Gitlin and Hayden—were very interesting, and quite valid. But, in my opinion, the film makers bias was so heavy handed that it showed right through, and spoiled what might have been an interesting and thoughtful presentation. After all, it doesn't take that much intelligence, after a while, to see a hatchet job. One knows the difference between something that is newsworthy, and something that belongs on the Op-Ed page.

At issue throughout the film, at least implicitly, is whether there is "reasonable doubt" about the official findings. The filmmaker's position, in effect, is that there is not. At some point, the film shows all the books that were written on the case, slowly wafting off, against a black background, towards a cinematic vanishing point, akin to a black hole. It was at this point, that it became obvious (to me, at least) that something was terribly peculiar about this film. For as I watched pictures of Inquest (1966), Rush to Judgment (1966), Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), Ray Marcus's self-published The Bastard Bullet (1967, all about 399), Weisberg's WHITEWASH (and perhaps WHITEWASH II, both from 1965-66) slowly fly away towards a black background, I kept thinking—"Well, here, any second, is going to be a photo of Best Evidence, which was published in January, 1981. After all, Best Evidence certainly contributed to "the culture." It was a book of the Month Club selection, was number 1 on both the UPI and AP best seller lists for weeks, and was on the NY Times list for some three months, rising to the # 4 position. Whether one agrees with my work or not, Best Evidence was an important book. Stanhope Gould, the TV investigative reporter who did much of the Watergate coverage for Cronkite, at CBS (circa 1974) and who later did a documentary based on Best Evidence for KRON-TV, in San Francisco, told the press that my book provided "courtroom quality evidence' that JFK's body had been intercepted and altered. And Doug Horne, of the ARRB, who designed the depositions for the autopsy doctors, is a strong supporter of my work. There are national network reporters who speak with me privately, and who have told me of the importance of my work, and how it affected their own thinking on this case. So naturally, I expected Best Evidence to at least be mentioned.

BUT. . no such luck. . .Best Evidence wasn't shown at all. Instead, as the books traversed through space towards the black background, I glimpsed a picture of Were we Controlled?, by the pseudonymous author Lincoln Lawrence, a truly lightweight piece of fantasy, and other assorted items.

At this point, it seemed to me, the agenda was pretty obvious—and this was commented upon during the subsequent Q and A. This film maker was playing with a stacked deck. He was not going to deal with serious issues of evidence—whether it was the medical evidence, or who Oswald really was; or his trip to the USSR, or his trip to Mexico, etc.; rather, he was going to provide his own highly subjective view of "Oswald's guilt," and then couple that with the "psychology" and "sociology" of the controversy. He was apparently intent on being some combination of Dr. Phil and Freud, with offices on the Grassy Knoll, assuaging our fears, and explaining our "problem."

After Garrison, and some narration and clip selection designed to indicate that he was paranoid, came some minutes spent on Oliver Stone, and on his own philosophy of film making. Stone is shown, on one of his sets, next to the Plexiglas mock up of JFK's body that was used in the autopsy scene in his movie. Quotes were chosen carefully so as to make him the basis for ridicule—that he was akin to a Jackson Pollack of film, just throwing a bunch of stuff together, which really didn’t mean all that much, and hoping that the composite would be effective. Also shown was Robert Groden, complimenting Stone on his film making prowess (note, Groden, not a credentialed film maker of the stature of the late Ebert, who loved the movie JFK) and then another shot of Groden, selling his JFK materials on the grassy knoll.

A number of times, shots of activity in Dealey Plaza were shown, to make the case that the activity in this case was not to be taken seriously, but was the work of a bunch of kooks, who then sell their defective "theories" on the grassy knoll.

No mention is made of the fact that, whatever one may think of Stone, and of JFK, his film led to the historic JFK Records Act, and the creation of the ARRB, and the subsequent release of tens of thousands of pages—perhaps millions of pages—of documents. And just as an example: no mention is made –in this film—of one of the genuine factors that produced the situation the film maker was addressing: the burning of the original autopsy notes, and an earlier draft of the report; the "order not to talk" given to the autopsy doctors and autopsy technicians; the original attempt to lock up the records for 75 years, the subsequent battle for declassification, which has gone on for years; and finally the ARRB, which, finally, led to the release of so many records starting around 1994. Rather, implies this filmmaker, the emergent controversy has all resulted from the country's psychological inability to deal with "Oswald's ghost."

Finally, on the subject of Oswald, Priscilla McMillan was utilized to present her view—as set forth in "Marina and Lee"—that Oswald murdered the President alone and unaided, was perfectly capable of doing so, and had motive, means, and opportunity. But the main person who carried the narrative, in this area, was Norman Mailer, who—as we know from his 1995 book "Oswald's Tale"—now believes (because he certainly didn't back in 1966, when he wrote scathing article on the Warren Report) that Oswald did it, and did it alone. So Mailer, intercut with McMillan, and along with Epstein, with a dab here and there of Robert Dallek, carried the narrative in that area.

The filmed interviews with Tom Hayden and Gitlin were good—very good, I thought—and contained excellent content explaining how these assassinations (I stress the plural, because by this point in "Oswald's Ghost," we are talking about JFK, MLK, and RFK) led to a sense of powerlessness, and to the unrest at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968. Finally, I must say that Mark Lane came off very well.

AFTERMATH

When the lights went on, after about 90 minutes, Senator Hart, Robert Stone, and Josh Mankiewicz all went up to the podium, and took their seats (seated left to right in that order).

Before the Q and A began, Gary Hart spoke—and at some length. I have always admired Gary Hart for the role he played during the Church Committee investigation. But I must say I was surprised to hear him (too) catering to the lone assassin hypothesis, only raising the point that there might be "others behind Oswald." He spoke at length, prior to the Q and A, and it was all about Judith Exner, the Church Committee's discovery of the JFK phone calls to Exner, and then the appearances of Rosselli and his subsequent murder; and the attempt to call Giancana, and his murder. All this could be explained quite briefly, and cogently. But Hart carried on at quite some length. It seems obvious to me that he believes the Mafia was involved in the JFK assassination, a belief seemingly grounded in the suspicious murders of Roselli and Giancana, and the fact that JFK and Gianca were sharing the same girl friend (Exner). Not once did he mention the more serious aspects of the Schweiker-Hart work, which concerns Castro, and RFK, and the Califano and Valenti reports of LBJ personally promoting the idea that Castro was responsible—and that surprised me.

Then, a Q and A began.

At first, I wondered whether it would be proper to participate in the Q and A. I say this because, as an author of a best selling book on the subject which was obviously (and very deliberately) ignored in this project, and someone who worked closely with the ARRB during its existence (many of the autopsy witnesses called were directly from Best Evidence, and in one case, I actually filmed the witness first, and then communicated with the ARRB, and then they took an affidavit) it was obvious that the film maker made a very obvious decision to ignore my work, and to instead address the issue of conspiracy in what I call the "1967 framework."

Let me explain. Generally speaking, prior to Best Evidence, there was no way to explain how it was possible for the Dallas doctors to report the President was struck from the front, yet the Bethesda doctors to find not a trace of frontal entry. Prior to the publication of Best Evidence, it was not possible to reasonably explain how, if bullets were fired into the President's body from the front, they were not recovered at autopsy. My discovery, in October 1966, of evidence that the body had been altered marked a conceptual breakthrough—that the focus should be not on the autopsy report, per se, but on the body itself. The discovery that two FBI agents who attended the autopsy reported that the body arrived with an "additional wrapping" around the head which was "saturated with blood" and further, that upon the removal of that second wrapping, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull," was important. A former Warren Commission attorney, Wesley Liebeler, thought it was sufficiently important enough to make it a major topic in a November 1966 memorandum that went to all the Warren Commissioners, the White House, and Robert Kennedy.

Further, by the time my research was complete, years later, I had developed a complete case—from the existing records—that (1) the body had been intercepted, (2) the wounds had been altered, and (3) this situation was in fact recognized at the outset of the autopsy.

One can choose to deal with all this, or not deal with it. This film maker chose to ignore it. Instead, he chose to showcase Josiah Thompson's "1967 view" of the case—i.e., (and now paraphrasing), "I think there was a shooter over here, and another over there, and another one from the Records Building."—to describe the "conspiracy," along with "I don't believe the single bullet theory". Now that is one way to deal with "conspiracy"; OR, one can address the fundamental issue: fraud in the evidence, at the level of alteration of the body (which, of course, is the answer to why there are no bullets from "other guns" in this case, and why the Bethesda autopsy exam disclosed no evidence of frontal entry).

Fraud in the evidence is what one deals with when one addresses such issues as bullets being removed from the body prior to autopsy; or wounds being altered prior to autopsy. It is the territory of Best Evidence. It is also the issue one addresses when one deals with the autopsy photo data indicating that alteration of the body was hidden because the autopsy photographs in this case are not the originals—or that the camera produced, years later, as the one that took the photographs (as the ARRB's Doug Horne discovered) could not have been the one that took the pictures in evidence.

But all these point come under the umbrella of "forensics"—which the film maker was adamantly claiming was not his subject area—and so I wanted to stay within the ground rules of the evening.

But then, the Q and A started, and it was shortly thereafter that I changed my mind.

There were one or two questions that clearly indicated that the audience was not all that happy with this filmmaker, or his project. But there he was, up on the stage, almost sneering, and drinking a glass of wine ("only in West L.A.")

Because of the opening question or two, questions that indicated skepticism, someone (perhaps it was Stone, but I'm not sure) now asked for a show of hands. How many have read the Warren Report, he asked? How many believe the conclusions? Etc. It quickly became obvious that perhaps 85% of those in the room did not believe the Warren Report—either before, or after his film; and the great majority believed Dallas was the result of a conspiracy. The whole attitude of this film maker—and some of it was verbal, but partly it was body language (he tended to grin, and sneer inappropriately)—was that of an arrogant shrink who tells the patient that "the problem" is in his head, when there really is evidence of a serious physiological problem to be addressed. But, instead of dealing with that, the shrink says, "OK. . but why does that bother you?"

Stone made clear that he didn't want to address "the forensics", which he repeatedly referred to as "theology". No, he insisted; that wasn't his purpose. Not at all. His purpose, he said—almost explicitly—was to address our pre-occupation with this controversy, which he apparently saw as "Oswald's ghost."

Finally, I stood up, and spoke from notes I made as I watched all this unfold. I was recognized, and handed a microphone, and spoke along these lines.

I identified myself as the author of Best Evidence, and said that all editing involves "making choices". So he, as a filmmaker, had to make choices. All very well. But if he was dealing with "the culture," I asked, I did not understand how he could leave out any mention whatsoever of the existence of a book that had been a NY Times best seller, was number one on so many lists, and was in print for 17 years through four publishers, and which addressed the validity of the evidence itself. I also didn't understand how he could fail to address the issue raised by facts sufficiently important that a former WC attorney had, upon being shown evidence of wound alteration, sent out a warning alarm of sorts in the form of a memo (November, 1966) to the Justice Department, other WC attorneys, etc. spelling out the problem. Furthermore, that following this memo, the Office of White House counsel actually suggested a limited reopening of the investigation (just as Liebeler's memo called for) but President Johnson, who said that would not be good for the country, rejected that.

Stone's response was not exactly all that satisfactory. He made some superficial remark that "you're just jealous because you weren't in the film" or some such thing; and he even made some allusion to how much money I made, and then he completely misstated my work. "This man is saying that in the 12 hours following the murder, someone sewed up the President's head. . " etc. etc. I was really surprised at the extent of his misstatements.

At this point, it became obvious—both from his sneering attitude, and his attempt to have it both ways—that (to me, anyway) that this fellow's entire approach was completely superficial, and that he was a mental lightweight, and even irresponsible, at that.

In other words, faced with a time-line concerning the JFK controversy that extended from November 1963 to the present (that's 43 years later), and included a number of major events in the investigatory and book publishing areas, he chose to "cut it off" at around 1968, with a "postscript" of sorts to 1976-79 (the HSCA investigation), and then to ridicule the JFK researchers by presenting Josiah Thompson (and his view of Dealey Plaza) and Priscilla McMillan (with her view of Oswald) and using that as the state of the debate. Who was he kidding?

Does Stone really maintain that it is a matter of "theology" that the Dallas observations of the head wound are entirely different from the Bethesda observations? (If so, what temple does he attend?)

Does Stone really maintain that it is a matter of theology that the trach incision made in Dallas ("2-3 cm" according to what Dr. Perry told me, in October, 1966, which was corroborated by Dr. Carrico) grew to "7 – 8 cm" by the time the body reached Bethesda, according to the Warren Commission testimony of the autopsy doctor, Commander Humes?

Does he really believe that it is a matter of theology that the Dallas exit wound, at the back of the head, described as being "35 sq centimeter" grew to a size 400 % larger, 170 sq. centimeter, as shown on the diagram drawn at autopsy? And documented even further, in 1996, when Doctor Boswell appeared before the ARRB and, under oath, drew the contour of the wound on a medical school skull?

Does he really believe that the report of two FBI agents who reported that there was "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull" can be ignored?

Does he really believe that he can dismiss a work which presented—both based on telephone interview, and via video—the fact that JFK's body arrived in a body bag at Bethesda? Or that documents document an interception, because they show distinctly different times for the arrival of two coffins at Bethesda—6:35 pm for the shipping casket (when the body first arrived); 7:17 when the empty Dallas coffin arrived; and 8pm when the Dallas coffin (now with the body back inside) was returned to the morgue, this time under the official escort of the tri-service casket team?

Well, the apparent answer is that he really doesn't have time for such complexities; and so he doesn't know, and/or could care less.

Consequently, holding his glass of wine, in one hand, he completely mangled my work, misinforming the audience about what my book stated. When I pointed out that I had also produced a video that had national distribution (some 50,000 copies) and had witnesses to support my major thesis, he said, "Yes, I saw that film, you had only one witness. . "—another false statement. So where was he getting this information from—the Honorable Josiah Thompson? The Best Evidence Research Video—which sold around 50,000 copies—was given an A rating in several national magazines., and has some six witnesses to the events being described.

What Stone was saying was pure drivel. He not only had no intention of dealing with the forensics—he didn't even know the forensics.

Here's how I ended my own "question" (everyone who stood up had a combination of "speech + question"). I said: "Sir, if you do not deal with the issue of fraud in the evidence; if you do not deal with the work of the ARRB, and Doug Horne, who interviewed the doctors, and believes the body was altered. . .and finally, if you then base an "Oswald narrative" on this falsified evidence, then, with regard to Oswald, you aren't engaged in doing history; you're engaged in character assassination."

Then I sat down. I noticed that Senator Hart cast his eyes downward, as I made these remarks; and then, it seemed, the floodgates opened, to a much more aggressive questioning. As other questioners fired away at the film director, it really started to get a bit heated, and I noticed that Gary Hart took out a large pair of pinkish-red Ray Ban sun glasses, and donned them. The questioning proceeded from there—Hart, on the left, wearing these pink-red Ray Bans and looking like he was out of the Sopranos, Stone, in the center, holding his glass of wine and looking like a sneering James Carville; and Josh Mankiewicz on the right, trying to keep the peace.

It was, to way the least, a most interesting affair.

* * *

AFTERMATH - - Part II

When the Q and A was over, quite a few people came over to shake my hand, "You said what had to be said," etc. Also, during this period, it became clear that two assassination researchers were there—Pat Speare and Clint Bradford. So we all shook hands and spoke briefly. A number of people came over and wanted to talk. It was obvious that a substantial percentage of this audience were not friendly---or at the very least, highly critical—to the filmmaker and his product.

AFTERMATH: --Part III (the lobby)

Note: See attached photo of me talking with Stone (Stone, on left; me, on right)

Picture taken by Clint Bradford

Tall person with white hair (with "purple eyes") is Pat Speare

When I exited the auditorium to the lobby, there was Stone, surrounded by people, firing questions at him, as to his presentation. So I wandered over to that group, and listened. Mel Stuart, surely now in his late 70s, who had produced Four Days in November (the "Oswald did it alone" documentary, circa, 1964) was there, explaining to anyone who would listen that Jack Ruby was just a nut, and one of the audience was talking to Stone, on some point of evidence. When I got near him, he threw out his hands and said, "I give up! You already won!"—returning to his point of view that the JFK researchers had succeeded in altering he public's state of mind, and his film was simply addressing that issue, and not the evidence.

I came away from the evening—my "night at the museum"—with these thoughts:

I'm pleased that the American public will see the footage of Oswald saying he was innocent. That is important; and decades ago, that kind of video was not available, as it is today. (Kudos to Gary Mack, at the Sixth Floor Museum, for organizing this material, and making it available).

I'm pleased that the public will see the Zapruder film (once again) projected.

I'm pleased that the public will see Dan Rather's false and inaccurate narration, even if that has been edited to tone down the egregious nature of what he did.

I'm glad that the public will see Mark Lane at his best---I think he presented himself quite well.

I'm sorry that the filmmaker never pointed out the critical connection between the film JFK and the JFK Records Act. (Did I miss that? If so, my apologies. But I don't remember that.)

I'm sorry that the film maker never pointed out the importance of the evidence indicating the autopsy was falsified, and the connection between that concept, and the invalidity of evidence indicating Oswald's alleged guilt. I'm glad the film contains Oswald's statement "I'm just a patsy," but its most unfortunate, and shows Stone's bias, that he didn't see fit to include what Oswald told his brother Robert, on November 23, 1963, when Robert visited him in jail. When Robert challenged Lee, asking what the devil was going on, Lee responded, "Do not believe the so-called 'evidence.'" That goes way beyond "I'm just a patsy." That shows a man perfectly aware that he is being framed.

I'm sorry that the film maker, who essentially demonized Oswald, didn't present anyone who could present a view of Oswald that would rebut what Mailer and Priscilla McMillan (both of whom accept Oswald's guilt) were saying—so what we have here, in 2007, is a recycled view of Oswald, from 30 years ago (in the case of McMillan) and 14 years ago (in the case of Mailer). I happen to respect Priscilla, with whom I've exchanged emails over the years, and who has been very kind to me—but that doesn't absolve the filmmaker from the responsibility of presenting the "other" point of view. There is excellent footage from 1990—because I filmed it—of Marina Oswald talking about how much Lee "adored" Kennedy, but none of that is in this film. Again, this was the filmmaker's choice.

At one point, one of the "experts" said that Lee admired Adolph Hitler—what kind of nonsense is that? (Does that come from Lee's merely having read Mien Kampf? So what?)

I'm sorry that no one dealt with the issue of Sylvia Odio, or of Oswald's behavior on his trip to Mexico. None of these matters were explored, at all. Does the filmmaker think that Oswald's trip to Mexico City, just seven weeks prior to Dallas, and his behavior at the Soviet Embassy and Cuban Consulate, were the result of neurosis? (He probably does!)

Finally, I am sorry that –in terms of the Dealey Plaza shooting itself—the film shows Josiah Thompson, who proposes a false hypothesis, carrying on with all his supposed "angst" about "the conspiracy". Here is an author who, in his 1967 book, Six Seconds in Dallas, made one of the biggest blunders in this case. Thompson failed to note the major difference in dimension between the head wound at Dallas and the wound(s) at Bethesda. And so he analyzed the situation as follows (quoting now from his book, Six Seconds):

"From the Parkland doctors we get the picture of a bullet that struck the right front of the President’s head. . . . ranged backward causing massive damage to the right brain hemisphere, sprung open the occipital and parietal bones, and exploded out over the rear of the limousine. From the Bethesda surgeons we get the picture of a bullet entering the rear of the President’s head and driving forward. . . Putting the two pictures together we discern outlines of the double impact."

Of course, one should not be "putting the two pictures together," because, as I wrote in Best Evidence (1981), to do so represented a serious analytic error:

"Putting the two pictures together” was incorrect. Both pertained to the same body, but to different times. Six hours separated those two observations." (See Best Evidence, Chapter 13).

Indeed, that is the heart of the matter, because what happened in those six hours holds the key to the Kennedy case.

In fact, what these two "pictures" actually represent are the "before" and "after" view of the head—the head as it appeared in Dallas, at the Parkland Hospital Emergency Room (12:40 – 1:20 PM, CST), versus the head as it appeared at Bethesda, at the time of autopsy (8 P.M., EST). To make the point more directly: if photographs existed at both locations of what these two groups of doctors described, in their reports and testimony, then any schoolboy would immediately see the anatomic difference(s), and, furthermore, appreciate the significance of those differences. No one would attempt to "put the pictures together"; rather, seeing the divergent photos of a body that was obviously not in the same condition at these two different points in time, a person would ask: "Hey, what's going on here? Who altered these wounds? Who altered the body?" But Josiah Thompson didn't see it that way (and, clinging to his 1967 theory, apparently, still doesn't). Consequently, he persists in this false view and so still, in 2007, is engaged in promoting a fallacious analysis based upon "putting the two pictures together."

The late Wesley Liebeler is the UCLA Law professor who served on the Warren Commission, and to whom (in October, 1966) I brought my discovery of the first evidence that the body had been altered (See Best Evidence, Chapter 9, describing what happened on October 24, 1966, when I first showed him the FBI report that said there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull). In the years following, and after Thompson's book was published (1967), Liebeler thought it quite ironic, even comical, that a philosophy professor would make such a significant error. Paul Hoch, in assessing Best Evidence years later, has told me on more than one occasion that my work was the first to take into account "the parameter of time."

Thompson's entire view of the case, circa 1967, is grounded in this false analysis, yet he has never had the courage to admit his error—not after Best Evidence was published in 1981, and not to this day. He continues to promote the notion that nothing is amiss, and that his analysis represents some sort of "state of the art." This he always presents along with his terrible angst, stemming from his days as a philosophy professor, before be came a private detective, at being unable to resolve the mysteries of the Kennedy assassination (which is why I have dubbed him the Prince of Uncertainty). I think Thompson's failure to address this issue is outrageous, and just plain ridiculous.

The issue is important, in 2007, because of the way filmmaker Stone uses Thompson, in his movie, as a key spokesperson for conspiracy. The basis for Thompson's entire analysis is false. But by recycling this 1967 view, and making Josiah Thompson the spokesperson for "conspiracy," filmmaker Stone's Ghost of Oswald has chosen someone with a weak (and in fact false) hypothesis, a way of viewing the case that was perfectly appropriate in 1967, but is no longer valid. Consequently, Oswald's Ghost indeed has a ghostly quality—the quality of going back to the period of 1967 (intellectually, the "Jurassic Park" version of the medical evidence) and evoking the state of the controversy as it was some 40 years ago, when the issue of conspiracy turned on the matter of the "number of shooters," and not on the validity of the evidence (i.e., the integrity of the body at the time of autopsy). Yet the issue of authenticity, and fraud in the evidence, is exactly where the emphasis ought to be placed. And that issue—the serious problems with the medical evidence, not some psychological hang-up—is the root cause of the problem in the JFK case.

As I have often said: if the autopsy in this case is valid, along with the ballistic evidence (bullet 399, plus the two large fragments found in the JFK limousine that evening), then Oswald shot the President. In that case, the shots came from the sniper's nest, and JFK's death was the result of his body being struck by Oswald's bullets, fired from his mail-order rifle. But if the body was altered, then that is a false appearance; and in that case, one must go one step further, and address the Kennedy assassination at a more fundamental level—i.e., as to whether key evidence was falsified to mislead the investigative apparatus of the U.S. Government as to what happened in Dallas earlier that day. One must understand that creating that false appearance was integral to the plot to murder JFK. There's a simple choice here—either one faces this issue, or one does not. There's no "in-between." Indeed, the covert interception and alteration of JFK's body –and not the Tippit murder—is the Rosetta Stone to the Kennedy assassination.

My final comment: enjoy the film for the good archival footage, but keep in mind that it provides an excellent example of how a biased film maker has "connected the dots" in a most contrived way to pursue his own agenda; further, how he employs weak arguments he can shoot down, and avoids critical issues, to create a film about "the controversy."

The ghost of Oswald will not rest, not because American's have a psychological problem, but because there are real problems with the medical evidence in this case, and it all comes down to the body—specifically, to the integrity of the body at the time it was received for autopsy, on the night of the President's murder. In short, the key issue is whether the body, at autopsy, provided an accurate diagram of the shooting of President Kennedy, or whether its false condition constituted a medical forgery contrived by those who took the President's life.

That's what this case is all about, that’s why Oswald's ghost will not rest, and filmmaker Robert Stone never deals with that issue.

*****************************************************

And, after reading this again, all I can say is, DL, you made me real proud to know you as a friend.

Love,

Ter

This coming fall, PBS will air a documentary titled "Oswald's Ghost," made by filmmaker Robert Stone. Yesterday, quite by accident, I learned that "Oswald's Ghost" was being previewed at the "Museum of Television and Radio" in Beverly Hills (formally called, the Paley Center). So, on less than two hours notice, I stopped everything I was doing and made plans to attend. Present would be the director, Robert Stone, who was unknown to me, and former Senator Gary Hart, of the Schweiker-Hart subcommittee of the Church Committee. Moderating would be Josh Manckewiez, son of Frank Mankiewicz, and now an NBC-TV "Dateline" reporter (those who follow these matters may remember that he did a program featuring an interview with Oswald's brother). The auditorium had only 150 seats, I was informed, and so I should be there early. My first impression, on entering the very modern aluminum and glass building, and then buying my tickets (I attended with a friend), was how much time had passed, because I saw Senator Hart emerge from a door, and he had completely white hair. Then, we took our seats, about 5th row center, and waited a good 40 minutes for the show to begin. I noticed that those in attendance were mostly in their 40s and 50s (and 60s). This was no "Generation X" audience—not at all.

In a brochure, the program was described as follows:

OSWALD's Ghost—Special Advance Screening with Discussion

Acclaimed director Robert Stone. . . offers an unprecedented deconstruction of the myths and controversy surrounding the most debated murder mystery of all time—the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Stone uses a wealth of archival material—and interviews with Gary Hart, Tom Hayden, Mark Lane, and others—to chronicle America's forty-year obsession with the defining event of a generation. . . This film is scheduled for broadcast on American Experience during the 2007 – 2008 season.

In person: Robert Stone, Director, Producer, Writer; Gary Hart, Former U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate.

* * *

There were one or two questions that clearly indicated that the audience was not all that happy with this filmmaker, or his project. But there he was, up on the stage, almost sneering, and drinking a glass of wine ("only in West L.A.")

Because of the opening question or two, questions that indicated skepticism, someone (perhaps it was Stone, but I'm not sure) now asked for a show of hands. How many have read the Warren Report, he asked? How many believe the conclusions? Etc. It quickly became obvious that perhaps 85% of those in the room did not believe the Warren Report—either before, or after his film; and the great majority believed Dallas was the result of a conspiracy. The whole attitude of this film maker—and some of it was verbal, but partly it was body language (he tended to grin, and sneer inappropriately)—was that of an arrogant shrink who tells the patient that "the problem" is in his head, when there really is evidence of a serious physiological problem to be addressed. But, instead of dealing with that, the shrink says, "OK. . but why does that bother you?"

Stone made clear that he didn't want to address "the forensics", which he repeatedly referred to as "theology". No, he insisted; that wasn't his purpose. Not at all. His purpose, he said—almost explicitly—was to address our pre-occupation with this controversy, which he apparently saw as "Oswald's ghost."

Finally, I stood up, and spoke from notes I made as I watched all this unfold. I was recognized, and handed a microphone, and spoke along these lines.

I identified myself as the author of Best Evidence, and said that all editing involves "making choices". So he, as a filmmaker, had to make choices. All very well. But if he was dealing with "the culture," I asked, I did not understand how he could leave out any mention whatsoever of the existence of a book that had been a NY Times best seller, was number one on so many lists, and was in print for 17 years through four publishers, and which addressed the validity of the evidence itself. I also didn't understand how he could fail to address the issue raised by facts sufficiently important that a former WC attorney had, upon being shown evidence of wound alteration, sent out a warning alarm of sorts in the form of a memo (November, 1966) to the Justice Department, other WC attorneys, etc. spelling out the problem. Furthermore, that following this memo, the Office of White House counsel actually suggested a limited reopening of the investigation (just as Liebeler's memo called for) but President Johnson, who said that would not be good for the country, rejected that.

Stone's response was not exactly all that satisfactory. He made some superficial remark that "you're just jealous because you weren't in the film" or some such thing; and he even made some allusion to how much money I made, and then he completely misstated my work. "This man is saying that in the 12 hours following the murder, someone sewed up the President's head. . " etc. etc. I was really surprised at the extent of his misstatements.

At this point, it became obvious—both from his sneering attitude, and his attempt to have it both ways—that (to me, anyway) that this fellow's entire approach was completely superficial, and that he was a mental lightweight, and even irresponsible, at that.

In other words, faced with a time-line concerning the JFK controversy that extended from November 1963 to the present (that's 43 years later), and included a number of major events in the investigatory and book publishing areas, he chose to "cut it off" at around 1968, with a "postscript" of sorts to 1976-79 (the HSCA investigation), and then to ridicule the JFK researchers by presenting Josiah Thompson (and his view of Dealey Plaza) and Priscilla McMillan (with her view of Oswald) and using that as the state of the debate. Who was he kidding?

Does Stone really maintain that it is a matter of "theology" that the Dallas observations of the head wound are entirely different from the Bethesda observations? (If so, what temple does he attend?)

Does Stone really maintain that it is a matter of theology that the trach incision made in Dallas ("2-3 cm" according to what Dr. Perry told me, in October, 1966, which was corroborated by Dr. Carrico) grew to "7 – 8 cm" by the time the body reached Bethesda, according to the Warren Commission testimony of the autopsy doctor, Commander Humes?

Does he really believe that it is a matter of theology that the Dallas exit wound, at the back of the head, described as being "35 sq centimeter" grew to a size 400 % larger, 170 sq. centimeter, as shown on the diagram drawn at autopsy? And documented even further, in 1996, when Doctor Boswell appeared before the ARRB and, under oath, drew the contour of the wound on a medical school skull?

Does he really believe that the report of two FBI agents who reported that there was "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull" can be ignored?

Does he really believe that he can dismiss a work which presented—both based on telephone interview, and via video—the fact that JFK's body arrived in a body bag at Bethesda? Or that documents document an interception, because they show distinctly different times for the arrival of two coffins at Bethesda—6:35 pm for the shipping casket (when the body first arrived); 7:17 when the empty Dallas coffin arrived; and 8pm when the Dallas coffin (now with the body back inside) was returned to the morgue, this time under the official escort of the tri-service casket team?

Well, the apparent answer is that he really doesn't have time for such complexities; and so he doesn't know, and/or could care less.

Consequently, holding his glass of wine, in one hand, he completely mangled my work, misinforming the audience about what my book stated. When I pointed out that I had also produced a video that had national distribution (some 50,000 copies) and had witnesses to support my major thesis, he said, "Yes, I saw that film, you had only one witness. . "—another false statement. So where was he getting this information from—the Honorable Josiah Thompson? The Best Evidence Research Video—which sold around 50,000 copies—was given an A rating in several national magazines., and has some six witnesses to the events being described.

What Stone was saying was pure drivel. He not only had no intention of dealing with the forensics—he didn't even know the forensics.

Here's how I ended my own "question" (everyone who stood up had a combination of "speech + question"). I said: "Sir, if you do not deal with the issue of fraud in the evidence; if you do not deal with the work of the ARRB, and Doug Horne, who interviewed the doctors, and believes the body was altered. . .and finally, if you then base an "Oswald narrative" on this falsified evidence, then, with regard to Oswald, you aren't engaged in doing history; you're engaged in character assassination."

Then I sat down. I noticed that Senator Hart cast his eyes downward, as I made these remarks; and then, it seemed, the floodgates opened, to a much more aggressive questioning. As other questioners fired away at the film director, it really started to get a bit heated, and I noticed that Gary Hart took out a large pair of pinkish-red Ray Ban sun glasses, and donned them. The questioning proceeded from there—Hart, on the left, wearing these pink-red Ray Bans and looking like he was out of the Sopranos, Stone, in the center, holding his glass of wine and looking like a sneering James Carville; and Josh Mankiewicz on the right, trying to keep the peace.

It was, to way the least, a most interesting affair.

* * *

AFTERMATH - - Part II

When the Q and A was over, quite a few people came over to shake my hand, "You said what had to be said," etc. Also, during this period, it became clear that two assassination researchers were there—Pat Speare and Clint Bradford. So we all shook hands and spoke briefly. A number of people came over and wanted to talk. It was obvious that a substantial percentage of this audience were not friendly---or at the very least, highly critical—to the filmmaker and his product.

AFTERMATH: --Part III (the lobby)

Note: See attached photo of me talking with Stone (Stone, on left; me, on right)

Picture taken by Clint Bradford

Tall person with white hair (with "purple eyes") is Pat Speare

When I exited the auditorium to the lobby, there was Stone, surrounded by people, firing questions at him, as to his presentation. So I wandered over to that group, and listened. Mel Stuart, surely now in his late 70s, who had produced Four Days in November (the "Oswald did it alone" documentary, circa, 1964) was there, explaining to anyone who would listen that Jack Ruby was just a nut, and one of the audience was talking to Stone, on some point of evidence. When I got near him, he threw out his hands and said, "I give up! You already won!"—returning to his point of view that the JFK researchers had succeeded in altering he public's state of mind, and his film was simply addressing that issue, and not the evidence.

I came away from the evening—my "night at the museum"—with these thoughts:

I'm pleased that the American public will see the footage of Oswald saying he was innocent. That is important; and decades ago, that kind of video was not available, as it is today. (Kudos to Gary Mack, at the Sixth Floor Museum, for organizing this material, and making it available).

I'm pleased that the public will see the Zapruder film (once again) projected.

I'm pleased that the public will see Dan Rather's false and inaccurate narration, even if that has been edited to tone down the egregious nature of what he did.

I'm glad that the public will see Mark Lane at his best---I think he presented himself quite well.

I'm sorry that the filmmaker never pointed out the critical connection between the film JFK and the JFK Records Act. (Did I miss that? If so, my apologies. But I don't remember that.)

I'm sorry that the film maker never pointed out the importance of the evidence indicating the autopsy was falsified, and the connection between that concept, and the invalidity of evidence indicating Oswald's alleged guilt. I'm glad the film contains Oswald's statement "I'm just a patsy," but its most unfortunate, and shows Stone's bias, that he didn't see fit to include what Oswald told his brother Robert, on November 23, 1963, when Robert visited him in jail. When Robert challenged Lee, asking what the devil was going on, Lee responded, "Do not believe the so-called 'evidence.'" That goes way beyond "I'm just a patsy." That shows a man perfectly aware that he is being framed.

I'm sorry that the film maker, who essentially demonized Oswald, didn't present anyone who could present a view of Oswald that would rebut what Mailer and Priscilla McMillan (both of whom accept Oswald's guilt) were saying—so what we have here, in 2007, is a recycled view of Oswald, from 30 years ago (in the case of McMillan) and 14 years ago (in the case of Mailer). I happen to respect Priscilla, with whom I've exchanged emails over the years, and who has been very kind to me—but that doesn't absolve the filmmaker from the responsibility of presenting the "other" point of view. There is excellent footage from 1990—because I filmed it—of Marina Oswald talking about how much Lee "adored" Kennedy, but none of that is in this film. Again, this was the filmmaker's choice.

At one point, one of the "experts" said that Lee admired Adolph Hitler—what kind of nonsense is that? (Does that come from Lee's merely having read Mien Kampf? So what?)

I'm sorry that no one dealt with the issue of Sylvia Odio, or of Oswald's behavior on his trip to Mexico. None of these matters were explored, at all. Does the filmmaker think that Oswald's trip to Mexico City, just seven weeks prior to Dallas, and his behavior at the Soviet Embassy and Cuban Consulate, were the result of neurosis? (He probably does!)

Finally, I am sorry that –in terms of the Dealey Plaza shooting itself—the film shows Josiah Thompson, who proposes a false hypothesis, carrying on with all his supposed "angst" about "the conspiracy". Here is an author who, in his 1967 book, Six Seconds in Dallas, made one of the biggest blunders in this case. Thompson failed to note the major difference in dimension between the head wound at Dallas and the wound(s) at Bethesda. And so he analyzed the situation as follows (quoting now from his book, Six Seconds):

"From the Parkland doctors we get the picture of a bullet that struck the right front of the President’s head. . . . ranged backward causing massive damage to the right brain hemisphere, sprung open the occipital and parietal bones, and exploded out over the rear of the limousine. From the Bethesda surgeons we get the picture of a bullet entering the rear of the President’s head and driving forward. . . Putting the two pictures together we discern outlines of the double impact."

Of course, one should not be "putting the two pictures together," because, as I wrote in Best Evidence (1981), to do so represented a serious analytic error:

"Putting the two pictures together” was incorrect. Both pertained to the same body, but to different times. Six hours separated those two observations." (See Best Evidence, Chapter 13).

Indeed, that is the heart of the matter, because what happened in those six hours holds the key to the Kennedy case.

In fact, what these two "pictures" actually represent are the "before" and "after" view of the head—the head as it appeared in Dallas, at the Parkland Hospital Emergency Room (12:40 – 1:20 PM, CST), versus the head as it appeared at Bethesda, at the time of autopsy (8 P.M., EST). To make the point more directly: if photographs existed at both locations of what these two groups of doctors described, in their reports and testimony, then any schoolboy would immediately see the anatomic difference(s), and, furthermore, appreciate the significance of those differences. No one would attempt to "put the pictures together"; rather, seeing the divergent photos of a body that was obviously not in the same condition at these two different points in time, a person would ask: "Hey, what's going on here? Who altered these wounds? Who altered the body?" But Josiah Thompson didn't see it that way (and, clinging to his 1967 theory, apparently, still doesn't). Consequently, he persists in this false view and so still, in 2007, is engaged in promoting a fallacious analysis based upon "putting the two pictures together."

The late Wesley Liebeler is the UCLA Law professor who served on the Warren Commission, and to whom (in October, 1966) I brought my discovery of the first evidence that the body had been altered (See Best Evidence, Chapter 9, describing what happened on October 24, 1966, when I first showed him the FBI report that said there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull). In the years following, and after Thompson's book was published (1967), Liebeler thought it quite ironic, even comical, that a philosophy professor would make such a significant error. Paul Hoch, in assessing Best Evidence years later, has told me on more than one occasion that my work was the first to take into account "the parameter of time."

Thompson's entire view of the case, circa 1967, is grounded in this false analysis, yet he has never had the courage to admit his error—not after Best Evidence was published in 1981, and not to this day. He continues to promote the notion that nothing is amiss, and that his analysis represents some sort of "state of the art." This he always presents along with his terrible angst, stemming from his days as a philosophy professor, before be came a private detective, at being unable to resolve the mysteries of the Kennedy assassination (which is why I have dubbed him the Prince of Uncertainty). I think Thompson's failure to address this issue is outrageous, and just plain ridiculous.

The issue is important, in 2007, because of the way filmmaker Stone uses Thompson, in his movie, as a key spokesperson for conspiracy. The basis for Thompson's entire analysis is false. But by recycling this 1967 view, and making Josiah Thompson the spokesperson for "conspiracy," filmmaker Stone's Ghost of Oswald has chosen someone with a weak (and in fact false) hypothesis, a way of viewing the case that was perfectly appropriate in 1967, but is no longer valid. Consequently, Oswald's Ghost indeed has a ghostly quality—the quality of going back to the period of 1967 (intellectually, the "Jurassic Park" version of the medical evidence) and evoking the state of the controversy as it was some 40 years ago, when the issue of conspiracy turned on the matter of the "number of shooters," and not on the validity of the evidence (i.e., the integrity of the body at the time of autopsy). Yet the issue of authenticity, and fraud in the evidence, is exactly where the emphasis ought to be placed. And that issue—the serious problems with the medical evidence, not some psychological hang-up—is the root cause of the problem in the JFK case.

As I have often said: if the autopsy in this case is valid, along with the ballistic evidence (bullet 399, plus the two large fragments found in the JFK limousine that evening), then Oswald shot the President. In that case, the shots came from the sniper's nest, and JFK's death was the result of his body being struck by Oswald's bullets, fired from his mail-order rifle. But if the body was altered, then that is a false appearance; and in that case, one must go one step further, and address the Kennedy assassination at a more fundamental level—i.e., as to whether key evidence was falsified to mislead the investigative apparatus of the U.S. Government as to what happened in Dallas earlier that day. One must understand that creating that false appearance was integral to the plot to murder JFK. There's a simple choice here—either one faces this issue, or one does not. There's no "in-between." Indeed, the covert interception and alteration of JFK's body –and not the Tippit murder—is the Rosetta Stone to the Kennedy assassination.

My final comment: enjoy the film for the good archival footage, but keep in mind that it provides an excellent example of how a biased film maker has "connected the dots" in a most contrived way to pursue his own agenda; further, how he employs weak arguments he can shoot down, and avoids critical issues, to create a film about "the controversy."

The ghost of Oswald will not rest, not because American's have a psychological problem, but because there are real problems with the medical evidence in this case, and it all comes down to the body—specifically, to the integrity of the body at the time it was received for autopsy, on the night of the President's murder. In short, the key issue is whether the body, at autopsy, provided an accurate diagram of the shooting of President Kennedy, or whether its false condition constituted a medical forgery contrived by those who took the President's life.

That's what this case is all about, that’s why Oswald's ghost will not rest, and filmmaker Robert Stone never deals with that issue.

**********************************************************

"It quickly became obvious that perhaps 85% of those in the room did not believe the Warren Report—either before, or after his film; and the great majority believed Dallas was the result of a conspiracy."

"One Brief Shining Moment," to quote Manchester.

"What Stone was saying was pure drivel. He not only had no intention of dealing with the forensics—he didn't even know the forensics."

Robert Stone, is that his name? Is he a shrink? If so, he's obviously not a shrink in the same sense of the meaning of the word, as that of a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist has an M.D. after his name, which I would presume, if Robert Stone was in possession of said credentialing following his name, would not have tried to pass off the subject of forensics with such ridiculous abandonment. Is he then, to be considered a "psychologist" [not a medical doctor]? If so, did this certification therefore qualify him as an expert with enough of a track record in treating human psychosis that he could be then be elected as a quantifiable spokesperson on behalf of the psychological welfare and mental health of a nation which had witnessed the trauma of the events surrounding November 22, 1963? I seriously doubt this.

"I'm sorry that the film maker never pointed out the importance of the evidence indicating the autopsy was falsified, and the connection between that concept, and the invalidity of evidence indicating Oswald's alleged guilt. I'm glad the film contains Oswald's statement "I'm just a patsy," but its most unfortunate, and shows Stone's bias, that he didn't see fit to include what Oswald told his brother Robert, on November 23, 1963, when Robert visited him in jail. When Robert challenged Lee, asking what the devil was going on, Lee responded, "Do not believe the so-called 'evidence.'" That goes way beyond "I'm just a patsy." That shows a man perfectly aware that he is being framed."

This is what is seared in my memory for all time, and what chillingly lead me to believe that they were literally trying to frame this guy. His body language was totally indicative of someone who had just been set up to take a fall. And, this was way before the term "body language," and the study thereof, would ever enter the American lexicon. I could clearly perceive this through my eighteen-year-old eyes and ears, at the time it was happening.

DL, how did I manage to miss this? Was it a private screening, at invitation only? I ended up working until 20:30 that night, anyway. But, had I known, maybe I could've gotten someone to have taken over for me, or if given enough time, been able to have rescheduled a few of my later patients to come in earlier in the day.

In any event, you made me proud of your stand against that obvious charlatan. And, if KCET, or KLCS insists on airing it, I've informed them that I will withdraw any future money and support that I've been so generous with, in the past.

I'm so glad you were able to hook up with Pat Speer and Clint Bradford, and to kind of close ranks around those people. It always helps to appear in numbers and present the viable alternative when presented with another such an obvious "whitewash" of the facts. Thanks for the pictures, too.

Talk to you later.

Ter