David G. Healy

CIA involvement is obvious.

There are many people who would disagree. Likewise MIC.

Are they right? Are they wrong? That's what this Forum discusses.

Disagree? WHO?

David.... your humility is legendary!

Was the revolver taken from Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Theater ever tested to determine that it was THE gun used to kill J.D. Tippitt?

Is such a test possible?

I apologize if this has been discussed before, if it has, I just don't remember it.

Steve Thomas

Was the old sniffer test performed on either the rifle or pistol? If, for nothing else, to determine if the weapons had been fired recently?

FWIW, Jim, I'm not sure Rather's interview with Humes was scripted by the Justice Department. In fact, I suspect it was not. CBS wanted Humes for the show. They sought the Johnson Administration's help in making this happen. The USIA and the Justice Department then prepared "talking points" for Humes to use when responding to Rather's questions. The questions on the "talking points" were not identical to the questions actually asked by Rather, however, and some of Humes' responses strayed a bit from what he was supposed to say. So this leads me to believe that Rather's words in the actual interview were not scripted by the Justice Department.

It's a minor detail, in the big picture. Rather almost certainly knew that everything Humes was telling him had been approved by the Justice Department, but never thought this worth mentioning to his audience. That's one of the unwritten rules of TV journalism. When you get a "scoop" or an "exclusive," you throw softballs, and fail to ask the really hard questions. Why? Otherwise, no one will talk to you.

(There are, of course, some exceptions to this rule. Sometimes people want to be asked the hard questions, so they can cry on cue and ask for forgiveness, etc. But these are interviews conducted once the facts are in, as opposed to interviews conducted in order to get at the facts.)

c'mon Pat, you know well, interviewers and interviewees can be force fed alternate questions and answers/responses during a location interview. Primarily fed by the attending location producer. Whether the facts are in or not! Rather did not need a scoop! He left dusty Texas, didn't he?

I don't agree that this ["Facts, Not Fiction" program] was a "halfway decent" show, but then, my experience with Dan Rather was somewhat different.

I don't agree with Vince there either, David. It was way better than "halfway decent". It was excellent.

you're gettin' hammered from all direction as of late, eh Davey meboy? You can tell ol' Vin in your prayers tonight, he lost! The boat anchor, Reclaiming History went down with the ship! I'll take David Lifton's research over your fantasies and hero-worship any day!

[...]

I highly encourage you to read this document. Here is one of many great quotes from it:

"We must ask why. The only hypothesis capable of explaining the media persistence of the "Single-Bullet Theory" and lone assassin is a hegemony between the media and government."

The media and the Kennedy assassination: the social construction of reality

Note about the above link - I notice that it takes a while for the file (PDF) to load. I think it may have something to do with the host server being wonky. But you also have the ability to download the file to your computer, which is what I did.

thank you Michael--excellent document

CBS hasn't changed.

I hope they never change when it comes to the JFK case

[...]

Why? Make you real nervous if CBS did change? You do know the truth always wins out, right?

[...]

I expect James DiEugenio & other noted, respected JFK researchers/authors/webmasters will smell the snake oil in this mini-series & squeeze every last drop of it out for the global public to see & avoid. As for me, for playing me as a dumb chump on this topic, I, in turn, shall punish Mr. King by keeping my hard earned money in my pocket whenever I see his name on products for sale to the public.

BM

yes indeed! Actually his writing has suffered the last 10 years. Nowhere near what it use to be! (emphasis in Brad's post: mine)

Here's the best part (emphasis is DVP's)....

"The deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years. If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic." -- Eric Sevareid; June 1967

I love it! Always have. Sevareid's words are oh so true. Then and now. Which is why, of course, DiEugenio feels the need to trash Mr. Sevareid. Jim simply cannot accept the basic common sense—and truth—that resides within this one single sentence:

"The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."

you're not doing to well with the threads at AMAZON either, DVP (you or your alias(es)! Have you considered retiring to that KFC of yours?

welcome Ted... at one time this forum was chock full of 'JFK' assassination/Elm Street photographic debate. Perhaps one day soon that will return. In any case, welcome again!

I am a member of a tiny group that believes Hillary will have to drop out of the presidential campaign at some point because of her health issues and/or legal difficulties stemming from her email scandal.

I say this as a dedicated Bernie Sanders' man -- there is no Hillary e-mail scandal.

It's a purely political witch-hunt.

The Republicans politicized a national tragedy at Benghazi by politicizing the fog of war and an arbitrary retroactive gov't document classification system.

Nail La Hillary for being a card-carrying member of the Globalist Oligarchy by all means, but this e-mail flap is nothing but Dominionist Oligarchy noise.

The Globalists want to make the world safe for bankers.

The Dominionists want to make the world safe for the Return of the Messiah Jesus.

If this were to happen, Sanders would most likely be the Democrat's presidential nominee and between his call for revolution and that of Donald Trump both parties would be altered forever.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/06/law-enforcement-officials-medical-professionals-theres-something-seriously-wrong-hillary-clintons-health/

The GOP empire is striking back at Trump.

My crystal ball shows a Cruz-Kasich (or Kasich/Cruz) ticket emerging from a brokered convention.

great analysis Cliff and I agree!

thanks for the .pdf, Jim!

Lance, your excuse for not keeping your promise about leaving is that people keep on addressing you.

Yet, they keep on addressing you because you keep on saying, what i think, are deliberately provocative things. Like the above.

Like, for example, your "near-JFK worship" comment. And then you end again with comparing JFK with UFO's. Completely bogus.

There is no such thing as JFK hero worship, as least as far as I am concerned. There is a long delayed recognition of who Kennedy was and what he was doing. Why is it long delayed? Because this was covered up almost to the point that the evidence of conspiracy was concealed. One example: the May 1963 Sec Def meeting in Hawaii which was not declassified until 1997--34 years after it happened. And for good reason, since it shows McNamara demanding everyone speed up their withdrawal timetable.

The two newest books on JFK's foreign policy are based upon rigorous scholarship and archival research. And I would be willing to wager you never heard of them: Betting on the Africans, and Kennedy, Johnson, and the Non Aligned World. They were written by two scholars who have no dog in the assassination fight. Both men came to the conclusion that what came after JFK, that is LBJ and RMN reversed what he did. They did not rely on anything except evidence dug up from history. And neither one dealt with Vietnam. Or Cuba.

I challenge anyone to show me the UFO connection or Hero worship in what follows:

http://www.ctka.net/2014/JFKForeignPolicy.html

LBJ and RMN systematically assaulted Kennedy's foreign policy in every way and in every area. You sir, are showing yourself to be a man who likes to make unfounded and hackneyed charges, and then when shown how wrong you are, you jump to something else.

kinda like out good friend DVP, eh?

I wonder if he ever got that letter.

I think J. Edna was just a little smarter than that!

Sandy,

I don't believe Marina's husband was working for any intelligence agency.

Nonetheless, the fact Marina's husband got a job at the Texas School Book Depositary is extremely suspicious. It's too convenient. It supports the idea he acted spontaneously in shooting JFK.

I work backward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. What led up to that? Quite some planning, I believe.

Then I work forward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. Why hasn't the truth of his killing been told?

The elegant solution is that Oswald did it, acting alone.

I believe, and I could be wrong, the elegant solution is seductive. But it asks for suspension of belief.

I agree Paul, that in this particular instance the simple solution is that Oswald acted alone. But there is far too much pointing in the opposite direction for me to accept that conclusion. And that is my reason for starting this thread.

Paul?

Ruth Paine can only repeat what she's repeated for 52 years -- IT WAS A COINCIDENCE.

Ruth says that because IT'S THE TRUTH. What else could she possibly say except the Truth?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

um, she could have lied through her cia teeth.

Your problem, Martin, is that you have no material evidence of any kind that Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent.

But like I say -- haters gonna hate.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

there's no haters here (that I know of), Paul.

One might wonder though as to why, you've placed Ruth Paine to the forefront on this forum?

Still pounding that Quaker charity drum, eh? Perhaps you know, or think you know something we don't. Guilt does have a way of catching up!

Gotta admit this entire thread re Ruth Paine, etc is quite bizarre. My gut reaction is it's a PR stunt!

What a bunch of Von Peinian baloney.

[...]

Yep. This is how desperate these fruity people get. And that is the kind of stuff that those factoid oriented bufs post at what is erroneously called JFK Facts.

Next time you post a phony, smelly, list like that, please be more careful. So you don't end up with coconut cream pie on your face again. Like I said before I returned here, I was a going to protect the newbies from falling victim to your bullying techniques.

They don't know what a paper tiger you really are.

Old Davey is running out of places to partake in .johnism...

Ben Holmes, Gary Puffer, DEX et al (especially BHolmes) have shut him down at AMAZON! Now you, Jim here.

Guess that leaves just Dunc's to ply his trade.... Of course he's got his 23 websites, 16 blogs 18 YouTube channels, 3,465 video clips, 464,000 USENET posts and of course a 3 piece crispy order of chicken w/mashed no gravy and hold the butter... to keep him happy. LMAO!

Jon,

When the entire lengthy laundry list of physical evidence is pointing irrevocably in one single direction (toward the guilt of Lee H. Oswald), isn't it about time to just admit that Oswald did it?

pardon me but, whose laundry list? The Warren Commission's and Bugliosi's? You HAVE to be kidding! Have you been awake these past 25 years?

"...cheap carnival barker..." comes to mind. That's the ticket!

I LOVE that LOON Nutter's hate, absolutely HATE, Jim Garrison! Nothing gets them more wound up than Garrison. (with the exception of Mark Lane)

Except for Von Pein, what toots his boat is the location of a head shot, warms his heart to no end. Kinda like Ben Holmes administering a blow torch flame to a feather. Gives old DVP a warm and comfy feeling!

Yeah, yeah Paul.

Of all people on this site to talk about screeds!

The man who prostrates himself under the shadow of Ruth Paine.

James, your attacks on Ruth Paine have NO SUBSTANCE.

You cite others like Carol Hewett, but her attacks on Ruth Paine likewise have NO SUBSTANCE.

Now you're citing Jeff Carter, but his attacks on Ruth Paine likewise have NO SUBSTANCE, and in fact it appears that Jeff is only imitating you and Carol.

You can try to make eerie sounds about Ruth Paine, but it's all theater, man. You've got nothing to show, because it's been DECADES now, and if you had anything, you would have shown it by now. You keep threatening to expose something, BUT YOU NEVER DELIVER.

Your work on Ruth Paine is pathetic.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, first it's Harry Dean, second Edwin Walker, third Ruth Paine... So, whose 4th? Guy Bannister, Earl Warren? The latter will probably get you passed 150,000 views...

People probably already know this, but Richard Case Nagell told author Dick Russell that Nagell ran Oswald in an operation to order guns by mail from companies targeted by the Dodd Subcommittee. I believe the cover story was that they were supporting Dodd's work.

When I have more time I can quote here the relevant passage(s) from The Man Who Knew Too Much. I do not accept every Nagell utterance as factual, but his take on the gun purchases may be worth considering. Based on the Armstrong findings, though, I do not rule out chicanery in the money order evidence, which is another reason to question Nagell.

were MC's involved in this alleged operation? If so, THAT would be *VERY* interesting!

Paul, Get off your high horse for a minute! RCD didn't start that thread--Lee Farley did. The last time Lee left the forum,he asked that all of his threads be deleted. It had nothing to do with "abject shame" , ROFL, it is just that none of his threads are here anymore. Since you wrote that about RCD deleting the thread,which was untrue, you should probably apologize to him along with Lee.. Members cannot actually delete threads. That is why you'll see, on some occasions, a member post with the word "delete" in it, or duplicate threads with one asking if it could be deleted.

perhaps an extension ladder will do the trick? Gotta be rarefied air, eh?

My responses to your five "logical thinking" points, James, were solid responses, and you failed to reply in kind. More of the same stand-up comedy.

While in the 1990's you could claim to be fighting for the TRUTH about the JFK murder, today you're just fighting for your status in the JFK CT community.

Your attacks on Ruth Paine are flimsy -- every single one of them -- just as Carol Hewett's attacks on Ruth Paine are all flimsy. There's ZERO substance to any of them, without exception.

By the way, David Von Pein posted a fairly recent 47 minute address of Ruth Paine to a local community group -- and it is vital to recognize that Ruth Paine has not changed her account of her experience with Marina and Lee Oswald for 53 years. Same story -- same details -- same everything.

You never deal with her actual story, James. You deal with Jim Garrison's suspicions flailing all about for years.

Nor do you deal with the fact that Jim Garrison -- for all his efforts -- failed to find one single thing with which to indict Ruth Paine, although he was hot to convict her. Jim Garrison eventually dropped all the points that you and CTKA continue to parrot -- that Ruth Paine was trying to "isolate" Marina Oswald from LHO for some Unexplained, Unexplainable reason.

Jim Garrison dropped the nonsense -- but you don't.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

for good reason, Paul. Garrison could not indict her, so what? Does that mean she's not guilty of conspiring to entrap LHO? Who believes Ruth Paine about anything but you? Perhaps you'd serve Paine better by getting her on an open forum, face to face with 1964 WCR critics.

Ruth Paine giving a televised C-Span speech 9/13/2013 about her relationship with Marina Oswald? With the new media of today I could just imagine some of the no-holds barred questions she'd be confronted with. Why does she have a need to bouy up her relationship (after 50 years) with a woman that won't even talk to her... Is Paine pulling a closeted mea culpa or something? Selling tickets for the tour company that refurbished her old Dallas abode?

Pretty cheesy stuff, Paul. Smelly too!

CTers refuse to ever drop a silly, unsubstantiated argument. Just look at the "Hidell Money Order" topic for proof of that.

The bleed-thru has been explained in a non-sinister way. And there's a FRB stamp on the M.O.

Do these things sway any CTer? Nah. Not a chance. The M.O. is just as "suspicious" now to Jimbo & Company as it ever was. Same with the "Zone 12" on the envelope. Jimbo will just ignore the facts regarding that "12" too.

But....that's Jimmy.

seems the only place you can gain any traction these past 2 years is right here on the Ed Forum. Accusing WCR critics of the very same thing you've tried to pull the past few years on the Amazon JFK threads.... By contrast on AMAZON you get your rear-end handed to you, regularly. Handed to you by critics that know case evidence better than you and the entire .john mcadams 'LHO did it all by his lonesome contingent.'

But.... that's Davey-poo.

[...]

They knew they were lying in signing a statement they said the inventory was complete. In fact, Stringer admitted to this before Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB. When Gunn asked him why he knowingly supported a lie, Stringer said, words to the effect: You go along to get along.

[...]

read the above as: we were young and wanted a career in medicine. End of story!