Terry Mauro

Ter .....here are the comparisons...

The Officers name is Marvin Wise.....

Perhaps after he saw those cameras rolling, he smartened himself up.....

As he is right tip top in a Beers photo....leading the way...while Officer Billy Lee Bass now takes the rear...

B..

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

Thanks, Bern!

Check out the forehead, the cheekbone, and the jawline between Badgeman and these other two pics.

Again, I really appreciate this.

Anybody else notice a resemblance? After all, sometimes the answer can be right under your nose, and who would've thought about questioning it, at the time? Who woulda thunk it anyhow, back then? But, it sure looks like a make, to me.

What I'm seeing is JFK's body slipping down with his hands slipping away from his throat, elbows down, at this point, as the fatal shot impacts his skull at the right temporal/parietal region, driving his head further down

The idee fixé is the consummate tyrant.

That shot appears to have come from the area on the knoll to the right, over by the underpass. But, that's JMHO.

Where the two policemen were stationed.

And a shot from there (real quick, while the cops were looking the other way) drove Kennedy's head...down.

Glad you're on the case.

Ashton

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

"The idee fixé is the consummate tyrant."

No parlez vous francaise, pal! Yo hablo espanol.

"Where the two policemen were stationed."

And, where were they [the two policemen] when everyone ran up the knoll [like lemmings] when those guys in the suits and walkie talkies, flashing S.S. badges, told everyone they had it all covered?

"And a shot from there (real quick, while the cops were looking the other way) drove Kennedy's head...down."

If JFK happened to be sliding down in his seat, slightly forward and to his left toward Jackie, as it appears to me. The force of the impact of a shot gotten off to his right front temple would've driven his head down, for an instant (at impact), and back up and to the left, posteriorly, as the contents of the right hemisphere of his brain were ejected [anteriorly, posteriorly, vertically, and laterally, thus lightening the load of his skull, since it was now half gone.

The "cops" were not looking the other way. They were more than likely pulling the trigger.

"Glad you're on the case."

I don't claim to be an expert, just a student, here. The experts are those I consider to be "my" heroes. Prouty, Lane, Weisberg, Meagher, Lifton, Gibson, Garrison, P.D. Scott, Oglesby, et.al. who originally stuck their necks out and almost got their reputations ruined, and in some cases their lives and livelihoods compromised for having the balls to stand up to the perps. So, don't come at me with your high-handed attitude for perceiving what appears, to me, to be a shot from the right front. It wasn't the only shot gotten off, either. Only one of possibly 8 to 10 that were aimed and fired that day. But, that one in the frames you've taken the time to outline the heads [and, I thank you for doing so], did not originate from the Daltex Building.

Hi all, I just wanted to wish you all here a Merry Christmas, or whatever anyone else might be celebrating at this time of year. It is really nice being able to join you all here, and be part of the "Forum". Celebrate, be careful, enjoy, and dont over do it! LOL!

thanks-smitty

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

Thank you, Smitty.

I'd also like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Kwanzai, Happy Tet, and a Belated Ramadan, as well. And, a Hopeful New Year for us all.

Best wishes,

Ter

I concur. I hope 07 brings to everyone much health, happiness, peace and prosperity.

Dawn

ps And a special wish to my very special friend Terry: miss you girl, your pink room here is lonely without you.

Much love forever.

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

I wish I could be there with you and Erick and Tika too, Honey.

Just found out they've let 20 more people go at the hospital, yesterday. What kind of a holiday wish is that? And, what does that tell you about the supposedly stable economy, courtesy of the Nazi-Bushwacker regime? War, no matter where the oligarchs choose to wage it, ain't gonna prop up any bubble economy [based on a pyramid scheme of derivatives and junk bonds], or what's left of the dwindling middle-class, and exponentially increasing "former" middle-class-fast- approaching-lower-class slobs, such as myself, and/or my patients.

Fascists neo-con bastards ruining it again for 20 more families, and God-only-knows how many others, nationwide. They're not wishing anybody a "Happy" anything. Their Holiday Greeting to themselves is on the order of "Take The Money And Run." What we need is an FDR to rein in this conglomeropolis of unregulated excess, passing itself off as the U.S. Government. I don't mind paying taxes, and even voted to do so, just as long as it meant there'd be jobs kept on the homefront. Seems like we're taxed to death, yet the fascists keep saying how they're making it tax-free for everyone. Who might that be? Because it sure in hell ain't a single female, with no liquid assets, and a non-homeowner, such as myself.

That said, I sincerely hope for the best for all concerned this "Holiday" season.

Miss and Love you,

Ter

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

I'd like to add this, Dawnie. From one of our favorite artists...

MY HOMETOWN

Words and Music by Bruce Springsteen

I was eight years old and running, with a dime in my hand

Into the bus stop to pick up a paper, for my old man

I'd sit on his lap in that big old Buick and steer as we drove through town

He'd tousle my hair and say, "Son, take a good look around."

This is your hometown, this is your hometown

This is your hometown, this is your hometown

In `65 tension was running high, at my high school

There was a lot of fights between the black and white

There was nothing you could do

Two cars at a light on a Saturday night, in the back seat there was a gun

Words were passed in a shotgun blast

Troubled times had come, to my hometown

My hometown, my hometown, my hometown

Now, Main Street's whitewashed windows and vacant stores

Seems like there ain't nobody wants to come down here no more

They're closing down the textile mill across the railroad tracks

Foreman says, "These jobs are going, boys and they ain't coming back."

To your hometown, to your hometown, your hometown, your hometown

Last night, me and Kate, we laid in bed, talking about getting out

Packing up our bags, maybe heading south

I'm thirty-five, we got a boy of our own, now

Last night I sat him up behind the wheel and said, "Son, take a good look around."

This is your hometown, your hometown, this is your hometown, your hometown...

I would also like to wish all members of the Forum a wonderful and blessed Holiday Season and my special hope for the leaders of nations now and always is to work in sincerity and goodwill to.....

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

That's an awesome jpg., Robert.

Thanks Ter for the Bruce song. In 1988 my daughter and I drove to Philly from Boston to see the Amneysty International concert and driving thru Bruce's hometown I insisted that Christa- then 16 and not a Bruce fan- listen to this song. "My Hometown". Of course the Boss closed that concert in Philly. And then Christa became a fan. You can't see that man live and not become a fan. Ain't that right, James ? (Richards).

Sorry all for diverting this thread....Terry started it

Dawn

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

"Sorry all for diverting this thread....Terry started it"

Nyeah, nyeah! Did not!

I was just using the words to that tune to make a point about those folks who had just lost their jobs in time for Christmas.

The "Boss" would've been right proud.

Hey, and let's thank Myra for the Stevie Earle contribution. That was right on, as well, or spot on, as the Brits and Aussies say.

Thanks, Myra.

ASHTON:

"And no other thing or person in the moving vehicle exhibits anything even remotely close to the violent sudden forward jerk of John F. Kennedy's head as the right front portion of his forehead explodes outward, to the front."

What the hell is that suppose to mean??? ..."explodes outward, toward the front."

Am I missing something, here?

It would seem.

Hi Terry. Merry Christmas.

Let's dissect the phrase you're having trouble with.

• EXPLODE: to burst, fly into pieces, or break up violently; to burst forth violently.
  OUTWARD: proceeding or directed toward the outside or exterior, or away from a central point (see also "EXPLODE," above)
  FRONT: the foremost part or surface of anything; the part or side of anything that faces forward
  FORWARD: toward the front; toward the bow or front of a vessel or aircraft; situated in the front or forepart; lying ahead or to the front
  

So "what the hell" that statement means is that the FRONT of JFK'S head (that's the face side), above the right eye (which is on the FRONT of the head) EXPLODES (bursts open, bursts forth violently) OUTWARD (away from a central point, such as, e.g., the center of the skull) and in bursting OUTWARD does so TOWARD THE FRONT, meaning in the direction the limo is facing and traveling, in the direction that JFK facing. That OUTWARD BURSTING of the FRONT of the skull happens to take place just as JFK's head jerks FORWARD (toward the FRONT) violently at Zapruder 313.

Just in case you still are having difficulty with that, I've done yet another anim for you to study to see if you possibly can make out visually what I have just described carefully and in detail, and this time I've solidly colored in the space indicating the distance the head travels in one frame, from Z312 to Z313 (including this time the sudden change in position of the right ear), and remains so slammed forward through Z314, where brain matter is seen having flown FORWARD out through the exploded opening in the FRONT of the skull. I've now circled that ejecta and drawn in lines indicating its apparent (obvious) path of travel OUTWARD through FRONT of the skull. So here all that is. The "stairstepping" seen at the bottom part and side of the image in several of the frames is because I have "stabilized" this anim, aligning all the images on the curb in the background and on the trailing edge of the "rollbar" metal piece that goes across the limo:

In this anim, I've attempted also to address a couple of things several others, I believe, brought up earlier in the discussion:

• 1. Outlining other occupants and items in the limo to compare their relatively static attitudes during the frames where JFK's head slams violently forward, and,
  2. Using Zapruder stills other than the ones I used in the first go-'round that I had gotten off the internet somewhere, and which obviously somebody had filled in with green on the bottom on some of the frames, I guess to compensate for however they cropped and aligned the various frames. Anyway, it was creating confusion or question, and I only had used them because they were handy and zoomed in on the head shot.
  

And at this point if you—or anybody in the world—still cannot see what I have described, and what I have carefully put into clear, inarguable visual form, and cannot see the large flap of skull that has been blown OUTWARD toward the FRONT after the head slams forward, I am definitely the wrong person to be talking to about it: I've never even dabbled in opthamology, or in cures for severe chronic denial.

Ashton

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

"Outlining other occupants and items in the limo to compare their relatively static attitudes during the frames where JFK's head slams violently forward, and,"

What I'm seeing is JFK's body slipping down with his hands slipping away from his throat, elbows down, at this point, as the fatal shot impacts his skull at the right temporal/parietal region, driving his head further down before the exploding ejecta emanating from the right antero/lateral aspect of the skull forces his head up and backward to the left, posteriorly.

"and cannot see the large flap of skull that has been blown OUTWARD toward the FRONT after the head slams forward, I am definitely the wrong person to be talking to about it:"

What I'm seeing is the large flap of skull, first dangling anteriorly after the initial impact that severed it from the right hemiphere, when his head was driven down further at the moment of impact at the right temporal/parietal area. Then, I'm observing it hanging laterally to the skull from the right hemisphere of the brain from which it was severed after the initial force of the release of the ejecta emanating from the right antero/lateral aspect of the skull forced the head up and backward to the left, posteriorly.

That shot appears to have come from the area on the knoll to the right, over by the underpass. But, that's JMHO.

...

Personally, after all that's been said in this thread, I don't give a damn what you think, anymore. I happened to be sorry and still grieving for what was allowed to occur, and for the events that culminated in the escalation of a totally deceitful and unneccessary war perpetrated on the citizens of this country by those Wall Street profiteers/privateers, for the intended purpose of fullfilling their profit margins that equated body counts with the bottom line. Included in my grief are those who lost their lives, their minds, friends, former boyfriends, my patients at the V.A., and U.C.L.A. affiliated medical centers, and your very own cousin, and brother, notwithstanding.

I have nothing more to say on this thread.

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Major General in Marine Corps history, and two time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

Also see General Butler's book "War is a Racket"--

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Anti-War-...TF8&s=books

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

Thank you, so much for posting this, Myra. A good friend of mine posted a dissertation on General Butler a couple of years ago over at Prouty's. His name, Jim Hackett.

I wish you a safe and happy holiday, and a hopeful New Year, if that's at all forthcoming for this country. I know your heart and mind are in the right place.

With love,

Ter

Mr. Varnell, I don't know what the TV stations showed where you lived on November 22, 1963...but where I lived, the local NBC affiliate aired Huntley and Brinkley, and the FILM showing Jackie in the blood- and brain-spattered dress over and over and over...just because they didn't have videotape, doesn't mean they didn't have the capacity to show FILM over and over and over...which is exactly what they DID.

And the network coverage WAS nearly a 24-hour news cycle...for that entire weekend, from Friday thru Monday, regular programming was suspended. And since not everything going on WAS news, the network showed several of the film clips repeatedly. No, it wasn't as frequently as CNN's headline news on the half-hour; but it WAS enough to sear the image of the widow in the blood-soaked, brain-spattered dress into the collective consciousness of America.

Or at least the consciousness of those of us who WATCHED it on TV...which I believe you admitted you DIDN'T.

So...if you didn't see the coverage as it happened, have you watched the kinescopes? Or are you simply drawing your conclusions from what you "think" went on the air in 1963? I actually SAW the coverage in 1963, and SAW the repeated showings of Jackie in the blood-soaked and brain-spattered dress; therefore, my defense of Terry's recollections are based upon my own recollections, which apparently were similar. You, sir--unless you've since watched the kinescopes of the coverage--are merely basing your position on what you've either read or have been told. While I don't doubt the quality of your research, I think in this particular case you're making assumptions which haven't any basis in fact.

But Merry Christmas to you anyway.

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

Hi Mark,

There was one thing that really stood out in my mind that weekend. Out of all the pre-empted programming, only one show was allowed to air, and I can't remember if it was on Saturday night or Sunday night. It was The Judy Garland Show. She was forced to go on, even though she was under the impression that they would pre-empt her and allow her to head to D.C. for the funeral.

I remember how upset and shaken she was, trying to be the good trouper, in spite of her very palpable grief. She was alone, without any guests, as I recall, and dressed in black for every number. I figured that was her only way of expressing her profound sorrow, and being in mourning, while having to perform under such duress. But, it was the final number at the close of the show that gripped my heart and had my Mom and I, sobbing. One simple statement: "This is for you, Jack." and she broke into an emotional, tearful rendition of "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic" in her inimitable style and grace of delivery.

This was only to be matched equivocally, on the day of the funeral, by the way Jackie had the military marching band reproduce "Hail To The Chief" in a heart-wrenching dirge, so beautiful as to render it unrecognizable to my young ears. "Daddy, what's the name of that song, they're playing?" "It's called 'Hail To The Chief, Terry.' Only, they're playing it as a dirge." "What's a dirge?" "It's a musical accompaniment to a funeral, or a processional march, and it's played very slowly, Honey."

You could feel the drums in your chest, like during the Macy's Day Parade, only the meter was drawn out between the major to minor chord progressions, pulling a sob up into your throat with every roll of the drums. It was unbelievably beautiful, and I've never heard it played that same way again. And, I kept thinking of how much John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln meant to us, as a people, and a nation. Those are the visions and thoughts that were eternally seared into my memory from Friday afternoon to Monday evening, that Thanksgiving weekend.

More attention needs to be placed on Dulles and WWII....as THERE resides [iMO] the beginning of the end we now see.

Peter:

Absolutely! When I began to understand- in 1974- just who the Rockerfellers et al really backed in WW11, coupled with Hitler's top spymaster Reinhard Gehlen, and his secret mettings with Dulles, culminating in the OSS, just why this country seemed so fascistic became absolutely clear to me.

It's pivital to understanding 11/22/63, and today.

Dawn

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

And Prescott Bush, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek, at the meeting in Hayek's Swiss Chalet at Mont Pelerin, circa 1933. Reference: "Commanding The Heights" PBS/BBC

Hi all, I just wanted to wish you all here a Merry Christmas, or whatever anyone else might be celebrating at this time of year. It is really nice being able to join you all here, and be part of the "Forum". Celebrate, be careful, enjoy, and dont over do it! LOL!

thanks-smitty

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

Thank you, Smitty.

I'd also like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Kwanzai, Happy Tet, and a Belated Ramadan, as well. And, a Hopeful New Year for us all.

Best wishes,

Ter

I concur. I hope 07 brings to everyone much health, happiness, peace and prosperity.

Dawn

ps And a special wish to my very special friend Terry: miss you girl, your pink room here is lonely without you.

Much love forever.

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

I wish I could be there with you and Erick and Tika too, Honey.

Just found out they've let 20 more people go at the hospital, yesterday. What kind of a holiday wish is that? And, what does that tell you about the supposedly stable economy, courtesy of the Nazi-Bushwacker regime? War, no matter where the oligarchs choose to wage it, ain't gonna prop up any bubble economy [based on a pyramid scheme of derivatives and junk bonds], or what's left of the dwindling middle-class, and exponentially increasing "former" middle-class-fast- approaching-lower-class slobs, such as myself, and/or my patients.

Fascists neo-con bastards ruining it again for 20 more families, and God-only-knows how many others, nationwide. They're not wishing anybody a "Happy" anything. Their Holiday Greeting to themselves is on the order of "Take The Money And Run." What we need is an FDR to rein in this conglomeropolis of unregulated excess, passing itself off as the U.S. Government. I don't mind paying taxes, and even voted to do so, just as long as it meant there'd be jobs kept on the homefront. Seems like we're taxed to death, yet the fascists keep saying how they're making it tax-free for everyone. Who might that be? Because it sure in hell ain't a single female, with no liquid assets, and a non-homeowner, such as myself.

That said, I sincerely hope for the best for all concerned this "Holiday" season.

Miss and Love you,

Ter

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

I'd like to add this, Dawnie. From one of our favorite artists...

MY HOMETOWN

Words and Music by Bruce Springsteen

I was eight years old and running, with a dime in my hand

Into the bus stop to pick up a paper, for my old man

I'd sit on his lap in that big old Buick and steer as we drove through town

He'd tousle my hair and say, "Son, take a good look around."

This is your hometown, this is your hometown

This is your hometown, this is your hometown

In `65 tension was running high, at my high school

There was a lot of fights between the black and white

There was nothing you could do

Two cars at a light on a Saturday night, in the back seat there was a gun

Words were passed in a shotgun blast

Troubled times had come, to my hometown

My hometown, my hometown, my hometown

Now, Main Street's whitewashed windows and vacant stores

Seems like there ain't nobody wants to come down here no more

They're closing down the textile mill across the railroad tracks

Foreman says, "These jobs are going, boys and they ain't coming back."

To your hometown, to your hometown, your hometown, your hometown

Last night, me and Kate, we laid in bed, talking about getting out

Packing up our bags, maybe heading south

I'm thirty-five, we got a boy of our own, now

Last night I sat him up behind the wheel and said, "Son, take a good look around."

This is your hometown, your hometown, this is your hometown, your hometown...

Gary,

Thank you very much for your collegial response.

I prefer collegial discussions, much more productive, etc.

Hi Cliff,

Don't think this argumentative, but I don't prescribe to the CIA as a monolithic org. I do feel it has been controlled and headed by generally the same folk since it's inception. But like any large - and in portions of the CIA deliberately unweildy - organisation there will be factions, even in a goup of 4 friends there may be. This does not preclude the same goals being shared.

I'm unsure of what the Angleton piece was meant to illustrate

Angleton was the key member within Kennedy's Catholic constituency

in CIA -- they shared social circles. Losing Angleton sealed his fate, I'd

speculate. After all, who would have been Oswald's ultimate boss at CIA

if not Angleton at counter-intel?

Also, we associate Angleton with an interesting word Ashton cited: mad.

The manner in which Kennedy was killed indeed reflected something unhinged.

I'll argue that the "unhinged" elements in the American ruling class in 1963

operated within the National Security state and not among the bean counters

at the Fed.

I also want to point out the sectarian fault lines within the CIA as it relates to

the Y/C dichotomy. Robert Maheu's "Mormon mafia" CIA faction controlled the

Hughes empire, and those dudes were Cowboys.

Here's a passage from the memoirs of CIA case officer Joesph B Smith,

PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR (pg 13), explaining why he quit in 1973 after

23 years with the CIA.

...[A]lthough I had gone to Harvard, it would have been better if I had gone to

Princeton and been a member of the OSS. I was not a Catholic, nor an Eastern

European ethnic. I just did not fit into the ruling cliques in the Clandestine Services.

Furthermore, I had always been in the minority of officers who sought to enlist

the efforts of the non-communist left. Perhaps my greatest shortcoming, I guessed,

was that I could not treat people as unimportant spare parts to be used up and thrown

away as administrators like Ted Shackley could. I asked for early retirement, and I

decided to stay in Mexico.

Usually when you see a phrase like "CIA memoir" ya need yer back-up bullxxxx

detector to be in as good a shape as yer main rig.

But PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR managed to get published without being

vetted by CIA -- something to do with Smith living in Mexico, if I recall correctly.

That crack about Princeton was a direct slap at WASP blue-blood Richard Helms,

key figure in CIA's covert action programs. Most CIA blue bloods went to Yale

(like Bush) but Dickie Helms was the Princeton man.

As Smith indicates, however, Clandestine Services was dominated by Catholics.

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

"Gary,

Thank you very much for your collegial response.

I prefer collegial discussions, much more productive, etc."

If you could claim to be a bonafide graduate, or even an under-grad from the University of California at Berkley, I might have a modicum of respect for what you have to say. But, since you're disingenuous enough to label me a "neo-con" let alone a "shill" for the Tejas oil cartel, I have no qualms about labelling you a fascist, double-talking, double-dealing, con-artist, who gets off by baiting-switching his dialogue to suit his instigating, deceitful rhetoric.

Now, if I'm wrong about you. And, if you truly are what you claim to be, a liberal, in the true sense of the word, then by all means, my apologies are completely forthcoming and extended to you with every ounce of sincerity I can possibly wring from my body. But, as it stands right now, anyone who may pride themselves as having been practiced in the art of civil discourse, such as you are presenting yourself, would appear to be a little more adept in which use of stereotypical analogies they might choose to place upon someone they perceive to be of an oppositional P.O.V. Myself, on the other hand, do not profess to lay claim to anything other than the expression of [what my professor in my Sociology of Law class at CSUDH described to us as] your own "voice."

Hi all, I just wanted to wish you all here a Merry Christmas, or whatever anyone else might be celebrating at this time of year. It is really nice being able to join you all here, and be part of the "Forum". Celebrate, be careful, enjoy, and dont over do it! LOL!

thanks-smitty

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

Thank you, Smitty.

I'd also like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Kwanzai, Happy Tet, and a Belated Ramadan, as well. And, a Hopeful New Year for us all.

Best wishes,

Ter

I concur. I hope 07 brings to everyone much health, happiness, peace and prosperity.

Dawn

ps And a special wish to my very special friend Terry: miss you girl, your pink room here is lonely without you.

Much love forever.

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

I wish I could be there with you and Erick and Tika too, Honey.

Just found out they've let 20 more people go at the hospital, yesterday. What kind of a holiday wish is that? And, what does that tell you about the supposedly stable economy, courtesy of the Nazi-Bushwacker regime? War, no matter where the oligarchs choose to wage it, ain't gonna prop up any bubble economy [based on a pyramid scheme of derivatives and junk bonds], or what's left of the dwindling middle-class, and exponentially increasing "former" middle-class-fast- approaching-lower-class slobs, such as myself, and/or my patients.

Fascists neo-con bastards ruining it again for 20 more families, and God-only-knows how many others, nationwide. They're not wishing anybody a "Happy" anything. Their Holiday Greeting to themselves is on the order of "Take The Money And Run." What we need is an FDR to rein in this conglomeropolis of unregulated excess, passing itself off as the U.S. Government. I don't mind paying taxes, and even voted to do so, just as long as it meant there'd be jobs kept on the homefront. Seems like we're taxed to death, yet the fascists keep saying how they're making it tax-free for everyone. Who might that be? Because it sure in hell ain't a single female, with no liquid assets, and a non-homeowner, such as myself.

That said, I sincerely hope for the best for all concerned this "Holiday" season.

Miss and Love you,

Ter

Hi all, I just wanted to wish you all here a Merry Christmas, or whatever anyone else might be celebrating at this time of year. It is really nice being able to join you all here, and be part of the "Forum". Celebrate, be careful, enjoy, and dont over do it! LOL!

thanks-smitty

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

Thank you, Smitty.

I'd also like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Kwanzai, Happy Tet, and a Belated Ramadan, as well. And, a Hopeful New Year for us all.

Best wishes,

Ter

Terry,

I think you could make a stronger argument that it was a psy-op

designed for MINIMUM visual effect.

By pre-empting all regular programming that weekend (Saturday

and Sunday) it left people to stew in their grief with less to take

their minds off it.

I think Mr. Knight's recollections are telling because he doesn't

include any memories of Saturday and Sunday.

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

Don't nit-pick me with your "Saturday and Sunday" excuse of a ploy in attempting to discredit or make light of the fact that people were so distraught that possibly some of them might not have even remembered what day it was, while they were going through it!

Personally, after all that's been said in this thread, I don't give a damn what you think, anymore. I happened to be sorry and still grieving for what was allowed to occur, and for the events that culminated in the escalation of a totally deceitful and unneccessary war perpetrated on the citizens of this country by those Wall Street profiteers/privateers, for the intended purpose of fullfilling their profit margins that equated body counts with the bottom line. Included in my grief are those who lost their lives, their minds, friends, former boyfriends, my patients at the V.A., and U.C.L.A. affiliated medical centers, and your very own cousin, and brother, notwithstanding.

I have nothing more to say on this thread.

Spoken from the standpoint of a true idiot.

Terry, how can we coax you out of your shell?

Ashton

So agreed! Poor Terry, just a shy, retiring schoolmarm...

Dawn

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

"So agreed! Poor Terry, just a shy, retiring schoolmarm..."

Now Dawnie, Honey let's not confuse the Cliff Varnell's of this world into believing I'm some sort of derelict school teacher out to indoctrinate their children or grandchildren with my "Neo-con" rhetoric of mis/dis-info. I'm a Nuclear Medicine Technologist, as you well know. Where else would I be encountering those "casualties of the mind" I referred to in the course of a workday, in my profession.

We've got to keep the record straight here. Especially, on something I'm so adamantly involved in, and feel so strongly about. Sorry to be so serious about this, but I have to be. I choose to be. But, I still love you regardless, because I know that YOU KNOW exactly what I'm talking about. You were there, too.

Obviously Mr. Varnell lived in a VERY different world than I did in 1963. I was a 9 year old kid, a Cub Scout, and I was proud of America and its president and what the nation stood for. One of the first things we did in Mrs. Broglin's 3rd grade class the year before was to learn the names of all the members of President Kennedy's cabinet.

On November 22, 1963, my 4th grade class was enjoying a post-lunch recess when a friend who'd just emerged from a trip to the restroom inside the building came running up, breathless, shouting that President Kennedy had been shot. We all called him a xxxx, but he insisted that when he passed the principal's office, he'd seen Mr. Crowley standing in front of the black-and-white TV there with tears coming down his face.

We returned to class after recess, and a short time later the intercom in the classroom crackled to life.

"May I have your attention, please? The President is dead...I repeat, the President is dead..," Mr Crowley announced, his voice trailing off.

We were dismissed early from classes, just as soon as they could round up the school bus drivers. As our bus drove through town, I saw more Civil Defense vehicles on streetcorners than I'd ever seen in my life. The thought that the country might be under nuclear attack was an overriding concern. I spent that evening and the next 3 days glued to the television, a witness to the history that was being made. The casket being unloaded at Andrews, and LBJ's brief speech there...the crowds filing into the Capitol Rotunda as the President's body lay in state...powerful images, all.

Three days after the President of the United States was gunned down on an American street, watching DeGaulle and Adenauer and the other foreign heads of state walking in the funeral procession, relatively unprotected...that was a strong image...John-John's salute...the lighting of the flame...

Maybe all of this escaped Mr. Varnell's notice. But where I live, the nation spent an entire weekend in shock and sorrow, and the MAXIMUM VISUAL EFFECT was Jackie still wearing that dress, stained with her husband's blood and brains, when she got off the plane at Andrews AFB. Sorry you missed that detail, Mr. Varnell.

Not trying to jump into Terry's fight; I just wanted to demonstrate, Mr. Varnell, that there were some of us nearly the same age as you whose whole world was jarred by the events of November 22, 1963,to an extent much greater than simply pouting after discovering that Huckleberry Hound and Yogi Bear and Fred Flintstone wouldn't be on TV that afternoon or evening.

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

With all my heart, THANK YOU, Mark.

In the past I have written extensively about Operation Mockingbird, the successful attempt by the CIA to control the mass media.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5142

The internet provides a serious threat to the success of Mockingbird. A growing number of people now get their news and information from the web. Of course, the major corporations that are under the control of the intelligence services still play an important role on the web in providing disinformation. However, as I have discovered with my website, it is possible for those who are willing to question the truth of state propaganda to become major players in the distribution of information in the modern world.

If I was running Operation Mockingbird today I would develop a strategy that would enable the secret state to regain control of the distribution of information on the web. The first thing that is important to do is to get control of the search-engines. It is via the search-engines that people obtain the information they are looking for. Over the last few years, Google has obtained an unhealthy dominance in search-engine technology. The main reason for this is that Google is trusted to provide accurate and reliable searches for information. When they first started this seemed to be the case and I was an early promoter of Google that seemed far superior to other search-engines at the time.

However, is this still true? Let us take the example of someone researching the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is claimed that since the arrival of Google search-engines can be trusted to rank websites in the order of relevance to the query. This is based on Google’s decision to place great emphasis on the number of websites linked to individual sites. Google class this as “peer-group” approval. This is a sensible approach, for example, people with an interest in the Kennedy assassination, are likely to give links to other websites that they have found useful in researching the subject.

Therefore, what happens if you type the “Assassination of John F. Kennedy” into the Google search-engine. We are told there are 73,200 relevant websites. Ranked first is Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

Second is John McAdams’ website. It is of course one of the few assassination websites that believes the conclusions of the Warren Commission.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

3rd is my own website:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm

In 4th place is a Wikipedia clone, Answers:

http://www.answers.com/topic/john-f-kennedy-assassination

One would therefore assume that this ranking reflects the number of links these websites have. There is in fact a website that allows you to check how many websites are linked to individual pages.

http://www.marketleap.com/publinkpop/default.htm

The results are fascinating. According to Google, the following sites have these links:

Wikipedia (108)

John McAdams (286)

Spartacus (0)

Answers (57)

Therefore, according to Google, no website is linked to mine. This of course is untrue. Look for example what MSN says about the links to the respective sites:

Wikipedia (1,621)

John McAdams (3,473)

Spartacus (4,230)

Answers (3)

It is clear that Google is clearly fiddling the search-results in terms of the Assassination of JFK. The same is true for other figures involved in the assassination. For example, if you do a search of individuals involved in the investigation into the assassination you are likely to find Google takes you to John McAdams’ website.

If you type in “David Lifton” you discover that there are 22,900 relevant web pages on this subject. Ranked first is a page from John McAdams’ website. This is in fact an article by Lifton with the title: “Is Jim Garrison Out of His Mind?” This page is linked to others on McAdams website that of course an attempt to undermine Lifton’s theories on the assassination. My much more sympathetic account of Lifton’s theories is only ranked 4th.

(1) http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lifton1.htm

(4) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlifton.htm

One would therefore assume that there are more links to McAdams page on Lifton than mine. If you go to MarketLeap you find this is not the case.

In fact this website shows that Google does not show any links to either page. Therefore, Google must be taken something else into account. Maybe it is the links to the home page of the respective websites.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/

This is not the case. McAdams has according to Google got 264 websites linked to his home page whereas I have 6,750. This situation is reflected in other search-engines: AltaVista (744/30,601), Hotbot (0/17,433), MSN (0/17,321), etc.

Then you have the case of Wikipedia which is in first position. Why should it be ranked in this way? As we have already discovered, it has nothing to do with links to the relevant pages.

Maybe Google has a way of deciding what and what is not a credible resource of information? One problem is that there is no way of knowing if Wikipedia falls into that category. It is impossible to discover who wrote this page? Nor do we know who has been responsible for editing this section. John McAdams and Wikipedia are clearly getting help from someone at Google. I wonder who that could be?

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

FWIW. Since its inception, Steve Gaal and I have looked upon google.com from a more skeptical P.O.V. Especially with regard to how quickly they seemed to have appeared on the scene sporting such a massive database. Therefore, we took to nicknaming it, "gov.'le.com," from the very start, for our own amusement and enjoyment. A private joke, like telling someone to "go to gov.'le," or to "go gov.'le it," if you wanted to research something. Never suspecting, at the time, how they would eventually end up monopolizing all flow of information, let alone be allowed to set the standards on how it should be ranked, linked, classified, and distributed according to their system of checks and balances.

Ashton,

I assume for the purpose of this thread that we are proceeding on the assumption that the Zapruder film actually depicts the terrible event within the capabilities of 8mm color film, and that the film has not been altered. There is a great deal of controversy as to whether the film has been altered, which would properly be a subject for another thread.

Well, Erick, you brought the Zapruder film into evidence for what you proffered as "The Head Wound Explained," so I rather think you "opened the door," counselor.

As to the validity of that particular piece of filmaking: despite wondering why you would call it into question now after introducing it as evidence at the outset of your argument, I am painfully aware of the temperature of the debate over whether it is newsreel or cinéma verité. But there already is a very active thread in this forum wherein John Dolva, Frank Agbat, et al. have done, and continue to do, an astounding job of comparing the Zapruder film to the Nix film (and now others) in terms of sync. And I am on record of having said before they began their riveting work that I believed that the Zapruder film and the Nix film shared, I believe I said, "a cruciform concordance"—which confused the hell out of several people, I think, and with sound reason.

I meant only that from my lay observation they did synchronize in ways that could not be faked. They cross. They overlap. They intersect at and around the head shot depicting the same event. We'll see.

Meanwhile, I'm going to continue using the Zapruder film in the discussion you started by calling upon it as evidence for a frontal head shot. To that end, I've made a somewhat longer clip that I include below, after some discussion, to attempt to provide a little more visual context regarding some of the points you raised. I'll put it in the message where I feel it's most pertinent.

Regarding the forward ejecta I pointed out in my first four-frame exhibit, you said:

Pick up a stone and throw it forward like a baseball into water. Some of the water will splash forward of the stone’s impact and some will splash ahead and around the point of impact. Crime scene specialists and forensic scientists will tell you that when an individual is shot, there is ejecta coming backwards out of the wound. That is why, at close range, the shooter will get sprayed with blood and tissue.

Mrs. Kennedy would not have been reaching for a chunk of the President’s head on the trunk of the limo if the shot had come from the rear. Any chunk of tissue would likely have ended up in the front seat rather than on the trunk if the head shot came from the rear.

With all due respect—and not stipulating for a moment that Mrs. Kennedy was on a bone retrieval mission when she climbed onto the back of the limo—you seem to be arguing vigorously against yourself. Convincingly, from here.

Unless I'm badly misunderstanding you, ejecta reasonably could be expected from both the entrance and exit points of a projectile—or, in your "concussion" model of the head explosion, "backwards out of the wound" (unless you are now abandoning the concussion model).

Therefore, your argument on the subject of ejecta alone now supports a hypothesis for the head wound coming from either the front or the rear. Is that correct, or do you want to amend that argument?

Dallas Police Officer Bobby Hargis was on a motorcycle behind and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy when the head shot occurred. He was splattered with blood and brain tissue. This also indicates a shot from the front and to the right.

Hmmm. Well, I'm a bit more simple minded. I observe the motorcade moving in a direction that necessarily would carry Officer Hargis into a cloud of relatively lightweight particles suddenly dispersing into the air in many directions—particularly on a day with wind (which seems to be uniformly left out of the equation). It's also my understanding from the record that Officer Hargis wasn't the only one in the area splattered with blood and brain tissue.

And again we are back to the duality of the ejecta question. You seem to have argued successfully already that Hargis very well could have been hit with ejecta caused by a shot from behind.

As regards the head movement upon the point of impact, remember, the President had already been shot in the upper torso. Undoubtedly he was reacting to that wound when the fatal bullet arrived. It was a natural reaction to the torso wound and the sound of gunfire, to hunch forward, which is what appears to be occurring as the limo appears after passing the Stemmons Freeway sign. The overall head movement is not just backwards, it is also to the left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy, which is consistent with a shooter in front and to the right. The head recedes from the camera. This is what appears to be happening from frame 312 to 315.

I'm sorry, but it is here we have to part ways entirely. That is why I'm now including an expansion on the earlier animation, adding more frames before and after. I had hoped to demonstrate in the smaller anim in favor of bandwidth considerations, but allow me to direct your attention to the following series beginning at Zapruder frame 308.

Please note the relatively static position and attitude of JFK's body for five frames prior to the head shot. I assure you that it changes very little prior to that as well, but this will illustrate. There is almost no movement of his body or head at all for five frames. And then there's the head shot. And in the time allowed by ONE frame, Kennedy's head flies forward at least two inches, perhaps more (estimated by head and ear dimensions).

And yes, it most certainly is forward—not "left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy," because there is no possible stretching of a human neck in that direction relative to the camera position that ever could account for what is depicted in the violent forward motion of the head, pivoting at the neck. Here is the longer animation:

It is inarguable that at the moment of impact the head flies violently forward. I don't care how many times Oliver Stone had Kevin Costner drone, "Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left." The animation above demonstrates a violent and abrupt forward change in the positioin of the head at the moment of impact, and in the next frame a considerable chunk of ejecta appears to be shot out of the President's head in precisely the direction of the head movement.

And no other thing or person in the moving vehicle exhibits anything even remotely close to the violent sudden forward jerk of John F. Kennedy's head as the right front portion of his forehead explodes outward, to the front.

And only after the head has flown forward, only after the skull has been blown open, only then, in frame 315, does the torso arch "back and to the left," the right arm beginning to flying upward in an uncontrolled, autonomic motion.

Each frame of the Zapruder film is 1/40th of a second. Moving objects will be slightly blurred in each frame. It’s not as photographically accurate as a video tape. A slight, rapid head movement in reaction to the initial impact will not be depicted as accurately as the overall head movement over many film frames. We cannot see what is occurring between each film frame.

Having studied each frame above in excruciating detail, having traced the dark outline of the head and back—discernible even in frame 313 where the obfuscating mist is greatest—I disagree emphatically. But others can look with their own eyes and judge for themselves.

Ashton

Well, I have viewed the slowed down video dozens of times now and seeing it slowed down like this makes it even more difficult for me to tell anything different. Obviously, as we have long known frame 313 is when the president's head is hit. He is clearly seen moving forward PRIOR to 313, and it can be argued that brain matter is going forward, but in this video all that is really clear to me is that the matter is being ejected, period. And then immediately after 313 is the backward motion.

But I conceed that I have zero knowledge of film analysis. On my copy of the Z film it seemed a lot easier to tell when the film is moving at its normal speed. The slowing down allows for the eyes to almost play tricks on what you see or think you see.

But I did look and will be interested in reading the comments of what others see in this slowed- down anim.

As I said, I am open to be shown something new. But I am now sickened and dizzy from viewing this so many times.

Dawn

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

"And no other thing or person in the moving vehicle exhibits anything even remotely close to the violent sudden forward jerk of John F. Kennedy's head as the right front portion of his forehead explodes outward, to the front."

What the hell is that suppose to mean??? ..."explodes outward, toward the front."

Am I missing something, here? Because, it has always been my observation that the frame being shown is the one following that which JFK had been hit in the throat anteriorly [between the vertical distance encompassing the cricoid cartilage (Adam's Apple), directly above the entrance wound, and the suprasternal notch, directly below it]. If I remember correctly, this frame occurs in that sequence following the frame in which both of JFK's arms are extended outward, laterally from his throat, which he seems to be clutching with both hands.

I am still waiting for anyone, someone, to present me with the physical evidence of anything remotely resembling what one would consider to be an "exit" wound, emanating from anywhere on the "anterior" portion of JFK's body, no matter how cleverly concealed, or cosmetically altered.

"That's funny, the film of the assassination was suppresed for almost 12 years."

Well guess what, wiseass? We didn't have to see the actual film to be

traumatized that day.

You claimed it was done for maximum visual effect.

The reason liberal Republicans whack a moderate Democratic President

was to create maximum visual effect?

You're making this up out of your own fevered imagination.

"I guess Rockefeller/Morgan wanted to bring the nation to its knees in the

MID-SEVENTIES...?"

Well, you know what else, asshole?

Yes, Neo-Con queen?

I started questioning the WCR, from the minute those crude sketches came out in The New York Times in June 1964. I shouldn't EVEN have to reiterate the same words I've repeated countless times [on other threads and on other forums]of what exactly was going through my mind, nor the distinct feeling that came over me of how MY OWN xxxxING

GOVERNMENT WAS LYING TO ME, and I was nineteen years old at that time.

Big deal.

Ruby whacked Oswald and my old man said the US government was behind the whole

thing. He was a Kennedy liberal from Arkansas, my Pop. Of course, we lived about 50

miles north of San Francisco and enjoyed a fresher view of world and national affairs

than those poor souls back east who were kept in the dark and fed xxxx.

It's true. When the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE was pulled off the market after

the Kennedy assassination, there was only one TV station in the country that

broadcast it: KTVU Oakland.

There's always been a freer flow of information in the San Francisco Bay Area.

"Well, Rocky was VP by that time, so maybe these guys *are* that prescient..."

You're pissing in the wind, Varnell.[

To maximum visual effect.

And what audio of the assassination are you refering to?

You know something, Varnell? You are really barking up the wrong tree when you attempt to take me on.

This is a fight you picked. I made a collegial argument that a powerful cabal

within the National Security state murdered Kennedy and for that you accused

me of being a lamebrained Langley whore, or words to that effect.

Well, I think you're a Neo-Con shill givin' the Texas perps a pass, so there.

THE AUDIO I WAS REFERRING TO happened to be the first accounts coming in over a CBS News Bulletin, at 2:00 PM [after my mother had dropped me off from just having had the first half of my wisdom teeth surgery done] and I was lying on the couch in our living-room waiting for her to come back from the Rexall Drugstore with antibiotics and Demerol. I jumped up off the couch and couldn't move my mouth to talk, cry, or scream out. The people in Manhattan were thunderstruck and went into a state of shock, just like what happened during 9/11. It was bi-partisan in reaction, Democrats and Republicans, alike. We thought a bomb was going to be dropped on us by Russia.

Yeah, we didn't have that problem out West. We're not given to such hysterical

over-reaction...Given the tenor of your posts...I take it you've never recovered.

We felt naked, vulnerable, panicked, and depressed ALL AT THE SAME TIME! You see, this was being felt, TELEVISED, observed, and IN YOUR FACE, right at the hub, the nerve center, the heartbeat, of the Western World, NOT in some po-dunk place like Petaluma, for chrissakes! This was broadcast on a scale so massive and monumental in scope, that if you think for one minute it wasn't intended to be psychologically crippling to a nation, then your ability to use your reasoning faculties leaves alot to be desired.

They could have achieved the same result without the elaborate ambush.

Therefore, when you deride my explanation or description of MAXIMUM EFFECT

I deride your claim that the assassination was done to maximum visual effect.

You're inventing things because you have a weak argument. Weak arguments

always tend to ad hominem.

believe me when I tell you, this country DID NOT NEED TO VIEW THE ZAPRUDER CARTOON, in order to experience what MAXIMUM EFFECT felt like. WE xxxxING LIVED IT! We were forced to stand by and watch our brothers, boyfriends, and husbands be marched off to a place that had never even fired a xxxxing shot at us!!! And for what? JFK said he would be bringing the boys back home by the beginning of '64. I didn't have to worry about my boyfriend get shipped out to Laos. That's what they called the place, back then, LAOS. And then, right there on a sunny day on some downtown street in Big D, at HIGH NOON, my dreams as well as a whole generation's were blown to smithereens just as sure as if we'd been standing there watching it, ourselves. And then, after what they tried to palm off on us with the WCR, I just knew at the tender age of nineteen that I would never be safe again, that I would never be able to trust a government official to tell me the truth, ever again. And, one by one they began to murder what was left of our heroes, and more and more body bags began arriving back home.

My brother volunteered for 'Nam. My Pop told me never to ask him about it, it wasn't

to be discussed, period. My first cousin didn't come back with all the same parts that

he took over there.

So the LAST thing I need from some stuck up New York clown is a xxxxING LECTURE

ABOUT VIETNAM.

I'm done with you.

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

"The reason liberal Republicans whack a moderate Democratic President

was to create maximum visual effect?"

Liberal Republicans did not orchestrate, produce, or direct this coup.

"I deride your claim that the assassination was done to maximum visual effect."

Audio/visual for maximum effect = the first bulletin reports coming in over the news wires and being broadcast via the only visual form of media at that time, television which if you had been paying attention, but I don't hold that against you due to your young age, at the time the event took place. And thank God, for your youth, which helped to insulate you from the horror of it all, to a certain extent.

I, for one, will always carry in my heart and mind, the sound of "Hail To The Chief" being played as a dirge, the picture of his horse, riderless with the boots turned backward, John-John playing with a toy and Jackie pulling him back to her side, while JFK's coffin was being wheeled by on a casson, and John-John saluting to it, like the Marines surrounding him and his family were. Jackie standing there with her tear-stained face covered in widows' weeds.

I. for one, will never completely recover from watching a President, whom I loved and admired, and was going to vote for in the following year, because he held the hopes of a generation, who had been promised by our fathers, that we would never be forced to fight in another war like they had, in order to preserve democracy, because they had taken care of that for us. We were forging a New Frontieer that focussed on world peace, space exploration, civil rights for all people, a war on poverty, not on human beings. A de-escalation of our involvement in the Laos/Viet Nam conflict [which is what they referred to it as, back then, a conflict. This was no cut and dry "Pearl Harbor", or "Dachau, Aushwitz, Bergen-Belsen"], and a nuclear disarmament treaty with the U.S.S.R. The Peace Corps was sending our best and brightest to the far corners of the world, giving us the opportunity to live among other cultures, that we might learn and exchange ideas, forge common bonds with people from vastly different walks of life.

"Well, I think you're a Neo-Con shill givin' the Texas perps a pass, so there."

I'd bitch-slap you, if I wasn't laughing so hard at you! I'm more of a Socialist, or a Communist [in some peoples' minds], if anything. To label me a "Neo-con" just goes to show you how wrong you really are. I'm not giving the Tejas perps any xxxxing pass, whatsoever. I'm just labelling them for the lackeys they really were, and still are, for their REAL BOSSES, the Rockefeller/Morgan trusts.

"This is a fight you picked. I made a collegial argument that a powerful cabal

within the National Security state murdered Kennedy and for that you accused

me of being a lamebrained Langley whore, or words to that effect."

You accused me of being "hostile." That "powerful cabal" within the National Security state you're referring to, happens to have a face. It's the people who run and own Wall Street. The 3 L's you named were merely the Generals of the High Command employed by them, to do THEIR bidding, secure their financial holdings, make sure their investments are being carried out, protected, and policed above and beyond what any foreign country's domestic interests might be concerned with [and inspite of], by way of paying off and installing puppet regimes and dictatorships who'll guarantee to turn over whatever resources that foreign country might possess that may be the target of interest of that "powerful cabal," or "Anglo-American power structure," as I prefer to call it.

"My brother volunteered for 'Nam. My Pop told me never to ask him about it, it wasn't

to be discussed, period. My first cousin didn't come back with all the same parts that

he took over there.

I've lost many who died there, unnecessarily, and FOR NOTHING!!! And, I'm truly, and sincerely sorry from the bottom of my heart, for what happened to your cousin over there [i'm not being snide, when I state this]. I also have a few colleagues of mine who served over there, who'll never be the same for having witnessed and lived through what they had to, in the line of duty. And, I live with one who can never, and will never, talk about it openly, to this day.

So the LAST thing I need from some stuck up New York clown is a xxxxING LECTURE

ABOUT VIETNAM.

I wasn't over there, but I lived it every single day [in LIVING COLOR], and I'm still living with the effects of it, as well as tending to the "casualties of the mind" that came back from it, and happen to cross my path during my workday, in my chosen profession.

"...and for that you accused me of being a lamebrained Langley whore, or words to that effect."

In your perception, I may have accused you of being a Lamebrained Whore [or words to that effect]. But, I distinctly do not recall associating you with Langley. Now, on the otherhand, since you seemed to have brought it up, yourself. Do you harbor any form of misplaced guilt somewhere in the back of your mind? If so, then all I have to say to that is the proverbial, "If the shoe fits..."

I'm done with you."

Ditto. [There I go, again.]

BORN IN THE U.S.A.

Words and music by Bruce Springsteen

Born down in a dead man's town

The first kick I took was when I hit the ground

You end up like a dog that's been beat too much

'Til you spend half your life just covering up

[chorus:]

Born in the U.S.A.

Born in the U.S.A.

Born in the U.S.A.

Born in the U.S.A.

I got in a little hometown jam

And so they put a rifle in my hands

Sent me off to Vietnam

To go and kill the yellow man

[chorus]

Come back home to the refinery

Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me"

I go down to see the V.A. man

He said "Son don't you understand"

[chorus]

I had a buddy at Khe Sahn

Fighting off the Viet Cong

They're still there, he's all gone

He had a little girl in Saigon

I got a picture of him in her arms

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary

Out by the gas fires of the refinery

I'm ten years down the road

Nowhere to run, ain't got nowhere to go

I'm a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A.

Born in the U.S.A.

I'm a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A.

Born in the U.S.A.

"That's funny, the film of the assassination was suppresed for almost 12 years."

Well guess what, wiseass? We didn't have to see the actual film to be traumatized that day.

"I guess Rockefeller/Morgan wanted to bring the nation to its knees in the

MID-SEVENTIES...?"

Well, you know what else, asshole? I started questioning the WCR, from the minute those crude sketches came out in The New York Times in June 1964. I shouldn't EVEN have to reiterate the same words I've repeated countless times [on other threads and on other forums] of what exactly was going through my mind, nor the distinct feeling that came over me of how MY OWN xxxxING

GOVERNMENT WAS LYING TO ME, and I was nineteen years old at that time.

"Well, Rocky was VP by that time, so maybe these guys *are* that prescient..."

You're pissing in the wind, Varnell.

And what audio of the assassination are you refering to?

You know something, Varnell? You are really barking up the wrong tree when you attempt to take me on. THE AUDIO I WAS REFERRING TO happened to be the first accounts coming in over a CBS News Bulletin, at 2:00 PM [after my mother had dropped me off from just having had the first half of my wisdom teeth surgery done] and I was lying on the couch in our living-room waiting for her to come back from the Rexall Drugstore with antibiotics and Demerol. I jumped up off the couch and couldn't move my mouth to talk, cry, or scream out. The people in Manhattan were thunderstruck and went into a state of shock, just like what happened during 9/11. It was bi-partisan in reaction, Democrats and Republicans, alike. We thought a bomb was going to be dropped on us by Russia. We felt naked, vulnerable, panicked, and depressed ALL AT THE SAME TIME! You see, this was being felt, TELEVISED, observed, and IN YOUR FACE, right at the hub, the nerve center, the heartbeat, of the Western World, NOT in some po-dunk place like Petaluma, for chrissakes! This was broadcast on a scale so massive and monumental in scope, that if you think for one minute it wasn't intended to be psychologically crippling to a nation, then your ability to use your reasoning faculties leaves alot to be desired.

Therefore, when you deride my explanation or description of MAXIMUM EFFECT believe me when I tell you, this country DID NOT NEED TO VIEW THE ZAPRUDER CARTOON, in order to experience what MAXIMUM EFFECT felt like. WE xxxxING LIVED IT! We were forced to stand by and watch our brothers, boyfriends, and husbands be marched off to a place that had never even fired a xxxxing shot at us!!! And for what? JFK said he would be bringing the boys back home by the beginning of '64. I didn't have to worry about my boyfriend get shipped out to Laos. That's what they called the place, back then, LAOS. And then, right there on a sunny day on some downtown street in Big D, at HIGH NOON, my dreams as well as a whole generation's were blown to smithereens just as sure as if we'd been standing there watching it, ourselves. And then, after what they tried to palm off on us with the WCR, I just knew at the tender age of nineteen that I would never be safe again, that I would never be able to trust a government official to tell me the truth, ever again. And, one by one they began to murder what was left of our heroes, and more and more body bags began arriving back home.

If you don't think this country is run by the corporate, military, financial houses that were built upon the backs of plebes, immigrants, slaves, and indentured servants who dug their oil wells, milled their steel, mined their coal, laid their tracks, slaughtered the Native Americans inhabiting the property they eminent domained under the guise of their Manifest Destiny. And, if you don't think that this power structure deals in the trade of WAR for the primary and sole reason other than to make a buck for themselves, and to hell with what they consider to be an expendable supply of lower and middle-class human beings. Then, go on and continue to delude yourself into thinking it was as cut and dry as, CUBA DID IT. Because, it only serves to confirm how dumb you truly are.

How come I could figure this out by 1968? And, all the while I had been thinking that the REAL REASON they had our sorry asses over there in SEA was because they wanted to extract all the tin, and titanium, not to protect South Viet Namese from the Viet Cong. Silly me! Then, come to find out, it was for the heroin and opium, all along. How stupid of me? Oil, tin, titanium, heroin, cocaine...what the hell, it's all a commodity to be sold on the market, and on The Stock Market, at that. And, who gets to pocket all that change?

"Were you alive on 11/22/63, Terry? (Your photo indicates you were not)."

You've got yourself a case of hoof 'n' mouth disease, Varnell.

"The only visual this 8 year old in Petaluma CA saw was a picture of Kennedy

on the cover of the local newspaper. As I recall vividly, the one aspect of

that weekend following the assassination that most sticks in my mind, is

that there was nothing on television and I spent that weekend bored

out of my mind."

Well, what can one expect from someone who hadn't even reached the "age of reason" by that time? You should've been outside playing baseball, or football, or doing your chores if you lived on a farm.

"Oswald getting shot by Ruby -- maybe "they" thought that would traumatize

the nation. Otherwise, that has to be the weakest psy-op ever attempted.

Taking people's regularly scheduled entertainment away for a weekend led

to the war in Vietnam?....not so much."

Spoken from the standpoint of a true idiot.

How much more plainer can we make that for you, Mr. Snidely Whiplash [Ron]? And, don't give me that old crap about "giving you concrete evidence for tying this in with The Federal Reserve's actual perpetrative involvement in what happened in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63." All the motives were in place,

It was well within the power of Rockefeller/Morgan to turn just one of Kennedy's

doctors -- and JFK could have died in his sleep, or been incapacitated and forced to

step down for health reasons.

Instead they had his brains blown out right into the face of Eastern Establishment

high society Queen Jackie Bouvier with flecks of skull and brain and blood and

cranial fluid all over.

Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly?

The manner of JFK's execution strongly suggests that ending his life was not

the primary motive, but rather as a means to the primary motive, which

eventually failed: establishing a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba.

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

"Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly?

The manner of JFK's execution strongly suggests that ending his life was not

the primary motive, but rather as a means to the primary motive, which

eventually failed: establishing a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba."

It was a massive psy-ops ploy at bringing the citizenry to their knees, psychologically, and in the most traumatic, audio/visual way possible, for MAXIMUM EFFECT. Thus, guaranteeing to render the U.S. totally impotent, and completely subjective to anything the power structure

[referred to in the above information, so painstakingly detailed and submitted by Myra, Bernice, Stan, and myself] figured they'd be able to convince the electorate to follow through the gates of hell, known as Laos, VietNam, and Cambodia, for which they had long-range plans in just ONE of their new money-making ventures. Cuba? An afterthought, maybe? A scapegoat, maybe? But, nothing more than another incendiary financial investment they'd eventually have to resign themselves to, as a tax write-off. Plus, their United Fruit, and Freeport Sulphur ventures would eventually take care of subjecting Cuba to the status of another Third World backwater, incapable of ever attaining the high times it had once experienced under the puppet dictatorships they'd installed down there, prior to Castro.

Every single skirmish or incident the U.S. has broken The Geneva Accords and involved itself in following any world war, has had to do with the aforementioned power structure's financial ventures in MAKING MONEY for THEMSELVES and for THEIR institutions via the use of OUR [the plebes'] tax dollars being wittingly pilfered into THEIR [protectorate] Federal Reserve Banking System. The U.S.'s diminishing middle class is being squeezed [like blood from a stone], to finance these "robber barons'" empirical "whims."

Do you have any constructive suggestions to offer, or to quote a line from the movie, BLAZING SADDLES, "Or, are we just jerking off?"

I'm just logging some points to consider. There are things that are not so clear, like if the frontal lobe is severely damaged would it send stimuli as readily as if it is not severely damaged. The 'switch board' for the signals are more deeply nestled in the skull.

The fact you have direct experience with shooting various animals is significant. I haven't. A slaughterhouse worker which usually deliver a fatal blow in some way to the head of many animals might also have some experiences to recount. Perhaps animals behave differently because their neural centers are different as they lack the higher cortexes. I don't know. I'll search for an answer to it.

I've read the impact of a supersonic slug is akin to hitting with a human speed delivered sledge hammer strike. The head being much lighter than the body and being multiple pivoted on the neck could very well show rapid movements as well as the explosion. The body being more inert could have more of its movements attributed to spasms and other factors. The WC pulled a fast one with their goat shooting in that they anchored the neck in a vice and said there was no significant head movements and large spasms. There were large spasms but if one looks very carefully at the first few frames after the headshot (this was a highspeed film) one can see the head flicking sideways.

As well as steroids etc Kennedy wore a steel rod reinforced brace tightly wrapped around the lower trunk.

Good topic, BTW, most thought provoking on an important subject.

A bullet wound to the head will sharply increase the internal cranial pressure which affects all parts of the brain. However the explosion of the skull would have the effect of alleviating the pressure. This occurs within thousandths of a second.

Some years ago I saw a TV show on the Lincoln assassination. They used a cadaver head in an experiment. They attached pressure gauges which measured the internal cranial pressure. First they fired a .44 caliber black powder derringer, identical to the one Booth used, into the back of the head. The internal cranial pressure sharply spiked. The spike in cranial pressure occurred throughout the entire inner skull. The experimenters were trying to figure out whether Mr. Lincoln would have survived with modern medical intervention. I remember another part of the experiment also. This replicated the initial finger probe of Mr. Lincoln’s wound in Ford’s theater by Dr. Leale and others subsequently. The experimenter probed the cadaver head wound in a similar manner, and again the cranial pressure spiked. The experimenter concluded that probing the wound did not help Mr. Lincoln. I do not recall whether he thought modern medicine would have been helpful. Below are some links on the subject:

http://www.thelincolnlegacy.org/timeline/hours.htm

http://www.nvrha.com/NEWS.HTM

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

I concur with what Erick says, having shot game, myself as well as witnessing my brothers taking down deer for food and provision for the winter months. John Ritchson would've been pleased with your analysis, and explanation here, Erick. I only wish he was still alive today to offer his input. You guys would've gotten along really well.

"Rockefeller's concern for what he called "fiscal responsibility" was also expressed in a report issued around this time by another influential group with which Rockefeller was involved. This was the Committee for Economic Development, which was created in the early 1940s and largely made of of leaders from the major non-financial corporations in the U.S., including two of the directors of Time [magazine]. ***[Jeez, early Operation Mockingbird. My emphasis. TM]***

The commission wanted to make free trade and private initiative central to U.S. foreign policy.

When David Rockefeller ventured to publicly condemn Kennedy's policies he was adding his personal prestige to the campaign run by Morgan-Rockefeller related media. ***[Well, whadaya know, full tilt Operation Mockingbird, at the ready. My emphasis. TM]*** These interests were also represented within the Kennedy administration, and they attempted to steer Kennedy in certain directions, with little success.

As noted above, there was a clear split within the Kennedy administration over economic policy. The Kennedy group, which included Walter Heller and FDR Jr., opposed the Dillon-Federal Reserve group, which spoke for the major banks. Dillon was a close associate of David Rockefeller's and a director of the Chase Manhattan Bank. The Federal Reserve, particularly the New York regional bank, has always been tightly interconnected with Morgan and Rockefeller banking. William McChesney Martin, the Fed's chairman, would become supervisor of the Rockefeller family's trust fund.

In these conflicts, as well as those discussed earlier, Kennedy was coming up against those people variously referred to as the East Coast Establishment, Wall Street, finance capital, the higher circles, etc. The label is not important. In the end they all refer to Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the many other wealthy and influential families allied with them (including Harriman, Cabot, Lodge, Dillon, Bundy).

Kennedy's ideas about the responsibilities of the presidency, his attitude about economic progress and the role of the federal government in achieving that progress, his view of foreign aid and foreign policy, and his ***[JFK's. My emphasis. TM]*** recommendations and actions in a variety of specific areas disrupted or threatened to disrupt established order. In that established order, in place for most of the century, major government decisions were to serve or at least not disrupt the privately organized hierarchy. Many in the upper levels of this hierarchy, most emphatically those in and around Morgan interests, were--and still are--involved in a relationship with the British establishment. Their ideas about the world are similar to, if not direct imitations of, those of that older British elite rooted in inherited wealth and titles and organized in the modern world around control of finance and raw materials. ***[Like their favorite empirical ploy of Eminent Domain-ing foreign nations' natural resources. My emphasis. TM]***

In this world view, the Anglo-American upper class should maintain its global position by suppressing progress elsewhere and by preventing or containing disruptive changes within England and the United States. Important decision-making power should be kept in private hands, or, if necessary, in government agencies under their influence. ***[Yeah, like the xxxxing Federal Reserve, who created their own sphere of influence under a false pretense of gov. auspices. My emphasis. TM]*** From this perspective, Kennedy must have looked like a wild man. Economic growth, scientific and technological progress, expanding opportunity, development in the Third World, and social justice were the goals for Kennedy, not preservation of the class structure. Not only were the government policies he undertook intended to further this disruptive agenda; in many specific instances those policies meant that decision-making power was being taken over by the author of that agenda. Even where Kennedy's efforts only meant changes in the rules, these changes were intended to alter investment patterns and tax burdens in a way not in tune with upper-class interests."

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

How much more plainer can we make that for you, Mr. Snidely Whiplash [Ron]? And, don't give me that old crap about "giving you concrete evidence for tying this in with The Federal Reserve's actual perpetrative involvement in what happened in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63." All the motives were in place, even if Old Joe Kennedy happened to strive to emulate the "above mentioned houses" as his "mentors." His son, JFK was not his ideal first choice from the very onset, for his dynastic aspirations. Joe, Jr. was the first-born with the aristocratic mindset Old Joe had his heart set on. That's common knowledge, same as the fact that Old Joe had a complete 180 degree opposite philosophical approach to life than his upstart son, JFK had towards the end of his life.

And, thank you, from the bottom of my heart, Myra. I sincerely mean that.

Ter

I didn't ask you who you think the assassination was "run by." I asked you who would run a military invasion of Cuba.[/color]

And what part of the phrase "PENTAGON documents" don't you understand?

What part of Operation Northwoods don't you get?

What part of the phrase "THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF" confuses you?

Or the phrase "MILITARY INTERVENTION"?

"WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL WAR"?

To whom do you think I was refering when I cited the "blessings" of this Operation

Northwoods-type JFK assassination plot coming from "LeMay, Hoover, Helms, Angleton,

Johnson"...???

Tell it to the Marines, pal.

Ashton

Tell it to tourists, Ashton. Your little first grade civics quiz is silly.

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

"Ashton, you're asking me who has authority over the military?

And my answer is the President.

And you're asking me who are the top people in the military?

And my answer is the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Excuse me, but if memory serves me well, it was in William Manchester's book, "One Brief, Shining Moment" where he relates to when Eisenhower, while turning over the keys of The Whitehouse to JFK, warned him of how THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, don't care about what the president has to say regarding their [TJCOS's] little forays into other nations' affairs, will continue to disregard the policies set forth in The Geneva Accords, and how they continued to OVERRIDE his [Eisenhower's] attempts to exercise THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO, if and when he happened to have disagreed, or had taken issue with, or protested the nature of, or the course by which their [TJCOS's] objectives were appearing to proceed, or were taking.

And, I am telling you, Varnell, the TJCOS take their cues, and do the bidding of those who lobby for the most lucrative corporate contracts to make the most profits from the products and services rendered and sold, which feed the markets, which in turn, fill the tills of the financial houses with the greatest stranglehold on the pockets and bank accounts of the citizenry of this country, and its allies. HELLO! Do you need a map to the NYSE, or to Allen Dulles' office at Sullivan and Cromwell on Wall Street, just to mention a couple of places? Not to mention their affiliates' houses and establishments in Europe? All sweeping generalities, aside.

I give up. (See my post #3.) And anyway we know that Prouty was always right.

Prouty notwithstanding, I've read the article you've linked to in post #3 and find it sorely wanting, while you present it as being somehow dispositive. It is not. It is a cursory and superficial (not to say snide) dismissal that raises as many issues as it purports to dismiss.

Not the least of those issues is subsequent related legislation that was passed after Kennedy had very abruptly been taken out of the picture.

I am not Pollyana enough or whack enough to posit that Federal Reserve directors huddled in back rooms and plotted or had the means to carry out the murder of John F. Kennedy, or that

issues connected with the Federal Reserve policies and practices constituted some sole motivation for the murder.

In the balance, for someone like Professor Flaherty to submit the equivalent of a senior high school paper as a final judgment on the non-relationship of the Federal Reserve to moneyed interests already in the play seems to reflect badly on schooling taking place at the College of South Carolina.

Ashton

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

"Prouty notwithstanding, I've read the article you've linked to in post #3 and find it sorely wanting, while you present it as being somehow dispositive. It is not. It is a cursory and superficial (not to say snide) dismissal that raises as many issues as it purports to dismiss."

And, snide is how Ron Ecker seems to come off to me, regarding Prouty.

"I am not Pollyana enough or whack enough to posit that Federal Reserve directors huddled in back rooms and plotted or had the means to carry out the murder of John F. Kennedy, or that issues connected with the Federal Reserve policies and practices constituted some sole motivation for the murder."

Exactly! And, you won't find any sole entity to hang it on, or point the finger to, either. Because, it was a group comprised of a combination of those above mentioned who utilized the services and representatives of their own private armed forces of covert operators; police [peace (?)] officers, be they Metro or S.W.A.T. Teams; goon squads, be they modern day Ivy League educated Mafioso family lieutenants; working in collusion with the connections they all held [bought] within both, the C.I.A. and the F.B.I.

Dismantling The Federal Reserve was only ONE of the major mortal sins this power base held JFK in contempt for, all sweeping generalities Ron Ecker may sttribute to my comments, aside.

Here's my contribution:

www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/jfk_11alone.html - 11k

JFK KILLER NOT ALONE, UGA PROFESSOR SAYS

Published in The Athens Observer, p. 1A (December 8, 1994).

A recording released earlier this year by the Lyndon Johnson Presidential Library has brought to light some important new facts concerning the Warren Commission's investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As a result of disclosure of the recording it is now evident, more than three decades after the assassination, that President Lyndon B. Johnson and three members of the Warren Commission (Sen. Richard B. Russell, Sen. John Sherman Cooper, and Rep. Hale Boggs) rejected the so-called single bullet theory, an essential part of the Commission's single-assassin thesis.

Thirty years ago, on Friday, Sept. 18, 1964, at 7:54 p.m. Sen. Richard B. Russell placed a long distance telephone call from his Georgia home to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. Russell's purpose was to tell Johnson about what had happened earlier that day at the final official meeting of what Russell called "that dang Warren Commission," of which he was a reluctant member.

The recording of that conversation was not released to the public until Apr. 15, 1994. The recording confirms a well-established fact: Sen. Russell vehemently disagreed with the so-called single bullet theory, a key aspect of the Warren Commission's 1964 Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The recording also discloses an amazing fact previously unknown: LBJ agreed with Russell that the single bullet theory was unworthy of belief.

The single bullet theory is the theory that a nonfatal bullet fired from behind the presidential limousine pierced JFK's back, exited his throat without hitting any bones, struck Texas Gov. Connally in the back, exited his chest after shattering ribs and puncturing a lung, smashed through his right wrist, and then came to rest, virtually intact, in Connally's left thigh.

The proposed final draft of the Warren Report unconditionally accepted the single bullet theory as conclusively proved by the evidence. However, due to objections by Russell and other Commission members at that final meeting on Sept. 18, 1964, the official version of the report endorsed the single bullet theory but refused to rule out other possibilities. Denying that the single bullet theory was essential to its overall conclusion that Oswald was the lone gunman in the sixth floor window, the report found "there is very persuasive evidence" to support the single bullet theory and that the theory is "most probably" correct, yet also (in deference to Russell's objections) acknowledged that certain "factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability."

In his Sept. 18 telephone call to President Johnson, Russell, after an opening exchange of pleasantries, immediately complained "that dang Warren Commission business has whupped me down ... I was just worn down fighting over that damn report."

A cause of the difficulties at the Warren Commission's final session, Russell made plain, was the single bullet theory. "[T]hey was trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first, was the one that hit Connally and went through him and went through his hand and his bone and into his leg and everything else ..." When LBJ asked, "Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?," Russell answered: "Well, it don't make much difference!" Then he added: "But they said that ... the Commission believe that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don't believe it!"

LBJ quickly responded: "Well, I don't either!"

Russell then gave LBJ two reasons for rejecting the theory: It contradicted Connally's testimony that he was hit by a different bullet, and it required the further finding-a finding accepted by the Warren Report-that one of Oswald's three shots missed the limousine entirely, which seems highly unlikely given the assassin's deadly shooting abilities.

On Sept. 16, 1964, two days before the call to LBJ, Russell had dictated a dissenting statement detailing his many doubts about the single bullet theory and about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, had murdered President Kennedy. This dissenting statement was not included in the Warren Report but is in the senator's papers at the UGA's Russell Library. Shortly after the Warren Report was released, Russell first made public his doubts about the Report when he told The Atlanta Constitution for Sept. 29, 1964 that it was still not known whether Oswald had acted "with the encouragement or knowledge of anyone else." Russell attacked both the single bullet theory and the lone assassin notion in an interview published in The Atlanta Constitution, Nov. 20, 1966. In an interview with WSB-TV in February 1970, less than a year before his death, Sen. Russell again voiced doubts about parts of the Warren Report.

Sen. Russell's objections to important findings of the Warren Report received further publicity when the senator's views were mentioned in various JFK assassination books, including notably Edward Epstein's Inquest (1966), Harold Weisberg's Whitewash IV (1974), Bernard Fensterwald's Coincidence or Conspiracy? (1977), and Henry Hurt's Reasonable Doubt (1985).

(For more information on the rejection of various findings of the Warren Report, including the single bullet theory, by Russell and other members of the Warren Commission, see Wilkes, Russell Disagreed with JFK Death Report, in The Athens Observer, Nov. 9, 1989, p. 1.)

While Russell's disbelief in the single bullet theory has been well known for decades, LBJ's disagreement with the theory is a surprising new discovery.

It has been known for years that LBJ believed, notwithstanding the Warren Report, that President Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy. As a U. S. Senate report published in 1976 reveals, a close aide to LBJ told a high-ranking FBI official in 1967 that Johnson "is convinced there was a plot in connection with Kennedy's assassination." In a 1971 interview with another former aide--an interview published in Atlantic magazine seven months after his January 1973 death--LBJ reiterated his belief that the JFK assassination had been part of a conspiracy. In the interview Johnson said that when he became president he had learned that America was "operating a Murder, Inc. in the Caribbean." It appears LBJ thought the JFK assassination a retaliation for CIA-Mafia plots in the early 1960's aimed at killing Cuba's Fidel Castro.

When the Warren Commission, with knowledge of the distances and locations in Dealey Plaza, examined the famous Zapruder film, it concluded that less than 2 seconds elapsed between the earliest point in time at which JFK could have been shot in the back, and the latest point in time when Connally could have been shot in the back.

However, it had also been established that it took at least 2.3 seconds to fire the "Oswald rifle" twice (without aiming). If, therefore, there was only one assassin then both JFK and Connally must have been struck in the back by the same rifle bullet--the single bullet. As Burt Griffin, a member of the Warren Commission staff, bluntly phrased it: "To say that [JFK and Connally] were hit by separate bullets is synonymous with saying that there were two assassins."

The Warren Commission was totally committed to the single assassin thesis--that Oswald, acting alone, fired all the shots with a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm bolt-action rifle, that a total of three shots were fired, and that the shots came from a window on the sixth floor of the school book depository. The Commission's slavish devotion to the single assassin notion, no matter what facts or leads the investigation turned up, is widely recognized as one of the reasons the Warren Report is deficient.

Although the Warren Commission denied it, the truth is that without the single bullet theory the Commission would have been forced to abandon its fundamental premise that Oswald was the sole assassin. It was not the inconclusive firearms tests, but the Commission's fixation with proving that Oswald had acted alone, that induced the Commission to favor the single bullet theory.

Three decades after publication of the Warren Report, Americans are finally in a position to understand the terrible truth: in 1964, when the Warren Commission announced its findings, the American people were being asked to believe a lone assassin scenario underpinned by a ballistics theory which, unknown to them, the President of the United States and nearly half of the members of the Warren Commission deemed not worthy of belief.